A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » Overclocking AMD Processors
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Vista VS XP overclocking



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 24th 07, 10:08 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd
Phil Weldon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 276
Default 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  
Old February 24th 07, 10:15 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd
Phil Weldon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 276
Default 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  
Old February 24th 07, 11:50 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd
Andyc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default 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  
Old February 25th 07, 02:37 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd
Lenny_Nero
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default 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  
Old May 17th 07, 03:30 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd
Guest[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default 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  
Old May 18th 07, 04:23 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd
Phil Weldon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 550
Default 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  
Old May 30th 07, 06:42 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd
Nicole & Tom Guymer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.