Over-Clocking in Vista 64

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

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <>
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.

"Adam Albright" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <>
> 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.

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" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 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" <> wrote in message
news:B5529AA6-1DC9-4609-B85B-...
> 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" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> How well does Vista Ultimate 64 handle "Over clocking"?
>

"Adam Albright" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <>
> 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?

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:30:55 -0700, "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.

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 19:51:41 -0700, "Vista User"
<> wrote:

>"Adam Albright" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <>
>> 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.

Adam Albright wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:51:41 -0700, "Vista User"
> <> wrote:
>
>> "Adam Albright" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <>
>>> 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"
> <> wrote:
>
>
>>"Adam Albright" <> wrote in message
>>news:. ..
>>
>>>On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:35:10 -0400, "Kue2" <>
>>>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