[Alan]

Hey Techies

Here's a new one!

I have MSI Platinum MB, E6600 Core 2 dual 2.4Mhz, MSI 8800GTS 320MB.
Resolution 1280 x 1024.
IL2 4.08 un-modded with max settings.
advance tweaks from here: EDIT BY ADMIN, no links to this site please Only nHancer adjusted without changes to config.ini
Test track: kamakazi02.ntrk

FPS results

a) Normal system (no overclock-MSI Dual Core Centre over clock software not running) ave FPS=56

b) System overclocked using "MSI Dual Core Centre" set at "cool" i.e. CPU freq 2223Mhz, FSB 247Mhz; GPU 410 Mhz, Mem clock 1266MHz ave FPS = 64

c) System overclocked using "MSI Dual Core Centre" set at "game" i.e. CPU freq 2556Mhz, FSB 284Mhz; GPU 538 Mhz, Mem clock 1584MHz ave FPS = 56

How come when I overclock my system the result is worse than when I under clock my system :?: :?: hock:

Would be interesting to understand these results

[Pirate]

Hi Ya.

Been a long time since I did any serious overclocking - my current motherboard isn't up to the task. Out of interest what are the stock settings for your system? the settings for 'game' are alot higher than 'cool' and I assume 'game' is significantly higher than stock - maybe your system is starting to trip over itself trying to use those clock settings?

I have found that at least with my system when I was using the automated overclocking in nhancer it caused all sorts of problems. It is generally safer to manually clock it yourself as fa as I know, only changing 1 variable at a time - then you are able to determine where problems originate from, though like i said above my overclocking knowledge is several years out of date.

I'm sure you are aware that overclocking can be dangerous... and at the very least will reduce the lifetime of some components, as long as you can afford to replace them that isn't a problem :wink:

Pirate

[danimalhanke]

IL2-46 needs a fast cpu. some times when cpus are pushed beyond spec they become unstable. not every board/cpu can/should be oc'd. try reducing the oc number and working your way backwars keep doing this until the fps start improving. BTW 5 or 60 makes no difference as the human eye/brain can only comprehend/see at 30 and below. anything above a rock steady 30 you will not see any difference. what you really want is a setting where the lowest framerate doesn't drop below 30fps anything else is not needed.

[Alan]

Howzit.....

Bump

The odd thing about my overclock experience above (which I may have not pointed out clearly) is that when I SLOWED DOWN the processor (Cool setting) the frame rate actually increased from 56fps to 64fps which is exactly opposite of what one would expect!

It would be nice to understand how this is possible. Maybe something only associated with Dual core processors :?: :?:

Maybe someone could try this and see if similar result.

[danimalhanke]

I cannot say with certainty, but it's may be more stable at the lower oc rate.

[kurtz]

BTW 5 or 60 makes no difference as the human eye/brain can only comprehend/see at 30 and below. anything above a rock steady 30 you will not see any difference. what you really want is a setting where the lowest framerate doesn't drop below 30fps anything else is not needed.

I have to take issue with that for TV/films 30Hz is used as is wher you cease to become consciuos of the flicker. For smooth rendition of movement you need a higher framerate. The reason they get away with it in telly is because they pan the camera with the image, essentially giving you a static image. If you keep your eye on the background you'll see it blurs. In a computer game the image is more dynamic so can need a higher framerate.

[danimalhanke]

BTW 5 or 60 makes no difference as the human eye/brain can only comprehend/see at 30 and below. anything above a rock steady 30 you will not see any difference. what you really want is a setting where the lowest framerate doesn't drop below 30fps anything else is not needed.

I have to take issue with that for TV/films 30Hz is used as is wher you cease to become consciuos of the flicker. For smooth rendition of movement you need a higher framerate. The reason they get away with it in telly is because they pan the camera with the image, essentially giving you a static image. If you keep your eye on the background you'll see it blurs. In a computer game the image is more dynamic so can need a higher framerate.

True dat! in the old Battle of Britain movie it's noticable, but I think everyone was talking computer monitors. Flicker is eliminated above 30 fps for most people if the hz is 59 or greater. for smooth flow in-game 30 is sifficient for most people, most monitors, most of the time. :wink:

[genbrien]

before my e8600, I got a E660 and I pushed it to 3.6ghz. I know that there's some kind of fsb wall. I wasnt able to get 3.5 stable at all but 3.6 makes it... Maybe if you push it more, with more V on the vcore, or maybe it's the ram. Try different setting, but you're not suppos to have less fps with a higher overclock cause like someone else said, it's the cpu that matter the most
Hope it helps :wink:

[stansdds]

I always overclock through the BIOS, not through an external program, but it could be that setting the external program to "game" has shifted the priority from CPU to the GPU. Most games are GPU intensive, but flight sims are CPU intensive, so if the computer is giving the GPU priority over the CPU, then frame rates can decrease.

[yammo]

BTW 5 or 60 makes no difference as the human eye/brain can only comprehend/see at 30 and below. anything above a rock steady 30 you will not see any difference. what you really want is a setting where the lowest framerate doesn't drop below 30fps anything else is not needed.

I would beg that you and your likes stop spreading this misconception,
which has no basis in reality and even less so in games.

Firstly:
I challange you to _not_ see any differance between 30 and 60 FPS
in these neat applications by Andreas Gustavsson
http://www.tweakguides.com/files/FPSCom ... 5_beta.zip
http://www.tweakguides.com/files/FPSComp_Old.zip
(Link provided via http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_5.html)


Secondly:
When you accept that even your eyes, easily, can tell the differance between
30 and 60 FPS, I urge you to read through the sources I have provided below.

Finally:
If you persist in claiming that an FPS above 30 is not neccessary, do so knowing
that you are spreading an outright lie.


Sources:
100fps: How to deinterlace Video the right way.
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_c ... ns_see.htm

Human Eye Frames Per Second
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

30 Frames per Second vs. 60 Frames per Second
http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html

[genbrien]

BTW 5 or 60 makes no difference as the human eye/brain can only comprehend/see at 30 and below. anything above a rock steady 30 you will not see any difference. what you really want is a setting where the lowest framerate doesn't drop below 30fps anything else is not needed.

I would beg that you and your likes stop spreading this misconception,
which has no basis in reality and even less so in games.

Firstly:
I challange you to _not_ see any differance between 30 and 60 FPS
in these neat applications by Andreas Gustavsson
http://www.tweakguides.com/files/FPSCom ... 5_beta.zip
http://www.tweakguides.com/files/FPSComp_Old.zip
(Link provided via http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_5.html)


Secondly:
When you accept that even your eyes, easily, can tell the differance between
30 and 60 FPS, I urge you to read through the sources I have provided below.

Finally:
If you persist in claiming that an FPS above 30 is not neccessary, do so knowing
that you are spreading an outright lie.


Sources:
100fps: How to deinterlace Video the right way.
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_c ... ns_see.htm

Human Eye Frames Per Second
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

30 Frames per Second vs. 60 Frames per Second
http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html

totally agree. But depending of the game's type, it matters more or less
FPS should not be played under 60fps. Take CoD4-5 for exemple. I'm always playing at 60fps(vsync on), but when I'm sniping sometimes it drop to 50 and I noticed it instently, making the game harder to play. But in Il2, being 50 instead of 60 wont make the difference between a kill or a miss, IMO

[stansdds]

I have found that 30 fps as a minimum is fine for Il2. More is nice, but at a steady 30 is sufficiently smooth. I fly FSX at only 24 fps. That sounds terrible, but it is smooth at 24. If I maximize the frame rates in FSX I can get 50 fps, but with dips down to 20 and absolutely no stability. The result is a jerky motion effect.

I don't play first person shooters, but I can understand the need for higher fps as much of the motion would be head movement. Flight sims are different. Oh, and when I started flying flight sims many years ago, obtaining 20 fps made you a god among mere mortals.

[luther01]

to answer the first question the higher overclock could be slower because of overheating. When the parts overheat, not only can they be damaged and crash, but transistors inside the various processors and graphics processors are less efficient as they overheat, which can actually lead to a decrease in system performance. Also it is best not to use programs to overclock. read up about it and use the system BIOS to overclock a bit at a time

Also whether different amounts of FPS look different depends on the game. For instance Fallout 3 even at v-synced 60FPS doesn't look smooth, whereas Crysis at 60FPS is the best looking game you will see. Flight sims tend to have lower FPS requirements, what i mean is they look ok at lower fram-rates such as 30-45 FPS because the action is slower paced compared to a first person shooter, for instance