Overclocking under Vista sucks?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
D

dermotti

Distinguished
Dec 6, 2006
82
0
18,630
Ive been running XP 64 bit for about 6 months. Im currently running my e6300 @ 3.1ghz. Ive had it as high as 3.3 but i backed it down so my voltage and heat isnt too agressive.

Ive thrown just about every stability test i know at it and its rock solid.

Now i go to install Vista, and the highest i can seem to overclock is 2.4ghz.

Anyone else get lousy overclocks under Vista?
 
I'm not in the same situation because I'm using 32 bit vista business not 64 bit. I had heard some reports of OCing difficulty but when I installed Vista I had to make no changes and I am still Orthos stable.

Most of what I've read suggested that people were not as stable as they thought they were.
 
Well, that doesn't make much sense since you were previously using a 64 bit OS. It's not like Vista would be using some part of your CPU that the other OS left alone. It was starting to make sense in my head until I re-read your post and read the part about XP-64.

I'm assuming you're not using some sort of software tool for overclocking.
 
It's because it doesn't. Overclocking is related to hardware, and if you're able to do it in a stable fashion, it should be able to run whatever software you throw at it. I doubt that the OS change would expose any instability that has always been there, particularly if it was thoroughly tested in the first place.
 
make sure that your cpu is not throttling because of a lack of load and that you aren't just getting the wrong readings from inside the os. whatever you see in the bios is what your running.
 


You did not explain is this a Vista upgrade from XP or a Vista add on dual boot since your going from 64 to 32bit or a straight all out new installation of Vista32???

It its an upgrade..., as your mechanic would say, there's your problem. A fresh install or dual boot install should work fine otherwise.

Your XP64 was likely not completely stable even if Orthos ran fine. I can run Orthos fine at 3.6 - 3.7Ghz but from time to time a game or app will exit to the desktop or freeze anyways randomly. If I back down to 3.5Ghz or lower there are no issues.

I have done the opposite. I have XP32bit and installed Vista64bit (dual boot) and have encountered no issues related to overclocking.

I would argue that its definitely your OC not being 100% stable.
 


My guess is that you have a driver issue that does not like a very fast FSB.
Vista Drivers are far different than in previous versions of Windows.

Vista no longer allows most drivers kernel level access.

I would presume that updated drivers would likely help.
Graphics and Chipset.
Also look for an updated BIOS.

My personal bet is on ChipSet drivers.
 
This not an upgrade. Im duel booting both. Like i said ive had Windows XP-65 running for over 6 months. Ive done orthos and looped 3dmark for over 24 hours on many occasions.

And i play games 4-5 hours per day. Never had a crash. So it definetly seems stable.

But anyways when i went to install Vista, it would bluescreen righter after the files were loaded off the dvd, so right before the gui loads up for the installation.

So i finally backed it all the way down to 2.4 and it installed fine. So after the install i ramped it back up to 2.8 (400mhz fsb) and it blue screened during bootup. I ramp it back down to 2.4 everything runs smooth.


 
I'm no overclocking expert by any means, but if it OCs well in XP and not in Vista then I would blame Vista. As zenmaster said it is probably Vista not playing well with drivers. See what the OEMs are doing to fix this problem. :pfff:

Edit: fixed broken link
VARs Ripping And Replacing Vista For XP At Breakneck Pace
 



i do not think oc is all related to hardware. Let's sit back think for a sec. How do you you oc when you oc. do you use hardware , software or both when you oc.
 
I've heard that Vista doesn't always play well with overclocks, but just look at my system. Prime95 stable, both cores, all day and all night.

~Ibrahim~
 
Vista SHouldnt have anything to do whatsoever with your overclock.. Mine is the same on vista and XP.

One thing i did though when i installed my 2nd OS in my dualboot setup, i couldnt figure out why it was unstable.. finally i figured it out, i had the XP Swapfile and Vista Swapfile set to the same partition. Big NONO.
 


Can you explain this PSYCHoHoLoC? You're only running one OS at a time, so what does it matter what else is on the partition?
 


I wanna go with "hardware". How do you overclock the system with software (excluding gfx)? Particularly OS? (PS. I don't think we can consider BIOS software in the true sense of the word). Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Doesn't Vista use memory differently than XP? See Windows Vista: Under the Hood - Address space layout randomization.

Traditionally, each piece of code would be loaded into the same place in memory every time, so it was very easy for the attacker to know the location he had to go to. Thus, even with the extra protection of DEP, he could exploit machines. The solution is to stop the attacker from knowing where each DLL can be found. If you stop him knowing that, then he can no longer inject malicious code that goes to the right location in memory, because he doesn't know what that location will be. This is what Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) does. Instead of putting each DLL and EXE into the same predictable place every time a program is run, their positions get randomized each time the process is started. ... ASLR provides significant mitigation against attempts to exploit buffer overflows and should significantly reduce the exploitability of Vista. ASLR is not a new concept—OpenBSD and certain "hardened" Linux distributions have been doing something equivalent for a number of years now—but it's good to see it on a mainstream OS that will get wider usage than OpenBSD or secure Linux.
Click to expand...

Is it possible that with Vista you are using different address ranges of memory than with XP - exposing RAM that is not stable at the overclock?
 
I doubt that makes a difference, like i said i was at 400mhz fsb (2.8ghz) and it still bluescreened. This is with 2 different brands of ram i tested.

I tested with with corsair pc6400 and mushkin 6400. Same results. And 6400 is meant to run at 400mhz speeds, correct?

Now on the otherhand, it is possible that it is using different memory addresses in the internal cpu cache, that would make sense why its unstable in vista, but rock solid in xp.
 
I think I disagree with the cache comment. I'll be honest, I am not sure about the internal workings of cache, but it's simply loaded with predictions, cache is cache is cache. I don't think translation of the physical addresses to the cache reference is any different, on the basic level. And the memory space, as far as the physical cache silicon on the chip, is definitely the same. It gets loaded with the "guess", the way I understand it, and then the physical memory address gets translated internally into a cache reference, if it's a hit. So bottom line, if the silicon is working, the silicon is working no matter what the underlying address is. This all sounds confusing...
 
Vista is far less tolerant of overclocking I have experienced this myself . As I OC in Vista I get to a point were my memory starts giving an increasing number of hard faults. If I continue Vista BSOD. You can see the information from the resource monitor. Vista apparently is not as tolerant XP for memory errors. If you can keep your ram stable I doubt you would have a problem.
 
Dermotti still hasn't stated absolutely that all the overclocking is done in Bios... :non:

My E2140 with 4 gigs of Ram is overclocked from 800 FSB to 1420, a major overclock. The system runs either Linux 64-bit Ubuntu, or if the other boot drive is selected, 32-bit XP (in which 3.4 gigs of memory shows.) The overclocking limits in either OS are identical to the last Megahertz, either Bootup will freeze after loading or generate errors in Memtest or Prime95 at precisely the same overclock. Somehow I can't think there'd be any difference in how Vista or XP run on an overclocked system. :heink:
 
All overclocking is done via the bios.

Also one thing i did just remeber. I was able to actaully get booted into Vista @ 2.8ghz (400mhz) by upping the voltage to 4.75v. It Blue screened shortly after.

While my windows XP runs @ 2.8ghz (400mhz) at 3.75v no problem.

 
To go back to ByDesign's comment, I think I heard that Vista is more aggressive with memory usage than XP is, as in it will use all of the physical memory with "pre-loading" stuff (whatever the correct term is. Contrary to the popular belief it is not the OS footprint, it is other stuff used to speed the system up was the point), so I guess I could see how you could get errors if your RAM is faulty at times you woulldn't in XP if XP didn't use the RAM as aggressively. But you should have identified RAM problems if your system was as rock solid as you claimed - after all, RAM stability is a huge component of system stability.
 
I have 2 computers, one with 2 x 1gb corsair xms pc6400, and the other with 2 x 2gb mushkin pc6400.

Ive tried both ram in this system and i get the same results @ 400mhz. I fail to see how 2 totally differnt rams that are designed to run at 400mhz are causing the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom