'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" wrote in message
...
|
| "Phil Weldon" wrote in message
| ink.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" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | "Bob" wrote in message
| | ...
| | "Ed Light" wrote in message
| | ...
| | 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
| |
| | 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
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|