NickN - are you still out there?

[NickN]

For you engineers in the group, here is the information you seek..

I could not pull it up in the developers area at Intel but located it here:

http://wiki.imt-systems.com/(S(waeplme04ac5wa55tlqgusvj))/GetFile.aspx?File=/FA08%20IDF-Taipei_TPWS002_Nov_1006.pdf&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1




DTS Enhancements

[Flight Ace]

[quote]



Flight Ace..

[NickN]

Just an FYI

I keep my responses in forums to a level where everyone who reads the information GETS the message. If I were to address information in MSFS forums on the same level as I address one of my JEDEC workshops no one other than real engineers with solid backgrounds would understand what hell I am talking about.

Your suggestion that damage would not occur which did not address the fact that damage will in FACT occur, just not right away, is a not how an engineer with a lick of sense and concern for the readers addresses a topic in a non technical forum.

People need to know the facts so they can make informed decisions. Based on the right information someone may not risk a clock that runs their system @ 75c under normal running load with demanding applications since they dont buy new hardware every other year and instead opt for a lower clock to protect their investment. They may also opt for the better timing memory because they want every advantage possible with a new purchase since so many of them have learned the HARD WAY in the past when they skim on quality they get what they pay for in MSFS.

According to your statement a layman could assume they were completely safe and their proc would continue to run for the rated 10 year life overclocked at the temps you suggested. Your information was false the way it was presented which negated the laws of physics, regardless of how you meant it.

And as a participating test engineer I was at the Intel conference on Bloomfield back in 2008 where that presentation above as well as the advances the proc provides with respect to memory performance based on its timing was also shown. Although it is true because the bandwidth situation has changed with 2nd generation DDR3 and timing is not as critical as it was with DDR2 or 1st Gen DDR3, the result (positive or null) is centered to the application in use and how demanding it is on the proc cache

Since MSFS is old school rendering and somewhat poor design in coding which brings on issues very similar to serious memory disambiguation, the communication path between the memory and the proc cache is cluttered as hell and every cycle counts to the result. Therefore, memory speed in relation to Column Address Strobe and tRD http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=195 are still very valid elements to obtaining better results in MSFS.



I also know exactly what advances the new Intel design has with Windows7 and NONE OF THEM will have any effect with MSFS because the software was not designed under the Vista or W7 driver and memory management model

Nothing in the Windows7 or Vista OS (other than moving from 32 to 64bit, just like with XP) will make FSX run better other than tighting up the loose nut behind the keyboard.



Although I do agree that W7 is a far cry from the Vista disaster the differences people MAY see in MSFS and report as "W7 is the best OS for FSX because my frames went up" are not a result of the OS itself but changes they made due to a reinstall, period!

[idahosurge]

Thanks for the OC settings Nick.

Will there be any real difference between the settings for a i7 950 and the i7 920 settings that you posted?  I have the i7 950.

Right now for my 3.61GHz clock my settings are below,  the PC came this way, I did not overclock it to 3.61GHz.

AI Overclock Tuner            Manual
CPU Ratio Setting            23
Intel SpeedStep Tech      Disabled
BCLK Freq            157
PCIE Freq            100
DRAM Freq            DDR3-1574MHz
CPU Voltage            1.18125
QPI/DRAM Core Voltage      1.325
DRAM Bus Voltage            1.66
CPU Spread Spectrum      Disabled
PCIE Spread Spectrum      Disabled
All Other Settings            Auto


Rod

[NickN]

[quote]Thanks for the OC settings Nick.

Will there be any real difference between the settings for a i7 950 and the i7 920 settings that you posted?

[NickN]

Rod..   from your statement about 920/950 there may be something you do not understand.

Although you can not exceed the highest multilier your processor supports you CAN reduce it..   simply enter the reduced value in the CPU RATIO and work BCLK

Non-extreme i7 supports reductions in CPU multiplier, just not increases past the internal proc limit

[idahosurge]

As always thanks for the response Nick and the settings!

Rod

[NickN]

Be SURE to record your current settings so you can return to them if anything goes wrong and you must clear the BIOS for some reason

good luck and enjoy!

[CD.]

I love reading these threads, you guys are so knowledgable.  8-)

[Flight Ace]

Just an FYI

I keep my responses in forums to a level where everyone who reads the information GETS the message. If I were to address information in MSFS forums on the same level as I address one of my JEDEC workshops no one other than real engineers with solid backgrounds would understand what hell I am talking about.

Your suggestion that damage would not occur which did not address the fact that damage will in FACT occur, just not right away, is a not how an engineer with a lick of sense and concern for the readers addresses a topic in a non technical forum.

People need to know the facts so they can make informed decisions. Based on the right information someone may not risk a clock that runs their system @ 75c under normal running load with demanding applications since they dont buy new hardware every other year and instead opt for a lower clock to protect their investment. They may also opt for the better timing memory because they want every advantage possible with a new purchase since so many of them have learned the HARD WAY in the past when they skim on quality they get what they pay for in MSFS.

According to your statement a layman could assume they were completely safe and their proc would continue to run for the rated 10 year life overclocked at the temps you suggested. Your information was false the way it was presented which negated the laws of physics, regardless of how you meant it.

And as a participating test engineer I was at the Intel conference on Bloomfield back in 2008 where that presentation above as well as the advances the proc provides with respect to memory performance based on its timing was also shown. Although it is true because the bandwidth situation has changed with 2nd generation DDR3 and timing is not as critical as it was with DDR2 or 1st Gen DDR3, the result (positive or null) is centered to the application in use and how demanding it is on the proc cache

Since MSFS is old school rendering and somewhat poor design in coding which brings on issues very similar to serious memory disambiguation, the communication path between the memory and the proc cache is cluttered as hell and every cycle counts to the result. Therefore, memory speed in relation to Column Address Strobe and tRD http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=195 are still very valid elements to obtaining better results in MSFS.



I also know exactly what advances the new Intel design has with Windows7 and NONE OF THEM will have any effect with MSFS because the software was not designed under the Vista or W7 driver and memory management model

Nothing in the Windows7 or Vista OS (other than moving from 32 to 64bit, just like with XP) will make FSX run better other than tighting up the loose nut behind the keyboard.



Although I do agree that W7 is a far cry from the Vista disaster the differences people MAY see in MSFS and report as "W7 is the best OS for FSX because my frames went up" are not a result of the OS itself but changes they made due to a reinstall, period!

Nick,

Your comments are interesting but you should have been aware that I was discussing stress testing at 99+ load when referring to the 80c and 100c limits which last 1 or 2 days (2/3650) of the system life cycle. The remaining life cycle time is at normal load. You can do the math for probable damage. And the following rhetoric which you posted is really in poor taste, poorly written, and only ends up reflecting the character of the writer. I thought the NickN I knew was above all this.

"and I also must say as you being an engineer I find your suggestion that 'heat' when the temp approaches and surpasses limits which exceed the calculated safe standard operation temp for any electronic device/component by the manufacture, and that it will not shorten its rated life if prolonged means you like to break the laws of physics which are applied to such devices by the engineering firm that designed the device or component with a rated component life value and who place specific temp and voltage limits on their product for a reason.

"Your suggestion that damage would not occur which did not address the fact that damage will in FACT occur, just not right away, is a not how an engineer with a lick of sense and concern for the readers addresses a topic in a non technical forum."

[NickN]

http://download.intel.com/design/proces ... 320834.pdf

Let me spell it out for you

With your statement you are personally assuming you know the critical point at which yours, mine or anyone else

[macca22au]

Ouch,I'm glad you weren't answering me.  Thanks for your help in my straightforward, very conservative overclock.  I am buying GEX Europe next pension day (sound of violins).  One question.  Can I remove the photoreal English GenX and get a similar intensely developed and cloured landscape?

[NickN]

[quote]Ouch,I'm glad you weren't answering me.

[Flight Ace]

Nick

Lets review what has been said between our exchange of comments.

I said,
"And going over 100c is not the end of the line. In most instances the test will be stopped. And going over 80c in a stress test with a few higher spikes is not going to harm or lesson the life of the computer. A stress test is only one or two days in the overall life of the computer."

I suppose this a better way to say this.

When stress testing, its best to keep the temps under 80c and if it spikes over, some damage may occur, how much we don't know. When spiking to 100c, the PC normally will be shut down.

And I suppose you could have answered in a similar manner instead of the following.

and I also must say as you being an engineer I find your suggestion that 'heat' when the temp approaches and surpasses limits which exceed the calculated safe standard operation temp for any electronic device/component by the manufacture, and that it will not shorten its rated life if prolonged means you like to break the laws of physics which are applied to such devices by the engineering firm that designed the device or component with a rated component life value and who place specific temp and voltage limits on their product for a reason.

[vgbaron]

What's REALLY scary is the fact that I actually understood *some* of this.