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
news:T1sDh.5493$...
> 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
news:T1sDh.5493$...
> 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
news:9YLDh.989$...
> "Ed Light" <> wrote in message
> news:T1sDh.5493$...
>> 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
news:duSDh.81057$...
|
| "Bob" <> wrote in message
| news:9YLDh.989$...
| > "Ed Light" <> wrote in message
| > news:T1sDh.5493$...
| >> 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
news:nCSDh.5905$ 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
> news:duSDh.81057$...
> |
> | "Bob" <> wrote in message
> | news:9YLDh.989$...
> | > "Ed Light" <> wrote in message
> | > news:T1sDh.5493$...
> | >> 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 in message
news:SpWDh.82852$...
>
> "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
> news:nCSDh.5905$ 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.

Ed

"ED" <> wrote in message
news:hh%Dh.1265$ ...
>
> "leadfoot" <> wrote in message
> news:SpWDh.82852$...
>>
>> "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
>> news:nCSDh.5905$ 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
>