K
Kue2
Guest
How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
A
Adam Albright
Guest
Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
Over clocking has little if anything to do with the OS. Over clocking
is all about pushing your hardware to perform faster. The main goal is
to increase the clock rate, how fast a CPU will complete it's cycle.
What no doubt will surprise some is all CPUs in the same family of the
same design are IDENTICAL internally. A CPU rated to run at 3.1 GHz is
the same as one rated 2.8 GHz. It's like ranking eggs. They typically
come in medium, large, extra large and jumbo. A CPU is tested and
rated on how well it performs under testing. People are willing to pay
a premium, not realizing with some simple overclocking a lower rated
CPU can perform as fast or faster than a higher rated one and pocket
the difference in cost which sometimes substantial. Tweaking memory
and FSB (front side bus) settings also contribute to making a system
perform faster. The downside is it requires a tad more voltage, that
causes more heat and if you get carried away the expected life of the
CPU will go down.
I've always overclocked all my computers for many years back when it
was just a geek thing requiring messing with the chip itself to unlock
it's potential. Now almost anybody can do it if their motherboard and
BIOS supports it by making a few simple changes. I would suggest you
overclock until the system fails to boot or is unstable and only boots
sometimes or hangs shortly after booting then slowly dropping back
until the system is stable and not running too hot. There are
countless web sites giving specifics and suggestions on idea settings
for particular motherboards, so good chance somebody already has been
there done that regardless what MB you have or are considering.
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
Over clocking has little if anything to do with the OS. Over clocking
is all about pushing your hardware to perform faster. The main goal is
to increase the clock rate, how fast a CPU will complete it's cycle.
What no doubt will surprise some is all CPUs in the same family of the
same design are IDENTICAL internally. A CPU rated to run at 3.1 GHz is
the same as one rated 2.8 GHz. It's like ranking eggs. They typically
come in medium, large, extra large and jumbo. A CPU is tested and
rated on how well it performs under testing. People are willing to pay
a premium, not realizing with some simple overclocking a lower rated
CPU can perform as fast or faster than a higher rated one and pocket
the difference in cost which sometimes substantial. Tweaking memory
and FSB (front side bus) settings also contribute to making a system
perform faster. The downside is it requires a tad more voltage, that
causes more heat and if you get carried away the expected life of the
CPU will go down.
I've always overclocked all my computers for many years back when it
was just a geek thing requiring messing with the chip itself to unlock
it's potential. Now almost anybody can do it if their motherboard and
BIOS supports it by making a few simple changes. I would suggest you
overclock until the system fails to boot or is unstable and only boots
sometimes or hangs shortly after booting then slowly dropping back
until the system is stable and not running too hot. There are
countless web sites giving specifics and suggestions on idea settings
for particular motherboards, so good chance somebody already has been
there done that regardless what MB you have or are considering.
M
Mike Cawood, HND BIT
Guest
Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:5n0dh3p6vk5lqmjr3sh90178nhlh8va9mm@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>
> Over clocking has little if anything to do with the OS. Over clocking
> is all about pushing your hardware to perform faster. The main goal is
> to increase the clock rate, how fast a CPU will complete it's cycle.
>
> What no doubt will surprise some is all CPUs in the same family of the
> same design are IDENTICAL internally. A CPU rated to run at 3.1 GHz is
> the same as one rated 2.8 GHz. It's like ranking eggs. They typically
> come in medium, large, extra large and jumbo. A CPU is tested and
> rated on how well it performs under testing. People are willing to pay
> a premium, not realizing with some simple overclocking a lower rated
> CPU can perform as fast or faster than a higher rated one and pocket
> the difference in cost which sometimes substantial. Tweaking memory
> and FSB (front side bus) settings also contribute to making a system
> perform faster. The downside is it requires a tad more voltage, that
> causes more heat and if you get carried away the expected life of the
> CPU will go down.
>
> I've always overclocked all my computers for many years back when it
> was just a geek thing requiring messing with the chip itself to unlock
> it's potential. Now almost anybody can do it if their motherboard and
> BIOS supports it by making a few simple changes. I would suggest you
> overclock until the system fails to boot or is unstable and only boots
> sometimes or hangs shortly after booting then slowly dropping back
> until the system is stable and not running too hot. There are
> countless web sites giving specifics and suggestions on idea settings
> for particular motherboards, so good chance somebody already has been
> there done that regardless what MB you have or are considering.
>
Anyway the actual difference between 2.8GHz & 3.1GHz is hardly noticeable,
overclocking is a fruitless exercise.
Regards Mike.
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:5n0dh3p6vk5lqmjr3sh90178nhlh8va9mm@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>
> Over clocking has little if anything to do with the OS. Over clocking
> is all about pushing your hardware to perform faster. The main goal is
> to increase the clock rate, how fast a CPU will complete it's cycle.
>
> What no doubt will surprise some is all CPUs in the same family of the
> same design are IDENTICAL internally. A CPU rated to run at 3.1 GHz is
> the same as one rated 2.8 GHz. It's like ranking eggs. They typically
> come in medium, large, extra large and jumbo. A CPU is tested and
> rated on how well it performs under testing. People are willing to pay
> a premium, not realizing with some simple overclocking a lower rated
> CPU can perform as fast or faster than a higher rated one and pocket
> the difference in cost which sometimes substantial. Tweaking memory
> and FSB (front side bus) settings also contribute to making a system
> perform faster. The downside is it requires a tad more voltage, that
> causes more heat and if you get carried away the expected life of the
> CPU will go down.
>
> I've always overclocked all my computers for many years back when it
> was just a geek thing requiring messing with the chip itself to unlock
> it's potential. Now almost anybody can do it if their motherboard and
> BIOS supports it by making a few simple changes. I would suggest you
> overclock until the system fails to boot or is unstable and only boots
> sometimes or hangs shortly after booting then slowly dropping back
> until the system is stable and not running too hot. There are
> countless web sites giving specifics and suggestions on idea settings
> for particular motherboards, so good chance somebody already has been
> there done that regardless what MB you have or are considering.
>
Anyway the actual difference between 2.8GHz & 3.1GHz is hardly noticeable,
overclocking is a fruitless exercise.
Regards Mike.
C
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64
Windows doesn't care. Right up to the point where your overclocked system
does something that it isn't supposed to do, because it failed. Either
because of overheating or because an overclocked component produced the
wrong output. Keep in mind that a single-bit error introduced by the CPU or
the memory could result in a BSOD (best case) or subtle data corruption that
goes unrecognized until it's too late (worst case).
You can probably tell what I think of overclocking.
You want to overclock? go for it. But _expect_ problems. And please don't
report errors here that happen when the system is overclocked.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:eOnRoWQEIHA.5324@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
Windows doesn't care. Right up to the point where your overclocked system
does something that it isn't supposed to do, because it failed. Either
because of overheating or because an overclocked component produced the
wrong output. Keep in mind that a single-bit error introduced by the CPU or
the memory could result in a BSOD (best case) or subtle data corruption that
goes unrecognized until it's too late (worst case).
You can probably tell what I think of overclocking.
You want to overclock? go for it. But _expect_ problems. And please don't
report errors here that happen when the system is overclocked.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:eOnRoWQEIHA.5324@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
K
Kue2
Guest
Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64
Thanks Charlie. I was just wondering about articles I had read about
overclocking in Vista. I'm not into overclocking just curious. {
.I like
to get my money's worth out of cpu & mb. I'll leave frying them to someone
else.
"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:B5529AA6-1DC9-4609-B85B-F99A6485E473@microsoft.com...
> Windows doesn't care. Right up to the point where your overclocked system
> does something that it isn't supposed to do, because it failed. Either
> because of overheating or because an overclocked component produced the
> wrong output. Keep in mind that a single-bit error introduced by the CPU
> or the memory could result in a BSOD (best case) or subtle data corruption
> that goes unrecognized until it's too late (worst case).
>
> You can probably tell what I think of overclocking.
>
> You want to overclock? go for it. But _expect_ problems. And please don't
> report errors here that happen when the system is overclocked.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:eOnRoWQEIHA.5324@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>
Thanks Charlie. I was just wondering about articles I had read about
overclocking in Vista. I'm not into overclocking just curious. {
.I like to get my money's worth out of cpu & mb. I'll leave frying them to someone
else.
"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:B5529AA6-1DC9-4609-B85B-F99A6485E473@microsoft.com...
> Windows doesn't care. Right up to the point where your overclocked system
> does something that it isn't supposed to do, because it failed. Either
> because of overheating or because an overclocked component produced the
> wrong output. Keep in mind that a single-bit error introduced by the CPU
> or the memory could result in a BSOD (best case) or subtle data corruption
> that goes unrecognized until it's too late (worst case).
>
> You can probably tell what I think of overclocking.
>
> You want to overclock? go for it. But _expect_ problems. And please don't
> report errors here that happen when the system is overclocked.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:eOnRoWQEIHA.5324@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>
V
Vista User
Guest
Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:5n0dh3p6vk5lqmjr3sh90178nhlh8va9mm@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>
> Over clocking has little if anything to do with the OS. Over clocking
> is all about pushing your hardware to perform faster. The main goal is
> to increase the clock rate, how fast a CPU will complete it's cycle.
>
> What no doubt will surprise some is all CPUs in the same family of the
> same design are IDENTICAL internally. A CPU rated to run at 3.1 GHz is
> the same as one rated 2.8 GHz. It's like ranking eggs. They typically
> come in medium, large, extra large and jumbo. A CPU is tested and
> rated on how well it performs under testing. People are willing to pay
> a premium, not realizing with some simple overclocking a lower rated
> CPU can perform as fast or faster than a higher rated one and pocket
> the difference in cost which sometimes substantial. Tweaking memory
> and FSB (front side bus) settings also contribute to making a system
> perform faster. The downside is it requires a tad more voltage, that
> causes more heat and if you get carried away the expected life of the
> CPU will go down.
>
> I've always overclocked all my computers for many years back when it
> was just a geek thing requiring messing with the chip itself to unlock
> it's potential. Now almost anybody can do it if their motherboard and
> BIOS supports it by making a few simple changes. I would suggest you
> overclock until the system fails to boot or is unstable and only boots
> sometimes or hangs shortly after booting then slowly dropping back
> until the system is stable and not running too hot. There are
> countless web sites giving specifics and suggestions on idea settings
> for particular motherboards, so good chance somebody already has been
> there done that regardless what MB you have or are considering.
>
And some people wonder why they have problems. Can you say overclocking?
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:5n0dh3p6vk5lqmjr3sh90178nhlh8va9mm@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>
> Over clocking has little if anything to do with the OS. Over clocking
> is all about pushing your hardware to perform faster. The main goal is
> to increase the clock rate, how fast a CPU will complete it's cycle.
>
> What no doubt will surprise some is all CPUs in the same family of the
> same design are IDENTICAL internally. A CPU rated to run at 3.1 GHz is
> the same as one rated 2.8 GHz. It's like ranking eggs. They typically
> come in medium, large, extra large and jumbo. A CPU is tested and
> rated on how well it performs under testing. People are willing to pay
> a premium, not realizing with some simple overclocking a lower rated
> CPU can perform as fast or faster than a higher rated one and pocket
> the difference in cost which sometimes substantial. Tweaking memory
> and FSB (front side bus) settings also contribute to making a system
> perform faster. The downside is it requires a tad more voltage, that
> causes more heat and if you get carried away the expected life of the
> CPU will go down.
>
> I've always overclocked all my computers for many years back when it
> was just a geek thing requiring messing with the chip itself to unlock
> it's potential. Now almost anybody can do it if their motherboard and
> BIOS supports it by making a few simple changes. I would suggest you
> overclock until the system fails to boot or is unstable and only boots
> sometimes or hangs shortly after booting then slowly dropping back
> until the system is stable and not running too hot. There are
> countless web sites giving specifics and suggestions on idea settings
> for particular motherboards, so good chance somebody already has been
> there done that regardless what MB you have or are considering.
>
And some people wonder why they have problems. Can you say overclocking?
A
Adam Albright
Guest
Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:30:55 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
<charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
>Windows doesn't care. Right up to the point where your overclocked system
>does something that it isn't supposed to do, because it failed. Either
>because of overheating or because an overclocked component produced the
>wrong output. Keep in mind that a single-bit error introduced by the CPU or
>the memory could result in a BSOD (best case) or subtle data corruption that
>goes unrecognized until it's too late (worst case).
>
>You can probably tell what I think of overclocking.
Yep, ignorance is bliss or so they tell me. ;-)
>
>You want to overclock? go for it. But _expect_ problems. And please don't
>report errors here that happen when the system is overclocked.
What I can tell is you don't really understand the topic. I've
overclocked all kinds of systems. Problems? Zero.
Lets backup. Introducing the CPU cycle.
Over simplified, one key element is the fetch-decode-execute
instruction cycle or the time period during which one instruction is
retrieved from memory, by the CPU and it's supporting circuits,
decoded then executed. View it as similar to some real word clock. The
faster the clock runs, the faster time would appear to pass or in the
case of a CPU the faster the clock runs the quicker the CPU can
process instructions and obviously the faster your computer will do
what you ask of it.
The clock frequency or how fast it oscillates between two possible
states keeping things in sync. Depending on the instruction the CPU is
processing it can take multiple cycles to complete the instruction.
The CPU is internally aware of this. So if it has two instructions to
be executed and it knows that the first will delay five clock cycles
to be executed, it will automatically start the execution of the next
instruction on the 6th clock tick. Newer CPU designs allow several
execution units to work in parallel. So in effect modern CPU's can
process multiple instructions at once.
Why overclock? Over clocking pushes the CPU to run faster because of
a higher clock rate that is driving it so the time it takes between
each cycle is shorter, thus resulting in better performance.
The CPU uses both and internal and external clocks. Instructions
internally passing through registers in the CPU itself are running at
a very high clock rate (internal clock) BUT data transferring to and
from the memory on their journey to and from the CPU is controlled by
the much slower North Bridge, a separate chip. This communication
happens over the FSB (front side bus) By bumping up how fast this bus
runs, data pulled from memory can flow faster.
That is a nutshell (lots of technical gibberish left out on purpose)
is basically what overclocking is all about. It is easy, safe and
supported by all major mother board manufactures on many of their MB
models and is easily altered form BIOS. If or not it is depends on
what you buy. Some box makers may not implement overclocking but to
suggest overclocking is dangerous, caused CPU's to overheat or Windows
or any OS to start making mistakes or corrupt data is simply
unfounded. Overclocking is self limited in you know you've pushed
things too far if the system won't boot or hangs trying. Then like I
said in my original post you simply back off a bit.
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:30:55 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
<charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
>Windows doesn't care. Right up to the point where your overclocked system
>does something that it isn't supposed to do, because it failed. Either
>because of overheating or because an overclocked component produced the
>wrong output. Keep in mind that a single-bit error introduced by the CPU or
>the memory could result in a BSOD (best case) or subtle data corruption that
>goes unrecognized until it's too late (worst case).
>
>You can probably tell what I think of overclocking.
Yep, ignorance is bliss or so they tell me. ;-)
>
>You want to overclock? go for it. But _expect_ problems. And please don't
>report errors here that happen when the system is overclocked.
What I can tell is you don't really understand the topic. I've
overclocked all kinds of systems. Problems? Zero.
Lets backup. Introducing the CPU cycle.
Over simplified, one key element is the fetch-decode-execute
instruction cycle or the time period during which one instruction is
retrieved from memory, by the CPU and it's supporting circuits,
decoded then executed. View it as similar to some real word clock. The
faster the clock runs, the faster time would appear to pass or in the
case of a CPU the faster the clock runs the quicker the CPU can
process instructions and obviously the faster your computer will do
what you ask of it.
The clock frequency or how fast it oscillates between two possible
states keeping things in sync. Depending on the instruction the CPU is
processing it can take multiple cycles to complete the instruction.
The CPU is internally aware of this. So if it has two instructions to
be executed and it knows that the first will delay five clock cycles
to be executed, it will automatically start the execution of the next
instruction on the 6th clock tick. Newer CPU designs allow several
execution units to work in parallel. So in effect modern CPU's can
process multiple instructions at once.
Why overclock? Over clocking pushes the CPU to run faster because of
a higher clock rate that is driving it so the time it takes between
each cycle is shorter, thus resulting in better performance.
The CPU uses both and internal and external clocks. Instructions
internally passing through registers in the CPU itself are running at
a very high clock rate (internal clock) BUT data transferring to and
from the memory on their journey to and from the CPU is controlled by
the much slower North Bridge, a separate chip. This communication
happens over the FSB (front side bus) By bumping up how fast this bus
runs, data pulled from memory can flow faster.
That is a nutshell (lots of technical gibberish left out on purpose)
is basically what overclocking is all about. It is easy, safe and
supported by all major mother board manufactures on many of their MB
models and is easily altered form BIOS. If or not it is depends on
what you buy. Some box makers may not implement overclocking but to
suggest overclocking is dangerous, caused CPU's to overheat or Windows
or any OS to start making mistakes or corrupt data is simply
unfounded. Overclocking is self limited in you know you've pushed
things too far if the system won't boot or hangs trying. Then like I
said in my original post you simply back off a bit.
A
Adam Albright
Guest
Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:51:41 -0700, "Vista User"
<VistaUser@nospam.net> wrote:
>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>news:5n0dh3p6vk5lqmjr3sh90178nhlh8va9mm@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>>
>> Over clocking has little if anything to do with the OS. Over clocking
>> is all about pushing your hardware to perform faster. The main goal is
>> to increase the clock rate, how fast a CPU will complete it's cycle.
>>
>> What no doubt will surprise some is all CPUs in the same family of the
>> same design are IDENTICAL internally. A CPU rated to run at 3.1 GHz is
>> the same as one rated 2.8 GHz. It's like ranking eggs. They typically
>> come in medium, large, extra large and jumbo. A CPU is tested and
>> rated on how well it performs under testing. People are willing to pay
>> a premium, not realizing with some simple overclocking a lower rated
>> CPU can perform as fast or faster than a higher rated one and pocket
>> the difference in cost which sometimes substantial. Tweaking memory
>> and FSB (front side bus) settings also contribute to making a system
>> perform faster. The downside is it requires a tad more voltage, that
>> causes more heat and if you get carried away the expected life of the
>> CPU will go down.
>>
>> I've always overclocked all my computers for many years back when it
>> was just a geek thing requiring messing with the chip itself to unlock
>> it's potential. Now almost anybody can do it if their motherboard and
>> BIOS supports it by making a few simple changes. I would suggest you
>> overclock until the system fails to boot or is unstable and only boots
>> sometimes or hangs shortly after booting then slowly dropping back
>> until the system is stable and not running too hot. There are
>> countless web sites giving specifics and suggestions on idea settings
>> for particular motherboards, so good chance somebody already has been
>> there done that regardless what MB you have or are considering.
>>
>
>
>And some people wonder why they have problems. Can you say overclocking?
The combined level of stupidity exhibited by the same dumb posters
over and over on technical topics in this newsgroup is mind boggling.
One last time for the utterly clueless. I don't have problems running
Vista. I didn't have problems installing it either. I report on
problems and when possible offer suggestions to get around them. HUGE
difference. Too bad your apparently don't have the intelligence to
understand the difference.
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:51:41 -0700, "Vista User"
<VistaUser@nospam.net> wrote:
>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>news:5n0dh3p6vk5lqmjr3sh90178nhlh8va9mm@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>>
>> Over clocking has little if anything to do with the OS. Over clocking
>> is all about pushing your hardware to perform faster. The main goal is
>> to increase the clock rate, how fast a CPU will complete it's cycle.
>>
>> What no doubt will surprise some is all CPUs in the same family of the
>> same design are IDENTICAL internally. A CPU rated to run at 3.1 GHz is
>> the same as one rated 2.8 GHz. It's like ranking eggs. They typically
>> come in medium, large, extra large and jumbo. A CPU is tested and
>> rated on how well it performs under testing. People are willing to pay
>> a premium, not realizing with some simple overclocking a lower rated
>> CPU can perform as fast or faster than a higher rated one and pocket
>> the difference in cost which sometimes substantial. Tweaking memory
>> and FSB (front side bus) settings also contribute to making a system
>> perform faster. The downside is it requires a tad more voltage, that
>> causes more heat and if you get carried away the expected life of the
>> CPU will go down.
>>
>> I've always overclocked all my computers for many years back when it
>> was just a geek thing requiring messing with the chip itself to unlock
>> it's potential. Now almost anybody can do it if their motherboard and
>> BIOS supports it by making a few simple changes. I would suggest you
>> overclock until the system fails to boot or is unstable and only boots
>> sometimes or hangs shortly after booting then slowly dropping back
>> until the system is stable and not running too hot. There are
>> countless web sites giving specifics and suggestions on idea settings
>> for particular motherboards, so good chance somebody already has been
>> there done that regardless what MB you have or are considering.
>>
>
>
>And some people wonder why they have problems. Can you say overclocking?
The combined level of stupidity exhibited by the same dumb posters
over and over on technical topics in this newsgroup is mind boggling.
One last time for the utterly clueless. I don't have problems running
Vista. I didn't have problems installing it either. I report on
problems and when possible offer suggestions to get around them. HUGE
difference. Too bad your apparently don't have the intelligence to
understand the difference.
A
Adam The-Fruit-Loop Albright
Guest
Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64
Adam Albright wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:51:41 -0700, "Vista User"
> <VistaUser@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>> news:5n0dh3p6vk5lqmjr3sh90178nhlh8va9mm@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>>> Over clocking has little if anything to do with the OS. Over clocking
>>> is all about pushing your hardware to perform faster. The main goal is
>>> to increase the clock rate, how fast a CPU will complete it's cycle.
>>>
>>> What no doubt will surprise some is all CPUs in the same family of the
>>> same design are IDENTICAL internally. A CPU rated to run at 3.1 GHz is
>>> the same as one rated 2.8 GHz. It's like ranking eggs. They typically
>>> come in medium, large, extra large and jumbo. A CPU is tested and
>>> rated on how well it performs under testing. People are willing to pay
>>> a premium, not realizing with some simple overclocking a lower rated
>>> CPU can perform as fast or faster than a higher rated one and pocket
>>> the difference in cost which sometimes substantial. Tweaking memory
>>> and FSB (front side bus) settings also contribute to making a system
>>> perform faster. The downside is it requires a tad more voltage, that
>>> causes more heat and if you get carried away the expected life of the
>>> CPU will go down.
>>>
>>> I've always overclocked all my computers for many years back when it
>>> was just a geek thing requiring messing with the chip itself to unlock
>>> it's potential. Now almost anybody can do it if their motherboard and
>>> BIOS supports it by making a few simple changes. I would suggest you
>>> overclock until the system fails to boot or is unstable and only boots
>>> sometimes or hangs shortly after booting then slowly dropping back
>>> until the system is stable and not running too hot. There are
>>> countless web sites giving specifics and suggestions on idea settings
>>> for particular motherboards, so good chance somebody already has been
>>> there done that regardless what MB you have or are considering.
>>>
>>
>> And some people wonder why they have problems. Can you say overclocking?
>
> The combined level of stupidity exhibited by the same dumb posters
> over and over on technical topics in this newsgroup is mind boggling.
<You should know Fruit Loop, as you are right there with them.>
>
> One last time for the utterly clueless. I don't have problems running
> Vista. I didn't have problems installing it either. I report on
> problems and when possible offer suggestions to get around them. HUGE
> difference. Too bad your apparently don't have the intelligence to
> understand the difference.
>
<Fruit Loop, you are lying through your dentures again. I tend to
believe that you have had problems with Vista you old great computer
expert and expert of experts. You posted up in this NG about your
problems. And now you're talking about you were and are clean as a Vista
baby's bottom. You are lying through your dentures, Fruit Loop. No one
should trust anything you have to say as far as he or she can throw a
building somewhere.>
Adam Albright wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:51:41 -0700, "Vista User"
> <VistaUser@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>> news:5n0dh3p6vk5lqmjr3sh90178nhlh8va9mm@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>>> Over clocking has little if anything to do with the OS. Over clocking
>>> is all about pushing your hardware to perform faster. The main goal is
>>> to increase the clock rate, how fast a CPU will complete it's cycle.
>>>
>>> What no doubt will surprise some is all CPUs in the same family of the
>>> same design are IDENTICAL internally. A CPU rated to run at 3.1 GHz is
>>> the same as one rated 2.8 GHz. It's like ranking eggs. They typically
>>> come in medium, large, extra large and jumbo. A CPU is tested and
>>> rated on how well it performs under testing. People are willing to pay
>>> a premium, not realizing with some simple overclocking a lower rated
>>> CPU can perform as fast or faster than a higher rated one and pocket
>>> the difference in cost which sometimes substantial. Tweaking memory
>>> and FSB (front side bus) settings also contribute to making a system
>>> perform faster. The downside is it requires a tad more voltage, that
>>> causes more heat and if you get carried away the expected life of the
>>> CPU will go down.
>>>
>>> I've always overclocked all my computers for many years back when it
>>> was just a geek thing requiring messing with the chip itself to unlock
>>> it's potential. Now almost anybody can do it if their motherboard and
>>> BIOS supports it by making a few simple changes. I would suggest you
>>> overclock until the system fails to boot or is unstable and only boots
>>> sometimes or hangs shortly after booting then slowly dropping back
>>> until the system is stable and not running too hot. There are
>>> countless web sites giving specifics and suggestions on idea settings
>>> for particular motherboards, so good chance somebody already has been
>>> there done that regardless what MB you have or are considering.
>>>
>>
>> And some people wonder why they have problems. Can you say overclocking?
>
> The combined level of stupidity exhibited by the same dumb posters
> over and over on technical topics in this newsgroup is mind boggling.
<You should know Fruit Loop, as you are right there with them.>
>
> One last time for the utterly clueless. I don't have problems running
> Vista. I didn't have problems installing it either. I report on
> problems and when possible offer suggestions to get around them. HUGE
> difference. Too bad your apparently don't have the intelligence to
> understand the difference.
>
<Fruit Loop, you are lying through your dentures again. I tend to
believe that you have had problems with Vista you old great computer
expert and expert of experts. You posted up in this NG about your
problems. And now you're talking about you were and are clean as a Vista
baby's bottom. You are lying through your dentures, Fruit Loop. No one
should trust anything you have to say as far as he or she can throw a
building somewhere.>
F
Frank
Guest
Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64
Adam Albright wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:51:41 -0700, "Vista User"
> <VistaUser@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>news:5n0dh3p6vk5lqmjr3sh90178nhlh8va9mm@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>>>
>>>Over clocking has little if anything to do with the OS. Over clocking
>>>is all about pushing your hardware to perform faster. The main goal is
>>>to increase the clock rate, how fast a CPU will complete it's cycle.
>>>
>>>What no doubt will surprise some is all CPUs in the same family of the
>>>same design are IDENTICAL internally. A CPU rated to run at 3.1 GHz is
>>>the same as one rated 2.8 GHz. It's like ranking eggs. They typically
>>>come in medium, large, extra large and jumbo. A CPU is tested and
>>>rated on how well it performs under testing. People are willing to pay
>>>a premium, not realizing with some simple overclocking a lower rated
>>>CPU can perform as fast or faster than a higher rated one and pocket
>>>the difference in cost which sometimes substantial. Tweaking memory
>>>and FSB (front side bus) settings also contribute to making a system
>>>perform faster. The downside is it requires a tad more voltage, that
>>>causes more heat and if you get carried away the expected life of the
>>>CPU will go down.
>>>
>>>I've always overclocked all my computers for many years back when it
>>>was just a geek thing requiring messing with the chip itself to unlock
>>>it's potential. Now almost anybody can do it if their motherboard and
>>>BIOS supports it by making a few simple changes. I would suggest you
>>>overclock until the system fails to boot or is unstable and only boots
>>>sometimes or hangs shortly after booting then slowly dropping back
>>>until the system is stable and not running too hot. There are
>>>countless web sites giving specifics and suggestions on idea settings
>>>for particular motherboards, so good chance somebody already has been
>>>there done that regardless what MB you have or are considering.
>>>
>>
>>
>>And some people wonder why they have problems. Can you say overclocking?
>
>
> The combined level of stupidity exhibited by the same dumb posters
> over and over on technical topics in this newsgroup is mind boggling.
>
> One last time for the utterly clueless. I don't have problems running
> Vista. I didn't have problems installing it either. I report on
> problems and when possible offer suggestions to get around them. HUGE
> difference. Too bad your apparently don't have the intelligence to
> understand the difference.
>
Then why did you post you didn't know what you were doing?
Delusional & drunk?
Proly.
Idiot1
Frank
Adam Albright wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:51:41 -0700, "Vista User"
> <VistaUser@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>news:5n0dh3p6vk5lqmjr3sh90178nhlh8va9mm@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>>>
>>>Over clocking has little if anything to do with the OS. Over clocking
>>>is all about pushing your hardware to perform faster. The main goal is
>>>to increase the clock rate, how fast a CPU will complete it's cycle.
>>>
>>>What no doubt will surprise some is all CPUs in the same family of the
>>>same design are IDENTICAL internally. A CPU rated to run at 3.1 GHz is
>>>the same as one rated 2.8 GHz. It's like ranking eggs. They typically
>>>come in medium, large, extra large and jumbo. A CPU is tested and
>>>rated on how well it performs under testing. People are willing to pay
>>>a premium, not realizing with some simple overclocking a lower rated
>>>CPU can perform as fast or faster than a higher rated one and pocket
>>>the difference in cost which sometimes substantial. Tweaking memory
>>>and FSB (front side bus) settings also contribute to making a system
>>>perform faster. The downside is it requires a tad more voltage, that
>>>causes more heat and if you get carried away the expected life of the
>>>CPU will go down.
>>>
>>>I've always overclocked all my computers for many years back when it
>>>was just a geek thing requiring messing with the chip itself to unlock
>>>it's potential. Now almost anybody can do it if their motherboard and
>>>BIOS supports it by making a few simple changes. I would suggest you
>>>overclock until the system fails to boot or is unstable and only boots
>>>sometimes or hangs shortly after booting then slowly dropping back
>>>until the system is stable and not running too hot. There are
>>>countless web sites giving specifics and suggestions on idea settings
>>>for particular motherboards, so good chance somebody already has been
>>>there done that regardless what MB you have or are considering.
>>>
>>
>>
>>And some people wonder why they have problems. Can you say overclocking?
>
>
> The combined level of stupidity exhibited by the same dumb posters
> over and over on technical topics in this newsgroup is mind boggling.
>
> One last time for the utterly clueless. I don't have problems running
> Vista. I didn't have problems installing it either. I report on
> problems and when possible offer suggestions to get around them. HUGE
> difference. Too bad your apparently don't have the intelligence to
> understand the difference.
>
Then why did you post you didn't know what you were doing?
Delusional & drunk?
Proly.
Idiot1
Frank
F
Frank
Guest
Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64
Adam Albright wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:30:55 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
> <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Windows doesn't care. Right up to the point where your overclocked system
>>does something that it isn't supposed to do, because it failed. Either
>>because of overheating or because an overclocked component produced the
>>wrong output. Keep in mind that a single-bit error introduced by the CPU or
>>the memory could result in a BSOD (best case) or subtle data corruption that
>>goes unrecognized until it's too late (worst case).
>>
>>You can probably tell what I think of overclocking.
>
>
> Yep, ignorance is bliss or so they tell me. ;-)
>
>>You want to overclock? go for it. But _expect_ problems. And please don't
>>report errors here that happen when the system is overclocked.
>
>
> What I can tell is you don't really understand the topic. I've
> overclocked all kinds of systems. Problems? Zero.
>
> Lets backup. Introducing the CPU cycle.
>
> Over simplified, one key element is the fetch-decode-execute
> instruction cycle or the time period during which one instruction is
> retrieved from memory, by the CPU and it's supporting circuits,
> decoded then executed. View it as similar to some real word clock. The
> faster the clock runs, the faster time would appear to pass or in the
> case of a CPU the faster the clock runs the quicker the CPU can
> process instructions and obviously the faster your computer will do
> what you ask of it.
>
> The clock frequency or how fast it oscillates between two possible
> states keeping things in sync. Depending on the instruction the CPU is
> processing it can take multiple cycles to complete the instruction.
> The CPU is internally aware of this. So if it has two instructions to
> be executed and it knows that the first will delay five clock cycles
> to be executed, it will automatically start the execution of the next
> instruction on the 6th clock tick. Newer CPU designs allow several
> execution units to work in parallel. So in effect modern CPU's can
> process multiple instructions at once.
>
> Why overclock? Over clocking pushes the CPU to run faster because of
> a higher clock rate that is driving it so the time it takes between
> each cycle is shorter, thus resulting in better performance.
>
> The CPU uses both and internal and external clocks. Instructions
> internally passing through registers in the CPU itself are running at
> a very high clock rate (internal clock) BUT data transferring to and
> from the memory on their journey to and from the CPU is controlled by
> the much slower North Bridge, a separate chip. This communication
> happens over the FSB (front side bus) By bumping up how fast this bus
> runs, data pulled from memory can flow faster.
>
> That is a nutshell (lots of technical gibberish left out on purpose)
> is basically what overclocking is all about. It is easy, safe and
> supported by all major mother board manufactures on many of their MB
> models and is easily altered form BIOS. If or not it is depends on
> what you buy. Some box makers may not implement overclocking but to
> suggest overclocking is dangerous, caused CPU's to overheat or Windows
> or any OS to start making mistakes or corrupt data is simply
> unfounded. Overclocking is self limited in you know you've pushed
> things too far if the system won't boot or hangs trying. Then like I
> said in my original post you simply back off a bit.
>
Hey dumb-ass...Charlie is 100% correct in what he said and you're just a
big mouth fukkin idiot. Overclocking is not for newbies and can corrupt
your OS and installed data especially on Win OS's before Vista, like
(98, 2K & XP). We've been oc'ing since the early '90's and are fully
aware of the benefits and the inherent problems associated with doing
it. We've just about done it all; dual processors, hand lapped cpu's,
modified mobo's, cases cut to near ribbons...huge fans, wc and anything
and everything else associated with oc'ing.
You can easily spend more on cooling than if you simply bought a higher
clocked cpu.
So my advice is if you haven't ever oc'ed then don't even bother. If
you're a veteran oc'er, then you know all too well what to expect.
Frank
Adam Albright wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:30:55 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
> <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Windows doesn't care. Right up to the point where your overclocked system
>>does something that it isn't supposed to do, because it failed. Either
>>because of overheating or because an overclocked component produced the
>>wrong output. Keep in mind that a single-bit error introduced by the CPU or
>>the memory could result in a BSOD (best case) or subtle data corruption that
>>goes unrecognized until it's too late (worst case).
>>
>>You can probably tell what I think of overclocking.
>
>
> Yep, ignorance is bliss or so they tell me. ;-)
>
>>You want to overclock? go for it. But _expect_ problems. And please don't
>>report errors here that happen when the system is overclocked.
>
>
> What I can tell is you don't really understand the topic. I've
> overclocked all kinds of systems. Problems? Zero.
>
> Lets backup. Introducing the CPU cycle.
>
> Over simplified, one key element is the fetch-decode-execute
> instruction cycle or the time period during which one instruction is
> retrieved from memory, by the CPU and it's supporting circuits,
> decoded then executed. View it as similar to some real word clock. The
> faster the clock runs, the faster time would appear to pass or in the
> case of a CPU the faster the clock runs the quicker the CPU can
> process instructions and obviously the faster your computer will do
> what you ask of it.
>
> The clock frequency or how fast it oscillates between two possible
> states keeping things in sync. Depending on the instruction the CPU is
> processing it can take multiple cycles to complete the instruction.
> The CPU is internally aware of this. So if it has two instructions to
> be executed and it knows that the first will delay five clock cycles
> to be executed, it will automatically start the execution of the next
> instruction on the 6th clock tick. Newer CPU designs allow several
> execution units to work in parallel. So in effect modern CPU's can
> process multiple instructions at once.
>
> Why overclock? Over clocking pushes the CPU to run faster because of
> a higher clock rate that is driving it so the time it takes between
> each cycle is shorter, thus resulting in better performance.
>
> The CPU uses both and internal and external clocks. Instructions
> internally passing through registers in the CPU itself are running at
> a very high clock rate (internal clock) BUT data transferring to and
> from the memory on their journey to and from the CPU is controlled by
> the much slower North Bridge, a separate chip. This communication
> happens over the FSB (front side bus) By bumping up how fast this bus
> runs, data pulled from memory can flow faster.
>
> That is a nutshell (lots of technical gibberish left out on purpose)
> is basically what overclocking is all about. It is easy, safe and
> supported by all major mother board manufactures on many of their MB
> models and is easily altered form BIOS. If or not it is depends on
> what you buy. Some box makers may not implement overclocking but to
> suggest overclocking is dangerous, caused CPU's to overheat or Windows
> or any OS to start making mistakes or corrupt data is simply
> unfounded. Overclocking is self limited in you know you've pushed
> things too far if the system won't boot or hangs trying. Then like I
> said in my original post you simply back off a bit.
>
Hey dumb-ass...Charlie is 100% correct in what he said and you're just a
big mouth fukkin idiot. Overclocking is not for newbies and can corrupt
your OS and installed data especially on Win OS's before Vista, like
(98, 2K & XP). We've been oc'ing since the early '90's and are fully
aware of the benefits and the inherent problems associated with doing
it. We've just about done it all; dual processors, hand lapped cpu's,
modified mobo's, cases cut to near ribbons...huge fans, wc and anything
and everything else associated with oc'ing.
You can easily spend more on cooling than if you simply bought a higher
clocked cpu.
So my advice is if you haven't ever oc'ed then don't even bother. If
you're a veteran oc'er, then you know all too well what to expect.
Frank
C
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64
Thanks for the support, but let's keep it professional.
He's entitled to his opinion, though when he starts by saying I don't know
what I'm talking about, he's probably not going to find a whole lot of
support here.
I have overclocked. Not on any system where I actually cared about what I'm
doing with it, but a gaming box? Sure, why not? but then, I know so little
about what I'm doing that I actually think a parity bit is a good idea, and
that ECC RAM is even a better idea. One worth paying for.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Frank" <fb@osspan.clm> wrote in message
news:eIKt$%23TEIHA.4308@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Adam Albright wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:30:55 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
>> <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Windows doesn't care. Right up to the point where your overclocked system
>>>does something that it isn't supposed to do, because it failed. Either
>>>because of overheating or because an overclocked component produced the
>>>wrong output. Keep in mind that a single-bit error introduced by the CPU
>>>or the memory could result in a BSOD (best case) or subtle data
>>>corruption that goes unrecognized until it's too late (worst case).
>>>
>>>You can probably tell what I think of overclocking.
>>
>>
>> Yep, ignorance is bliss or so they tell me. ;-)
>>
>>>You want to overclock? go for it. But _expect_ problems. And please don't
>>>report errors here that happen when the system is overclocked.
>>
>>
>> What I can tell is you don't really understand the topic. I've
>> overclocked all kinds of systems. Problems? Zero. Lets backup.
>> Introducing the CPU cycle.
>>
>> Over simplified, one key element is the fetch-decode-execute
>> instruction cycle or the time period during which one instruction is
>> retrieved from memory, by the CPU and it's supporting circuits,
>> decoded then executed. View it as similar to some real word clock. The
>> faster the clock runs, the faster time would appear to pass or in the
>> case of a CPU the faster the clock runs the quicker the CPU can
>> process instructions and obviously the faster your computer will do
>> what you ask of it. The clock frequency or how fast it oscillates
>> between two possible
>> states keeping things in sync. Depending on the instruction the CPU is
>> processing it can take multiple cycles to complete the instruction.
>> The CPU is internally aware of this. So if it has two instructions to
>> be executed and it knows that the first will delay five clock cycles
>> to be executed, it will automatically start the execution of the next
>> instruction on the 6th clock tick. Newer CPU designs allow several
>> execution units to work in parallel. So in effect modern CPU's can
>> process multiple instructions at once.
>>
>> Why overclock? Over clocking pushes the CPU to run faster because of
>> a higher clock rate that is driving it so the time it takes between
>> each cycle is shorter, thus resulting in better performance. The CPU uses
>> both and internal and external clocks. Instructions
>> internally passing through registers in the CPU itself are running at
>> a very high clock rate (internal clock) BUT data transferring to and
>> from the memory on their journey to and from the CPU is controlled by
>> the much slower North Bridge, a separate chip. This communication
>> happens over the FSB (front side bus) By bumping up how fast this bus
>> runs, data pulled from memory can flow faster. That is a nutshell (lots
>> of technical gibberish left out on purpose)
>> is basically what overclocking is all about. It is easy, safe and
>> supported by all major mother board manufactures on many of their MB
>> models and is easily altered form BIOS. If or not it is depends on
>> what you buy. Some box makers may not implement overclocking but to
>> suggest overclocking is dangerous, caused CPU's to overheat or Windows
>> or any OS to start making mistakes or corrupt data is simply
>> unfounded. Overclocking is self limited in you know you've pushed
>> things too far if the system won't boot or hangs trying. Then like I
>> said in my original post you simply back off a bit.
>
> Hey dumb-ass...Charlie is 100% correct in what he said and you're just a
> big mouth fukkin idiot. Overclocking is not for newbies and can corrupt
> your OS and installed data especially on Win OS's before Vista, like (98,
> 2K & XP). We've been oc'ing since the early '90's and are fully aware of
> the benefits and the inherent problems associated with doing it. We've
> just about done it all; dual processors, hand lapped cpu's, modified
> mobo's, cases cut to near ribbons...huge fans, wc and anything and
> everything else associated with oc'ing.
> You can easily spend more on cooling than if you simply bought a higher
> clocked cpu.
> So my advice is if you haven't ever oc'ed then don't even bother. If
> you're a veteran oc'er, then you know all too well what to expect.
> Frank
Thanks for the support, but let's keep it professional.
He's entitled to his opinion, though when he starts by saying I don't know
what I'm talking about, he's probably not going to find a whole lot of
support here.
I have overclocked. Not on any system where I actually cared about what I'm
doing with it, but a gaming box? Sure, why not? but then, I know so little
about what I'm doing that I actually think a parity bit is a good idea, and
that ECC RAM is even a better idea. One worth paying for.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Frank" <fb@osspan.clm> wrote in message
news:eIKt$%23TEIHA.4308@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Adam Albright wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:30:55 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
>> <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Windows doesn't care. Right up to the point where your overclocked system
>>>does something that it isn't supposed to do, because it failed. Either
>>>because of overheating or because an overclocked component produced the
>>>wrong output. Keep in mind that a single-bit error introduced by the CPU
>>>or the memory could result in a BSOD (best case) or subtle data
>>>corruption that goes unrecognized until it's too late (worst case).
>>>
>>>You can probably tell what I think of overclocking.
>>
>>
>> Yep, ignorance is bliss or so they tell me. ;-)
>>
>>>You want to overclock? go for it. But _expect_ problems. And please don't
>>>report errors here that happen when the system is overclocked.
>>
>>
>> What I can tell is you don't really understand the topic. I've
>> overclocked all kinds of systems. Problems? Zero. Lets backup.
>> Introducing the CPU cycle.
>>
>> Over simplified, one key element is the fetch-decode-execute
>> instruction cycle or the time period during which one instruction is
>> retrieved from memory, by the CPU and it's supporting circuits,
>> decoded then executed. View it as similar to some real word clock. The
>> faster the clock runs, the faster time would appear to pass or in the
>> case of a CPU the faster the clock runs the quicker the CPU can
>> process instructions and obviously the faster your computer will do
>> what you ask of it. The clock frequency or how fast it oscillates
>> between two possible
>> states keeping things in sync. Depending on the instruction the CPU is
>> processing it can take multiple cycles to complete the instruction.
>> The CPU is internally aware of this. So if it has two instructions to
>> be executed and it knows that the first will delay five clock cycles
>> to be executed, it will automatically start the execution of the next
>> instruction on the 6th clock tick. Newer CPU designs allow several
>> execution units to work in parallel. So in effect modern CPU's can
>> process multiple instructions at once.
>>
>> Why overclock? Over clocking pushes the CPU to run faster because of
>> a higher clock rate that is driving it so the time it takes between
>> each cycle is shorter, thus resulting in better performance. The CPU uses
>> both and internal and external clocks. Instructions
>> internally passing through registers in the CPU itself are running at
>> a very high clock rate (internal clock) BUT data transferring to and
>> from the memory on their journey to and from the CPU is controlled by
>> the much slower North Bridge, a separate chip. This communication
>> happens over the FSB (front side bus) By bumping up how fast this bus
>> runs, data pulled from memory can flow faster. That is a nutshell (lots
>> of technical gibberish left out on purpose)
>> is basically what overclocking is all about. It is easy, safe and
>> supported by all major mother board manufactures on many of their MB
>> models and is easily altered form BIOS. If or not it is depends on
>> what you buy. Some box makers may not implement overclocking but to
>> suggest overclocking is dangerous, caused CPU's to overheat or Windows
>> or any OS to start making mistakes or corrupt data is simply
>> unfounded. Overclocking is self limited in you know you've pushed
>> things too far if the system won't boot or hangs trying. Then like I
>> said in my original post you simply back off a bit.
>
> Hey dumb-ass...Charlie is 100% correct in what he said and you're just a
> big mouth fukkin idiot. Overclocking is not for newbies and can corrupt
> your OS and installed data especially on Win OS's before Vista, like (98,
> 2K & XP). We've been oc'ing since the early '90's and are fully aware of
> the benefits and the inherent problems associated with doing it. We've
> just about done it all; dual processors, hand lapped cpu's, modified
> mobo's, cases cut to near ribbons...huge fans, wc and anything and
> everything else associated with oc'ing.
> You can easily spend more on cooling than if you simply bought a higher
> clocked cpu.
> So my advice is if you haven't ever oc'ed then don't even bother. If
> you're a veteran oc'er, then you know all too well what to expect.
> Frank
C
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64
Vista doesn't change the equation at all. 64-bit probably does - if only
because it's actually using more of the RAM you have for real operations.
So, if something doesn't behave as designed, it's more likely to be in a
critical area.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:uHYVgGTEIHA.4544@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Charlie. I was just wondering about articles I had read about
> overclocking in Vista. I'm not into overclocking just curious. {.I like
> to get my money's worth out of cpu & mb. I'll leave frying them to someone
> else.
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
> news:B5529AA6-1DC9-4609-B85B-F99A6485E473@microsoft.com...
>> Windows doesn't care. Right up to the point where your overclocked system
>> does something that it isn't supposed to do, because it failed. Either
>> because of overheating or because an overclocked component produced the
>> wrong output. Keep in mind that a single-bit error introduced by the CPU
>> or the memory could result in a BSOD (best case) or subtle data
>> corruption that goes unrecognized until it's too late (worst case).
>>
>> You can probably tell what I think of overclocking.
>>
>> You want to overclock? go for it. But _expect_ problems. And please don't
>> report errors here that happen when the system is overclocked.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:eOnRoWQEIHA.5324@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>>
>
Vista doesn't change the equation at all. 64-bit probably does - if only
because it's actually using more of the RAM you have for real operations.
So, if something doesn't behave as designed, it's more likely to be in a
critical area.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:uHYVgGTEIHA.4544@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Charlie. I was just wondering about articles I had read about
> overclocking in Vista. I'm not into overclocking just curious. {
.I like > to get my money's worth out of cpu & mb. I'll leave frying them to someone
> else.
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
> news:B5529AA6-1DC9-4609-B85B-F99A6485E473@microsoft.com...
>> Windows doesn't care. Right up to the point where your overclocked system
>> does something that it isn't supposed to do, because it failed. Either
>> because of overheating or because an overclocked component produced the
>> wrong output. Keep in mind that a single-bit error introduced by the CPU
>> or the memory could result in a BSOD (best case) or subtle data
>> corruption that goes unrecognized until it's too late (worst case).
>>
>> You can probably tell what I think of overclocking.
>>
>> You want to overclock? go for it. But _expect_ problems. And please don't
>> report errors here that happen when the system is overclocked.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:eOnRoWQEIHA.5324@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>>
>
C
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64
Please, let's keep this polite. I don't agree with Adam, but I know where's
coming from. And regardless, this is a "family place". That is, those of us
who've been here for 2 1/2 years now are "family" and we like a nice, well
behaved, place. Where we can disagree, but do so with mutual respect. Thank
you for respecting our norms.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Adam The-Fruit-Loop Albright" <YesHeIsAFruitLoop@TheFruitLoop.net> wrote in
message news:%23auw2oTEIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Adam Albright wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:51:41 -0700, "Vista User"
>> <VistaUser@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>> news:5n0dh3p6vk5lqmjr3sh90178nhlh8va9mm@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>>>> Over clocking has little if anything to do with the OS. Over clocking
>>>> is all about pushing your hardware to perform faster. The main goal is
>>>> to increase the clock rate, how fast a CPU will complete it's cycle.
>>>>
>>>> What no doubt will surprise some is all CPUs in the same family of the
>>>> same design are IDENTICAL internally. A CPU rated to run at 3.1 GHz is
>>>> the same as one rated 2.8 GHz. It's like ranking eggs. They typically
>>>> come in medium, large, extra large and jumbo. A CPU is tested and
>>>> rated on how well it performs under testing. People are willing to pay
>>>> a premium, not realizing with some simple overclocking a lower rated
>>>> CPU can perform as fast or faster than a higher rated one and pocket
>>>> the difference in cost which sometimes substantial. Tweaking memory
>>>> and FSB (front side bus) settings also contribute to making a system
>>>> perform faster. The downside is it requires a tad more voltage, that
>>>> causes more heat and if you get carried away the expected life of the
>>>> CPU will go down.
>>>>
>>>> I've always overclocked all my computers for many years back when it
>>>> was just a geek thing requiring messing with the chip itself to unlock
>>>> it's potential. Now almost anybody can do it if their motherboard and
>>>> BIOS supports it by making a few simple changes. I would suggest you
>>>> overclock until the system fails to boot or is unstable and only boots
>>>> sometimes or hangs shortly after booting then slowly dropping back
>>>> until the system is stable and not running too hot. There are
>>>> countless web sites giving specifics and suggestions on idea settings
>>>> for particular motherboards, so good chance somebody already has been
>>>> there done that regardless what MB you have or are considering.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And some people wonder why they have problems. Can you say overclocking?
>>
>> The combined level of stupidity exhibited by the same dumb posters
>> over and over on technical topics in this newsgroup is mind boggling.
>
>
> <You should know Fruit Loop, as you are right there with them.>
>
>>
>> One last time for the utterly clueless. I don't have problems running
>> Vista. I didn't have problems installing it either. I report on
>> problems and when possible offer suggestions to get around them. HUGE
>> difference. Too bad your apparently don't have the intelligence to
>> understand the difference.
>>
>
> <Fruit Loop, you are lying through your dentures again. I tend to believe
> that you have had problems with Vista you old great computer expert and
> expert of experts. You posted up in this NG about your problems. And now
> you're talking about you were and are clean as a Vista baby's bottom. You
> are lying through your dentures, Fruit Loop. No one should trust anything
> you have to say as far as he or she can throw a building somewhere.>
Please, let's keep this polite. I don't agree with Adam, but I know where's
coming from. And regardless, this is a "family place". That is, those of us
who've been here for 2 1/2 years now are "family" and we like a nice, well
behaved, place. Where we can disagree, but do so with mutual respect. Thank
you for respecting our norms.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Adam The-Fruit-Loop Albright" <YesHeIsAFruitLoop@TheFruitLoop.net> wrote in
message news:%23auw2oTEIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Adam Albright wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:51:41 -0700, "Vista User"
>> <VistaUser@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>> news:5n0dh3p6vk5lqmjr3sh90178nhlh8va9mm@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>>>> Over clocking has little if anything to do with the OS. Over clocking
>>>> is all about pushing your hardware to perform faster. The main goal is
>>>> to increase the clock rate, how fast a CPU will complete it's cycle.
>>>>
>>>> What no doubt will surprise some is all CPUs in the same family of the
>>>> same design are IDENTICAL internally. A CPU rated to run at 3.1 GHz is
>>>> the same as one rated 2.8 GHz. It's like ranking eggs. They typically
>>>> come in medium, large, extra large and jumbo. A CPU is tested and
>>>> rated on how well it performs under testing. People are willing to pay
>>>> a premium, not realizing with some simple overclocking a lower rated
>>>> CPU can perform as fast or faster than a higher rated one and pocket
>>>> the difference in cost which sometimes substantial. Tweaking memory
>>>> and FSB (front side bus) settings also contribute to making a system
>>>> perform faster. The downside is it requires a tad more voltage, that
>>>> causes more heat and if you get carried away the expected life of the
>>>> CPU will go down.
>>>>
>>>> I've always overclocked all my computers for many years back when it
>>>> was just a geek thing requiring messing with the chip itself to unlock
>>>> it's potential. Now almost anybody can do it if their motherboard and
>>>> BIOS supports it by making a few simple changes. I would suggest you
>>>> overclock until the system fails to boot or is unstable and only boots
>>>> sometimes or hangs shortly after booting then slowly dropping back
>>>> until the system is stable and not running too hot. There are
>>>> countless web sites giving specifics and suggestions on idea settings
>>>> for particular motherboards, so good chance somebody already has been
>>>> there done that regardless what MB you have or are considering.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And some people wonder why they have problems. Can you say overclocking?
>>
>> The combined level of stupidity exhibited by the same dumb posters
>> over and over on technical topics in this newsgroup is mind boggling.
>
>
> <You should know Fruit Loop, as you are right there with them.>
>
>>
>> One last time for the utterly clueless. I don't have problems running
>> Vista. I didn't have problems installing it either. I report on
>> problems and when possible offer suggestions to get around them. HUGE
>> difference. Too bad your apparently don't have the intelligence to
>> understand the difference.
>>
>
> <Fruit Loop, you are lying through your dentures again. I tend to believe
> that you have had problems with Vista you old great computer expert and
> expert of experts. You posted up in this NG about your problems. And now
> you're talking about you were and are clean as a Vista baby's bottom. You
> are lying through your dentures, Fruit Loop. No one should trust anything
> you have to say as far as he or she can throw a building somewhere.>
W
William R. Walsh
Guest
Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64
Hi!
The OS itself should handle it well, if your computer runs properly after
turning the clock speed up. You need to test for stability in operation,
make sure the power supply isn't being overloaded (more of a problem in
smaller or cheap PCs) and make sure that too much heat isn't building up.
To be sure your computer is stable after overclocking, you should run
programs to exercise the components to their extremes. Some such programs
run in Windows and others do not. At the very least, running Memtest/86 or
Memtest86+ and something to hold your CPU at 100% utilitzation for a period
of time should be done. This should be done to help assure the reliability
of the system in its new overclocked state.
William
Hi!
The OS itself should handle it well, if your computer runs properly after
turning the clock speed up. You need to test for stability in operation,
make sure the power supply isn't being overloaded (more of a problem in
smaller or cheap PCs) and make sure that too much heat isn't building up.
To be sure your computer is stable after overclocking, you should run
programs to exercise the components to their extremes. Some such programs
run in Windows and others do not. At the very least, running Memtest/86 or
Memtest86+ and something to hold your CPU at 100% utilitzation for a period
of time should be done. This should be done to help assure the reliability
of the system in its new overclocked state.
William
J
Jud Hendrix
Guest
Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:59:39 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
<charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
>Vista doesn't change the equation at all. 64-bit probably does - if only
>because it's actually using more of the RAM you have for real operations.
Like for copying more than 16000 files? ;-)
jud
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:59:39 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
<charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
>Vista doesn't change the equation at all. 64-bit probably does - if only
>because it's actually using more of the RAM you have for real operations.
Like for copying more than 16000 files? ;-)
jud
A
Adam Albright
Guest
Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:31:32 -0700, Frank <fb@osspan.clm> wrote:
>Hey dumb-ass...Charlie is 100% correct in what he said and you're just a
>big mouth fukkin idiot. Overclocking is not for newbies and can corrupt
>your OS and installed data especially on Win OS's before Vista, like
>(98, 2K & XP). We've been oc'ing since the early '90's and are fully
>aware of the benefits and the inherent problems associated with doing
>it. We've just about done it all; dual processors, hand lapped cpu's,
>modified mobo's, cases cut to near ribbons...huge fans, wc and anything
>and everything else associated with oc'ing.
Nice wet dream Frank. But your past claim of 'you build computer
hardware' was way funnier!
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:31:32 -0700, Frank <fb@osspan.clm> wrote:
>Hey dumb-ass...Charlie is 100% correct in what he said and you're just a
>big mouth fukkin idiot. Overclocking is not for newbies and can corrupt
>your OS and installed data especially on Win OS's before Vista, like
>(98, 2K & XP). We've been oc'ing since the early '90's and are fully
>aware of the benefits and the inherent problems associated with doing
>it. We've just about done it all; dual processors, hand lapped cpu's,
>modified mobo's, cases cut to near ribbons...huge fans, wc and anything
>and everything else associated with oc'ing.
Nice wet dream Frank. But your past claim of 'you build computer
hardware' was way funnier!
C
Carlos
Guest
Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64
Charlie:
Overclocking is just a placebo.
The marginal gains obtained by these operations are hardly noticeable.
Carlos
(recovering from an "angina pectoris")
"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
> Windows doesn't care. Right up to the point where your overclocked system
> does something that it isn't supposed to do, because it failed. Either
> because of overheating or because an overclocked component produced the
> wrong output. Keep in mind that a single-bit error introduced by the CPU or
> the memory could result in a BSOD (best case) or subtle data corruption that
> goes unrecognized until it's too late (worst case).
>
> You can probably tell what I think of overclocking.
>
> You want to overclock? go for it. But _expect_ problems. And please don't
> report errors here that happen when the system is overclocked.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:eOnRoWQEIHA.5324@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>
Charlie:
Overclocking is just a placebo.
The marginal gains obtained by these operations are hardly noticeable.
Carlos
(recovering from an "angina pectoris")
"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
> Windows doesn't care. Right up to the point where your overclocked system
> does something that it isn't supposed to do, because it failed. Either
> because of overheating or because an overclocked component produced the
> wrong output. Keep in mind that a single-bit error introduced by the CPU or
> the memory could result in a BSOD (best case) or subtle data corruption that
> goes unrecognized until it's too late (worst case).
>
> You can probably tell what I think of overclocking.
>
> You want to overclock? go for it. But _expect_ problems. And please don't
> report errors here that happen when the system is overclocked.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:eOnRoWQEIHA.5324@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>
D
dennis@home
Guest
Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:5n0dh3p6vk5lqmjr3sh90178nhlh8va9mm@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>
> Over clocking has little if anything to do with the OS. Over clocking
> is all about pushing your hardware to perform faster. The main goal is
> to increase the clock rate, how fast a CPU will complete it's cycle.
>
> What no doubt will surprise some is all CPUs in the same family of the
> same design are IDENTICAL internally. A CPU rated to run at 3.1 GHz is
> the same as one rated 2.8 GHz.
They are not the same.. one has passed a series of tests that allow the
manufacturer to gurantee it will run at the intended speed reliably.
They other may not have passed the same tests but have passed a set of tests
that show it to be reliable at a slower speed.
There are some noticable exceptions to this mainly with Intel CPUs as their
fab tends to produce more high speed parts than they can sell so they do
re-mark some chips from higher speeds to lower speeds and sell them cheaply.
There is a batch of 1.8G core 2 duo chips that will run at 3G around at the
moment if you can get one.
> I've always overclocked all my computers for many years back when it
> was just a geek thing requiring messing with the chip itself to unlock
> it's potential.
I used to over clock things but the performance gains aren't usually worth
the bother.
I more often underclock stuff these days to keep it cool and quiet.
> Now almost anybody can do it if their motherboard and
> BIOS supports it by making a few simple changes. I would suggest you
> overclock until the system fails to boot or is unstable and only boots
> sometimes or hangs shortly after booting then slowly dropping back
> until the system is stable and not running too hot. There are
> countless web sites giving specifics and suggestions on idea settings
> for particular motherboards, so good chance somebody already has been
> there done that regardless what MB you have or are considering.
>
Remember stable means many things.. one user might think that running a day
is stable others a year.
What do you call stable?
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:5n0dh3p6vk5lqmjr3sh90178nhlh8va9mm@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>
> Over clocking has little if anything to do with the OS. Over clocking
> is all about pushing your hardware to perform faster. The main goal is
> to increase the clock rate, how fast a CPU will complete it's cycle.
>
> What no doubt will surprise some is all CPUs in the same family of the
> same design are IDENTICAL internally. A CPU rated to run at 3.1 GHz is
> the same as one rated 2.8 GHz.
They are not the same.. one has passed a series of tests that allow the
manufacturer to gurantee it will run at the intended speed reliably.
They other may not have passed the same tests but have passed a set of tests
that show it to be reliable at a slower speed.
There are some noticable exceptions to this mainly with Intel CPUs as their
fab tends to produce more high speed parts than they can sell so they do
re-mark some chips from higher speeds to lower speeds and sell them cheaply.
There is a batch of 1.8G core 2 duo chips that will run at 3G around at the
moment if you can get one.
> I've always overclocked all my computers for many years back when it
> was just a geek thing requiring messing with the chip itself to unlock
> it's potential.
I used to over clock things but the performance gains aren't usually worth
the bother.
I more often underclock stuff these days to keep it cool and quiet.
> Now almost anybody can do it if their motherboard and
> BIOS supports it by making a few simple changes. I would suggest you
> overclock until the system fails to boot or is unstable and only boots
> sometimes or hangs shortly after booting then slowly dropping back
> until the system is stable and not running too hot. There are
> countless web sites giving specifics and suggestions on idea settings
> for particular motherboards, so good chance somebody already has been
> there done that regardless what MB you have or are considering.
>
Remember stable means many things.. one user might think that running a day
is stable others a year.
What do you call stable?
C
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64
Oh, I agree, Carlos. It's a marginal gain at most. And not worth the risk,
IMHO.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Carlos" <Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:90C5A080-337A-4592-B0DA-014C09D89912@microsoft.com...
> Charlie:
> Overclocking is just a placebo.
> The marginal gains obtained by these operations are hardly noticeable.
> Carlos
> (recovering from an "angina pectoris")
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
>
>> Windows doesn't care. Right up to the point where your overclocked system
>> does something that it isn't supposed to do, because it failed. Either
>> because of overheating or because an overclocked component produced the
>> wrong output. Keep in mind that a single-bit error introduced by the CPU
>> or
>> the memory could result in a BSOD (best case) or subtle data corruption
>> that
>> goes unrecognized until it's too late (worst case).
>>
>> You can probably tell what I think of overclocking.
>>
>> You want to overclock? go for it. But _expect_ problems. And please don't
>> report errors here that happen when the system is overclocked.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:eOnRoWQEIHA.5324@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> > How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>>
Oh, I agree, Carlos. It's a marginal gain at most. And not worth the risk,
IMHO.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Carlos" <Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:90C5A080-337A-4592-B0DA-014C09D89912@microsoft.com...
> Charlie:
> Overclocking is just a placebo.
> The marginal gains obtained by these operations are hardly noticeable.
> Carlos
> (recovering from an "angina pectoris")
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
>
>> Windows doesn't care. Right up to the point where your overclocked system
>> does something that it isn't supposed to do, because it failed. Either
>> because of overheating or because an overclocked component produced the
>> wrong output. Keep in mind that a single-bit error introduced by the CPU
>> or
>> the memory could result in a BSOD (best case) or subtle data corruption
>> that
>> goes unrecognized until it's too late (worst case).
>>
>> You can probably tell what I think of overclocking.
>>
>> You want to overclock? go for it. But _expect_ problems. And please don't
>> report errors here that happen when the system is overclocked.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "Kue2" <h.j.kennedy@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:eOnRoWQEIHA.5324@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> > How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>>