Over-Clocking in Vista 64

[Guest Adam Albright]

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64

 

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:17:37 -0700, Frank <fb@osspan.clm> wrote:

>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'm still waiting for you to pull your head out of your ass. We'll

know you finally did if we hear a loud pop.

[Guest Adam Albright]

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64

 

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:41:35 +0100, "dennis@home"

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

>> 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?

 

You and Frank both being confirmed idiots must REALLY like me slapping

you two clowns around.

 

Tell you what, go to the following site skim over the whole article if

you don't have time (1st link) or go to page #9 (2nd link) that shows

the results. Over 80%. I said I do it more conservatively

Same motherboard I use.

 

I really enjoy slapping fools up the side of their heads. I do wonder

why you clowns enjoy me embarrassing you day after day. Can you

explain?

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/18/overclocking-guide-part-1/

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/18/overclocking-guide-part-1/page8.html

 

Tom's hardware is a RESPECTED and popular technical site. You two are

just fanboy idiots. LOL!

[Guest Frank]

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64

 

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:17:37 -0700, Frank <fb@osspan.clm> wrote:

>

>

>>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'm still waiting for you to pull your head out of your ass. We'll

> know you finally did if we hear a loud pop.

>

>

hehehe...caught you again in another one of your lies...hahaha...lol!

Frank

[Guest Adam Albright]

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64

 

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:23:44 -0700, Frank <fb@osspan.clm> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:

>

>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:17:37 -0700, Frank <fb@osspan.clm> wrote:

>>

>>

>>>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'm still waiting for you to pull your head out of your ass. We'll

>> know you finally did if we hear a loud pop.

>>

>>

>hehehe...caught you again in another one of your lies...hahaha...lol!

>Frank

 

You're too ignorant to know how stupid you are.

[Guest dennis@home]

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64

 

 

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

news:7dgfh3hb4j8126lml7d28bm85vvjmjq12e@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:41:35 +0100, "dennis@home"

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

>

>>> 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?

>

> You and Frank both being confirmed idiots must REALLY like me slapping

> you two clowns around.

 

I didn't ask for a link to toms hardware thanks.

I asked if you could post a screen shot showing your 40-50% improvement.

 

snip irrelevant stuff about toms hardware and the usual insults.

[Guest Frank]

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64

 

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:41:35 +0100, "dennis@home"

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

>

>

>>>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?

>

>

> You and Frank both being confirmed idiots must REALLY like me slapping

> you two clowns around.

>

> Tell you what, go to the following site skim over the whole article if

> you don't have time (1st link) or go to page #9 (2nd link) that shows

> the results. Over 80%. I said I do it more conservatively

> Same motherboard I use.

>

> I really enjoy slapping fools up the side of their heads. I do wonder

> why you clowns enjoy me embarrassing you day after day. Can you

> explain?

>

> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/18/overclocking-guide-part-1/

>

> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/18/overclocking-guide-part-1/page8.html

>

> Tom's hardware is a RESPECTED and popular technical site. You two are

> just fanboy idiots. LOL!

>

 

Been reading Tom's, Anandtech, HardOCP, FiringSquad, Sharky Extreme and

Overclockers for yrs.

Show us the screen shot or else STFU!

Frank

[Guest Adam Albright]

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64

 

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:33:31 +0100, "dennis@home"

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

>

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

>news:7dgfh3hb4j8126lml7d28bm85vvjmjq12e@4ax.com...

>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:41:35 +0100, "dennis@home"

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

>>

>>>> 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?

>>

>> You and Frank both being confirmed idiots must REALLY like me slapping

>> you two clowns around.

>

>I didn't ask for a link to toms hardware thanks.

>I asked if you could post a screen shot showing your 40-50% improvement.

 

Well duh... I showed you how it is possible to get twice the boost I

told you I did using the same motherboard I have. So I guess your

comment was twice as dumb because of course you'll never admit you

were wrong even when shown graphic proof you were. Fanboys never admit

it when they're wrong. I've noticed that. <snicker>

[Guest Adam Albright]

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64

 

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:35:26 -0700, Frank <fb@osspan.clm> wrote:

..

>Show us the screen shot or else STFU!

>Frank

 

You fu*king moron. I already proved you and Dennis were full of sh*t.

While I could stop the rendering I'm doing right now and give you a

screen shot showing visually what I wrote there is no reason for me to

do that and waste another three hours repeating the experiment.

Besides knowing the two of you, no matter what proof I gave you two

numbnuts you would attempt to discredit it. Not playing that game.

 

I'll show you the back of my hand instead. You're use to seeing that.

[Guest dennis@home]

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64

 

 

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

news:lspfh3dvnf7ev68jsk8ok27ahn83tm50eo@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:33:31 +0100, "dennis@home"

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

>

>>

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

>>news:7dgfh3hb4j8126lml7d28bm85vvjmjq12e@4ax.com...

>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:41:35 +0100, "dennis@home"

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

>>>

>>>>> 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?

>>>

>>> You and Frank both being confirmed idiots must REALLY like me slapping

>>> you two clowns around.

>>

>>I didn't ask for a link to toms hardware thanks.

>>I asked if you could post a screen shot showing your 40-50% improvement.

>

> Well duh... I showed you how it is possible to get twice the boost I

> told you I did using the same motherboard I have. So I guess your

> comment was twice as dumb because of course you'll never admit you

> were wrong even when shown graphic proof you were. Fanboys never admit

> it when they're wrong. I've noticed that. <snicker>

>

>

 

As usual its you that is wrong.

Are you going to post what was asked for or not?