Over-Clocking in Vista 64

[Guest Kue2]

How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?

[Guest Adam Albright]

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.

[Guest Mike Cawood, HND BIT]

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.

[Guest Charlie Russel - MVP]

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"?

[Guest Kue2]

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"?

>

[Guest Vista User]

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?

[Guest Adam Albright]

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.

[Guest Adam Albright]

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.

[Guest Adam The-Fruit-Loop Albright]

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.>

[Guest Frank]

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

[Guest Frank]

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

[Guest Charlie Russel - MVP]

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

[Guest Charlie Russel - MVP]

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"?

>>

>

[Guest Charlie Russel - MVP]

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.>

[Guest William R. Walsh]

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

[Guest Jud Hendrix]

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

[Guest Adam Albright]

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!

[Guest Carlos]

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"?

>

[Guest dennis@home]

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?

[Guest Charlie Russel - MVP]

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"?

>>

[Guest Adam Albright]

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64

 

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:01:58 +0100, "dennis@home"

<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>

>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

>> 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.

 

You need to improve how you read for comprehension. I said two chips

of the same design in the same family are the same internally. One

tested to run at X speed, the other at Y speed. You actually are just

confirming what I said.

>> 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.

 

Then you confirm you really don't know what you're doing. I already

came to that conclusion reading some of your other posts. ;-)

>I more often underclock stuff these days to keep it cool and quiet.

 

For sure you don't know what you're doing then! LOL!

 

How cool and quite a system is depends on how your build it. I guess I

know better than you. Two critical things many get wrong. First they

put too much heatsink compound between the CPU chip and heatsink. Some

follow the Tammy Faye school foolishly thinking more is better where

she thought you're suppose to put makeup on with a trowel. Same with

heatsink compound, all that's needed is a very thin evenly spread

layer.

 

Next is the heatsink and fan. I always use a premium one. While not

the same make or model I'm using, following illustrates the concept.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835118223

 

All Copper and a oversized design combined with a variable speed fan

keeps things very cool AND quite. I can't even hear it since the CPU

fan most of the time is loafing along at under 1,000 RPM, sometimes it

even stops for awhile just the heatsink itself is enough to keep the

CPU cool. Hint: Copper disperses heat very well.

>Remember stable means many things.. one user might think that running a day

>is stable others a year.

>What do you call stable?

 

This system running nine months never overheats. Since it is on and

frequently under stress rendering videos which is a CPU intensive task

while I'm chatting in newsgroups and doing other work, it is under

load from typically 8AM to 9PM sometimes longer seven days a week.

 

My point is IF you do it correctly overclocking is both easy and safe.

It also provides noticeable benefits in performance gains. I'm not

some nut that tries to push things to the limit trying to double the

CPU's speed. I'm happy with a 40-50% increase which depending on how

you use your computer can pay dividends in performance and time saved.

[Guest Frank]

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64

 

Adam Albright wrote:

> 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!

>

 

Liar!

I never said...'you build computer hardware'.

Idiot.

Frank

[Guest dennis@home]

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64

 

 

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:i54fh39pgsrtautva39vm2eejkknagdsnf@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:01:58 +0100, "dennis@home"

> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>

>>

>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

>

>>> 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.

>

> You need to improve how you read for comprehension. I said two chips

> of the same design in the same family are the same internally. One

> tested to run at X speed, the other at Y speed. You actually are just

> confirming what I said.

>

>>> 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.

>

> Then you confirm you really don't know what you're doing. I already

> came to that conclusion reading some of your other posts. ;-)

>

>>I more often underclock stuff these days to keep it cool and quiet.

>

> For sure you don't know what you're doing then! LOL!

>

> How cool and quite a system is depends on how your build it. I guess I

> know better than you. Two critical things many get wrong. First they

> put too much heatsink compound between the CPU chip and heatsink.

 

I prefer thermal pads myself as they are more controlled.

However if you must use heatsink compound then the thinner the better is

correct.

> Some

> follow the Tammy Faye school foolishly thinking more is better where

> she thought you're suppose to put makeup on with a trowel. Same with

> heatsink compound, all that's needed is a very thin evenly spread

> layer.

>

> Next is the heatsink and fan. I always use a premium one. While not

> the same make or model I'm using, following illustrates the concept.

>

> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835118223

 

That is a cr@p design for a cooler if you want quiet.

Do you know why?

I will tell you as you obviously don't know.

 

The fins are too close together so you need a lot of presure to get air to

flow between the fins.

Increase the preasure difference and you increase the noise.

 

It also appears to rely on the fan to create the turbulance needed to get

the heat transfer.

 

What you really want is a minimum gap of about 6mm between the fins to get

some air flow.

 

It is very good at meeting its main job though.. that of separating the fool

from their money.

>

> All Copper and a oversized design combined with a variable speed fan

> keeps things very cool AND quite. I can't even hear it since the CPU

> fan most of the time is loafing along at under 1,000 RPM, sometimes it

> even stops for awhile just the heatsink itself is enough to keep the

> CPU cool.

 

No fan fail alarms on your system then?

> Hint: Copper disperses heat very well.

 

Hint diamond is five time better at conducting heat but I haven't seen one

used for a heat sink yet.

Copper is quite poor for heatsinks as its too heavy and tends to break

things.

>>Remember stable means many things.. one user might think that running a

>>day

>>is stable others a year.

>>What do you call stable?

>

> This system running nine months never overheats. Since it is on and

> frequently under stress rendering videos which is a CPU intensive task

> while I'm chatting in newsgroups and doing other work, it is under

> load from typically 8AM to 9PM sometimes longer seven days a week.

>

> My point is IF you do it correctly overclocking is both easy and safe.

> It also provides noticeable benefits in performance gains. I'm not

> some nut that tries to push things to the limit trying to double the

> CPU's speed. I'm happy with a 40-50% increase which depending on how

> you use your computer can pay dividends in performance and time saved.

>

 

Do you want to post screen shots that show this 40-50% increase you get?

[Guest Frank]

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64

 

dennis@home wrote:

> Do you want to post screen shots that show this 40-50% increase you get?

 

 

Yeah, I too demand proof of that statement. Post it adam or else it's

just another one of your fukkin lies.

I haven't seen 40-50% since the old celerie days of oc'ing 300 to 550.

I bump P4's from 2.8 to 3.4 but that sure as hell ain't no 40-50%.

Check out overclocking averages at http://www.overclockers.com, although a

quick glance seems to show their vast db has been lost.

Anyway 20% oc'ing is about average without going to wc'ing.

Frank

[Guest Adam The-Fruit-Loop Albright]

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64

 

> I'm not some nut that tries to push things to the limit.

 

<That's right. You are more than a *nut*. You are a Fruit Loop.>