Will OCs be as stable in Vista as XP?

A

arkk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
175
I kind of want to reinstall my Vista RC2 beta, but I have an Opty 165 @ 2.8GHz and don't know if itll be as stable in Vista. Anyone have any experience with their OCs after an upgrade?
 
Going by logic here, any properly stress-tested overclock should be fine under Vista. Though it is more taxing than XP, if your CPU can run Orthos for a day straight then it should have no problems.
 
OS has no bearing on OC, as long as it is stable in one it will be in the other. Though, personally, the extra stress Vista will put on processors is going to put a damper on the extra performance gain. Vista takes up to much resources on its own, XP is the way to go if you want to stay with windows...coughlinuxcough
 
Yes, 3.6 Ghz on my E6400 here (8x450) with Vista Ultimate x86 (legal, activated). In fact that's a tad better than under XP, but's that's not caused by the OS, but by fiddling with settings and updated BIOS versions.

And I don't think Vista is stressing the CPU more, that's *cough*MS bashing*cough*. All the fancy stuff in Vista is done by the gfx card and NOT by the CPU like in XP, so in fact it's giving you MORE free CPU performance. Talk about hearsay and real knowledge, eh? :D
I am using RMClock to auto-downclock and throttle my Core2 Duo and it's just as "slow" and cool as it was in XP with it.
 
kill4killin said:
Though, personally, the extra stress Vista will put on processors is going to put a damper on the extra performance gain. Vista takes up to much resources on its own, XP is the way to go if you want to stay with windows...coughlinuxcough
Click to expand...



*sighs loudly* Another misinformed and ignorant post by someone that knows, well, not very much about the way Vista works. It does not work the same way as XP in regards to the way it uses ram. If you had used Vista enough then you would have discovered some things, but alas, apparently you have not.

And shutup about linux, a gamer cannot get by with that unless you want to play only a couple of special 3D games, by and far, game support in linux is terrible. People get tired of hunting down packages to support dependencies.....

Linux DOES have it's uses, but for gaming, forget about it :p
 
kill4killin said:
OS has no bearing on OC...
Click to expand...
Thats where your wrong, running a chip in 64bit mode vs 32bit mode can have some impact on your overclock.
 
ThreeDee said:
Vista automagically detects any and all mis configuring with your hardware and will not boot if your components are not ran within their respective manufacturer's precise specifications ..

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/0U812


[F]old|[H]ard
Click to expand...

Running Vista Ultimate on E6600 @ 3.33Ghz, no problems :)

Opps... serves me right for not reading a post properly
 
TheRapture said:
*sighs loudly* Another misinformed and ignorant post by someone that knows, well, not very much about the way Vista works. It does not work the same way as XP in regards to the way it uses ram. If you had used Vista enough then you would have discovered some things, but alas, apparently you have not.
Click to expand...

Vista is 10-15% slower according to microsoft themselfes (in comparison to xp, properly set up that is).

TheRapture said:
And shutup about linux, a gamer cannot get by with that unless you want to play only a couple of special 3D games, by and far, game support in linux is terrible. People get tired of hunting down packages to support dependencies.....

Linux DOES have it's uses, but for gaming, forget about it :p
Click to expand...

This is in the overclocking forum, why are you bringing up gaming?

People get tired of hunting down packages to support dependencies.....
Click to expand...

Obviusly an ignorant troll...




And yes, vista will run worse than windows xp will overclocked, this is because of a hardware based tilt bit, that's set if any irregularities are noticed in the hardware (power surge for example). See http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt for more information about that.
 
NeoroN...yes, right now, with CRAPPY drivers for the 7900's, and actually NO drivers out at all for the 8800's, games do indeed run like CRAP under Vista. I know, I have been running Vista, several flavors, over a year now.


NOBODY knows yet how it will be once we have good drivers....you included. Stop making assumptions based on misinformation.


And yeah, linux to me, is a waste of time, because I cannot play the games I like under it. If it DID, I would likely be using it. Don't assume I have never used linux, I have and it is not for me at this point. Dependencies still suck for the average user and mom and pop joe blow types simply do not have the skills to make it work for day to day use.
 
TheRapture said:
NeoroN...yes, right now, with CRAPPY drivers for the 7900's, and actually NO drivers out at all for the 8800's, games do indeed run like CRAP under Vista. I know, I have been running Vista, several flavors, over a year now.

NOBODY knows yet how it will be once we have good drivers....you included. Stop making assumptions based on misinformation.
Click to expand...

Vista requires a lot more resources, plain and simple. Even microsoft admits the resource cost of running it is quite high.

TheRapture said:
And yeah, linux to me, is a waste of time, because I cannot play the games I like under it. If it DID, I would likely be using it. Don't assume I have never used linux, I have and it is not for me at this point. Dependencies still suck for the average user and mom and pop joe blow types simply do not have the skills to make it work for day to day use.
Click to expand...

Talking about manually fixing dependencies is a bit like me asking how many floppies vista comes on. It hasn't been a problem in a while.
 
NeuroN said:
Vista requires a lot more resources, plain and simple. Even microsoft admits the resource cost of running it is quite high.
Click to expand...


I agree, but on a modern machine with 2gb of ram, a fast DX9 or DX10 video card, and a decently fast hard drive, it is a non issue.
 
If Vista ran as slow as Ie7 does and I have tried to tweak some settings, I'd be back to Xp in a flash.What I've come across is some of my old programs that claim are ready for vista are not. I can waite. In the meantime vista is functional,It has alot of built in programs to get you by untill your fav's get working properly.
 
Ok, I had a long speal about linux in here, but forget about it, people can think what they want to think and learn about things when they feel like it...

But yes, this is an overclocking forum, NOT the OS forum so leave OSes and games out of this...

Uknown-One said:
Thats where your wrong, running a chip in 64bit mode vs 32bit mode can have some impact on your overclock.
Click to expand...

Thats interesting, I had no idea that a chip overclocked differently in 32bit mode versus 64bit mode. Is there any evidence that one is better than the other to be running in when you overclock?
 
kill4killin said:
Thats interesting, I had no idea that a chip overclocked differently in 32bit mode versus 64bit mode. Is there any evidence that one is better than the other to be running in when you overclock?
Click to expand...


Since the bits of the cpu that do the 64 bit processing are not used when in a 32 bit environment, when you load up something 64 bit, the cpu gets worked harder....and may affect the overclock. XP64, I had to run about 100mhz lower than I did under XP......
 
That is interesting, I will have to experiment with that when I get a 64bit OS that actually has some driver support :p
 
actually 64 bit vista should have great driver support. this isnt a add on release halfway through an os's lifetime, this is 64bit from the go.
 
Martyr said:
actually 64 bit vista should have great driver support. this isnt a add on release halfway through an os's lifetime, this is 64bit from the go.
Click to expand...

um... those two arn't neccesarly connected. Vista 64bit does most defenatly not have good driver support.
 
well ill put it this way. every bit of hw ive used on it has a beta driver of some sort. everything WORKS. this wasnt the case for xp64
 
Some speculations I have heard and some that I have come to conclude for myself all point to Vista64 being the first mainstream OS to be fully 64bit and have good 64bit driver support. XPpro64 did not have good driver support because it was released after all of the drivers were released for the 32bit version already. However, Vista64 will be released right at the get-go so any developer looking to make drivers for Vista will probably make them for 64bit how most people that have a system that can run Vista will most likely have a 64bit processor...I don't understand why Microsoft even bothered making a 32bit version of Vista just because of that fact...
 
kill4killin said:
.I don't understand why Microsoft even bothered making a 32bit version of Vista just because of that fact...
Click to expand...
..because Uncle Bill wanted us users to be able to load Vista on our screamin' Pentium 3 computers ..that's why silly .. :p

..err ..well ..non 64-bit chips anyways
:)


[F]old|[H]ard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top