If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Vista VS XP overclocking
'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 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Vista VS XP overclocking
'leadfoot' wrote:
| I'm glad someone figured out what I was looking for. I'm not a newcomer to | overclocking but I haven't posted here for a while. I seem to recall there | was some controversy over XP over win98 as an overclocking system when XP | came out so I though that the OS COULD have an impact on FSB stability. My | guess was that XP would be better due to all the resources being used by | Vista but I would thing that a few people have done OC in both OS and might | have an opinion by now. _____ Again, the operating system has nothing to do with a stable overclock. Even though the Windows Vista operating system uses more resources than the Windows XP operating system , the TOTAL amount of resources required for EITHER system can be the same - Prime95 is an example - it is setup to use the maximum amount of CPU power available. If anything, a more complex operating system using Prime95 might tax the CPU LESS than a less complex operating system. Be aware that system resources include a lot more than CPU time. Phil Weldon "leadfoot" wrote in message ... | | "ED" wrote in message | ... | | "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? | | Unless you want to go into your bios and change the speeds every time you | boot. Phil is correct in the fact that the OS has nothing to do with your | fsb speeds. Stability of the OS might be a different matter at OC'd | speeds. I haven't had enough time with Vista to really give it a good | run-through when overclocking to know if it is more or less stable than | XP. Like Phil said, memory used and how it is accessed can make a huge | difference in OS stability when hardware is overclocked (or not for that | matter). Your best bet is to get as high as you can and still be stable in | both OSs and leave it at that. | | I'm glad someone figured out what I was looking for. I'm not a newcomer to | overclocking but I haven't posted here for a while. I seem to recall there | was some controversy over XP over win98 as an overclocking system when XP | came out so I though that the OS COULD have an impact on FSB stability. My | guess was that XP would be better due to all the resources being used by | Vista but I would thing that a few people have done OC in both OS and might | have an opinion by now. | | | | | | | | Ed | | | |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Vista VS XP overclocking
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" wrote in message nk.net... '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 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Vista VS XP overclocking
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Vista VS XP overclocking
"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 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... |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Vista VS XP overclocking
'Guest' wrote:
| 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... _____ Numbers? Comparisons? Cites? Phil Weldon "Guest" 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 | | 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... | | |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Vista VS XP overclocking
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vista VS XP overclocking | leadfoot | Overclocking | 17 | May 30th 07 06:42 AM |
Overclocking Nvidia card in Vista | Danny | Nvidia Videocards | 3 | February 8th 07 05:09 AM |
Vista 64-bit overclocking | Leadfoot | Overclocking AMD Processors | 1 | September 19th 06 11:21 PM |
Overclocking Noob Requires Advise on overclocking-unlocking | DVS__DVIT__INC | Overclocking AMD Processors | 1 | September 13th 04 07:07 PM |
P4C800 bootproblem: BIOS: Overclocking Failed while not overclocking | Roger Zoul | Asus Motherboards | 3 | July 17th 03 02:00 AM |