Vista VS XP overclocking

Any one have opinions on which works better as a overclocking operating
system. And does it make a difference if you have AMD or Intel?

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:23:01 -0700, leadfoot wrote:

Any one have opinions on which works better as a overclocking operating
system. And does it make a difference if you have AMD or Intel?

CPU shouldn't matter, but I've heard Vista is a a resource hog mainly to
do with all the DRM crap imbedded in it and running all the time eating up
cpu cycles. Personally I couldn't care less. I've never run MS on any of
my personal machines.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm

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.

"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
--

That's interesting. I upgraded XP on my laptop right after it came out and
it runs significantly faster. I guess I'm one of the lucky ones.

My laptop:

Gateway 6421
AMD Turion 64 ML-32
1 GB RAM
100 GB HD
ATI 200M integrated graphics (it runs Aero and Flip 3d just fine)
Vista Home Premium Upgrade 32 bit (from XP Media Center)

I put it on my other home machine:
AMD 64 X2 4200
2 GB RAM
250 GB Sata Drive
ATI 2006 All-In-Wonder
Vista Home Premium OEM 32 bit

Runs great on that one too. The only driver problem I had was with the AIWs
capture but a quick Google fixed that.

I just got 2 more licenses from Newegg and am upgrading my wife and
daughter's computers.

I like it. It hasn't crashed once. Every program I use runs well on it.
It shows 50% RAM usage base but I can run alot of stuff on it before it
budges much above that mark.

Like I said, guess I got lucky but I like like it much better than XP.

Art

"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

"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

'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.

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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Phil Weldon said


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

leadfoot wrote:
"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










---
avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000745-2, 05/29/2007
Tested on: 5/30/2007 3:42:06 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com



makes no real difference which os you use, the overclock is done in the
bios.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000745-2, 05/29/2007
Tested on: 5/30/2007 3:42:44 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com