Vista VS XP overclocking

#11

I'm overclocking a E4300 from 1.8 to 3.0 ghz (9x333) DDR800 in vista home
premium it's stable up to 3.1, but I backed down due to heat issuses ( will
do 3 ghz at standard voltage ). Asus P5B - Deluxe, Intel E4300, Vista Home
premuim OEM, Gskill DDR800, 7200.10 500gb HD, Samsung 183L Sata
Dvd-rw...etc.. Stable running TAT 12 hours/Orthos 24 hours... till I turned
them off.

Andy C

"Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed (AT) example (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

'leadfoot' wrote:
| So I can't have dual boot 200FSB stock nForce4 system where WinXP is
| Ptime95 stable at 265FSB and a Vista that is Prime95 stable at 255FSB???
|
| You sure about that?
_____

Perhaps you might get a more productive answer if you posted what you wish
to do, rather than ask a somewhat abstract question.

If you want a USABLE overclock, then pick the fastest overclock setting
that
allows stable operation for YOUR applications and operating system.

If you want bragging rights, then boot up with DOS and an assembler
language
idle loop.

If you want fast speed for games or image processing, where occasional
errors are unnoticeable, then you can get by with a higher speed overclock
for those applications than for applications that require accuracy at the
expense of overclock level.

There are no guarantees in overclocking, so choose overclock levels
appropriate for YOUR needs.

To answer you latest question; sure, you can have a dual boot system
overclocked to FSB 265 for Windows XP and Vista overclocked to 255 FSB.
So
what? That's why it's an abstract question - there's no context.

Phil Weldon

"leadfoot" <spammersuck (AT) nospam (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:SpWDh.82852$0y4.48361 (AT) newsfe14 (DOT) phx...
|
| "Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed (AT) example (DOT) com> wrote in message
| news:nCSDh.5905$tD2.3682 (AT) newsread1 (DOT) news.pas.earthlink.net...
| > 'leadfoot' wrote:
| > | The benchmarks are great information but what I was wondering was
which
| > OS
| > | provides the highest stable overclock. i.e which one has the highest
FSB
| > _____
|
| > The operating system has nothing to do with the FrontSide Bus speed.
| > Nothing at all. In any way.
|
| > The only effect the operating system MIGHT have is in the amount of
memory
| > used; but that is a difference you might see between DOS and, say,
Windows
| > 2000 or later.
|
|
| So I can't have dual boot 200FSB stock nForce4 system where WinXP is
| Ptime95 stable at 265FSB and a Vista that is Prime95 stable at 255FSB???
|
| You sure about that?
|
|
|
| > Phil Weldon
|
|
| > "leadfoot" <spammersuck (AT) nospam (DOT) net> wrote in message
| > news:duSDh.81057$0u1.40159 (AT) newsfe15 (DOT) phx...
| > |
| > | "Bob" <luna5nospam (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote in message
| > | news:9YLDh.989$yh6.296 (AT) newsfe06 (DOT) lga...
| > | > "Ed Light" <nobody (AT) nobody (DOT) there> wrote in message
| > | > news:T1sDh.5493$qr5.4639 (AT) newsfe19 (DOT) lga...
| > | >> It's a bit early to be thinking Vista. After a service pack or
two,
| > | >> maybe.
| > |
| > | >> It's slower than XP.
| > | >> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/...sta/index.html
| > | >> --
| > | >> Ed Light
| > |
| > | >> Bring the Troops Home:
| > | >> http://bringthemhomenow.org
| > | >> http://antiwar.com
| > |
| > | >> Send spam to the FTC at
| > | >> spam (AT) uce (DOT) gov
| > | >> Thanks, robots.
| > |
| > | > Another bunch of tests to ponder:
| > | > http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2096940,00.asp
| > |
| > | The benchmarks are great information but what I was wondering was
which
| > OS
| > | provides the highest stable overclock. i.e which one has the highest
FSB
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
|
|
|
|

#12

Phil Weldon said

Quote:

The operating system has nothing to do with the FrontSide Bus speed.
Nothing at all. In any way.

The only effect the operating system MIGHT have is in the amount of
memory used; but that is a difference you might see between DOS and,
say, Windows 2000 or later.

Phil Weldon

Win2000 is better to OC with as XP can get screwed up by messing with the
FSB, 2k never has, as far as I and a lot of others have found, there is a
post about this in the rebels haven forums. 2k is also faster, not by
much, but it is.

Vista spends so much time checking on the voltage ripple and every other
thing that you loose any power you might gain from any OC. The best thing
is to stick with XP or Win2000, Win2000 has the longer support life time.

L.

--
Want to help to keep the best free usenet servers running ?
http://www.readfreenews.com

#13

"Ed Light" <nobody (AT) nobody (DOT) there> wrote

Quote:

It's a bit early to be thinking Vista. After a service pack or two, maybe.

It's slower than XP.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/...sta/index.html
--
Ed Light

I don't know how you figure it's slower than XP. Mine was blazing like I
don't know what! It could be because it was 64-bit...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Vista VS XP overclocking

Hardware Overclocking Discussions about overclocking (alt.comp.hardware.overclocking)

Re: Vista VS XP overclocking - 02-24-2007 , 04:50 PM

Re: Vista VS XP overclocking - 02-25-2007 , 07:37 AM

Re: Vista VS XP overclocking - 05-17-2007 , 09:30 AM