Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tritonman

Overclocking Vista

Recommended Posts

I am currently using Vista Home Premium and attempting to do some o/c'ing. It seems to me I was more successful overclocking XP Pro than Vista. I cant seem to get vista to go over the 2.87ghz mark before it starts to BSOD.

 

Normally when it BSOD's its usually one of 2 problems..win2k.sys or dxg issues. Now this generally leads me to believe its a video issue. Im currently using the most updated Nvidia drivers..100.65 and the WHQL 15.00 for the chipset and Realteks updated Audio codecs since Vista complains about the Nvidia codecs not being compatible.

 

I was wondering if anyone else has been experiencing "odd" overclocking behavior in Vista as opposed to XP pro?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you believe that this is a OS problem? Nice ram!!! He He! Mine kit died yesterday! Going back to Newegg today! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't had any problems OCing. I was told that Vista is more sensitive to OCing than XP is. So it may be possible that a chip that can do 2.9ghz in XP may not be able to do 2.9ghz in Vista. But I've not tested this so I'm not sure how accurate that statement is. Maybe someone with more Vista experience can prove or disprove it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What makes you believe that this is a OS problem? Nice ram!!! He He! Mine kit died yesterday! Going back to Newegg today! :)

 

Im leaning towards the OS area based on my comparison between my XP overclocks and my Vista overclocks. Its seems that Raiderfan001's comment concerning Vista being more sensitive stands to reason at this point. To reach a more stable o/c in Vista required higher voltages compared to XP pro.

For some reason to reach higher stable overclocks in Vista is taking much more work and trial and error than it did in XP.

 

Im thinking that something in the way Vista loads or what its loading during the boot up process is more sensitive to overclocks than XP was/is. Or possibly the sequence of drivers being loaded etc. I am able to get by the Vista "non-gui" splash screen each time..i hear sound drivers being loaded (slight pop) then poof..BSOD. When I back off o/c settings it loads like a champ..to me this definately seems o/s related.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im leaning towards the OS area based on my comparison between my XP overclocks and my Vista overclocks. Its seems that Raiderfan001's comment concerning Vista being more sensitive stands to reason at this point. To reach a more stable o/c in Vista required higher voltages compared to XP pro.

For some reason to reach higher stable overclocks in Vista is taking much more work and trial and error than it did in XP.

 

Im thinking that something in the way Vista loads or what its loading during the boot up process is more sensitive to overclocks than XP was/is. Or possibly the sequence of drivers being loaded etc. I am able to get by the Vista "non-gui" splash screen each time..i hear sound drivers being loaded (slight pop) then poof..BSOD. When I back off o/c settings it loads like a champ..to me this definately seems o/s related.

 

I guess this is the reason why we all stay away from it! Just to much unknown things about the Vista story! We let you test and come back for advice! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah I think Vista is just so much more stable of an OS then XP.:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Vista uses all of the available ram to cache data, and IIRC, uses different areas in ram on boot as compared to XP, ram errors manifest themselves much more quickly then in XP. Increased CPU usage when "idle" would cause the same effect, with CPU errors becoming apparent more quickly.

 

When I moved to Vista, I did so with a system that was "borderline stable" in XP. In XP it would BSOD out of games rarely, and was prime stable for 8+ hours usually, but would fail if left to go on its own long enough. Moving to Vista, I was getting BSODs every couple days, and prime would never fail, as the whole rig would crash first.

 

I am inclined to believe that while Vista is more sensitive to unstable overclocks, if it is not stable in Vista, it probably was not fully stable in XP either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i ran 3ghz on xp... im running 3ghz on vista stable also.. i ran orthos for 24hrs and it passed.. i havent ran into any problems.. the only problem i have is drivers causing vista to crash.. but when i get rid of the bad drivers.. everything is smooth again... vista does run smoother than xp.. im liking it alot better.. like zelig said ur oc wasnt probably stable in xp.. thats why its failing in vista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may have been stable for XP...just not stable enough for Vista. An overclock that can run just 8 hours of orthos in xp is stable. But that same overclock may not be stable enough for Vista. The simple fact is that they are two different OS's and will react differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it is the complete Opposite for me, I get better oc on my vista x64 then on my window xp pro 32bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...