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

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Adam

Adam
Wed Oct 17 15:08:02 PDT 2007

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.


Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Mike

Mike
Wed Oct 17 15:19:53 PDT 2007

"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.



Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Charlie

Charlie
Wed Oct 17 18:30:55 PDT 2007

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"?


Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Vista

Vista
Wed Oct 17 19:51:41 PDT 2007

"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?


Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Kue2

Kue2
Wed Oct 17 19:49:53 PDT 2007

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"?
>


Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Adam

Adam
Wed Oct 17 20:14:31 PDT 2007

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.


Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Adam

Adam
Wed Oct 17 20:24:30 PDT 2007

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.


Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Adam

Adam
Wed Oct 17 20:51:38 PDT 2007

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.>

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Frank

Frank
Wed Oct 17 21:16:49 PDT 2007

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

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Frank

Frank
Wed Oct 17 21:31:32 PDT 2007

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

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Charlie

Charlie
Wed Oct 17 21:56:31 PDT 2007

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


Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Charlie

Charlie
Wed Oct 17 21:59:39 PDT 2007

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"?
>>
>


Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Charlie

Charlie
Wed Oct 17 22:02:58 PDT 2007

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.>


Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by William

William
Wed Oct 17 23:11:56 PDT 2007

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



Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Jud

Jud
Thu Oct 18 00:00:54 PDT 2007

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

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Adam

Adam
Thu Oct 18 06:21:33 PDT 2007

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:16:49 -0700, Frank <fb@osspan.clm> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:

>> 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?

Never did asswipe. You know if you overclocked your brain maybe you'd
become half as smart as Homer Simpson and finally be able to wipe your
own ass.


Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Adam

Adam
Thu Oct 18 06:23:47 PDT 2007

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!


Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Carlos

Carlos
Thu Oct 18 06:35:02 PDT 2007

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"?
>

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Adam

Adam
Thu Oct 18 07:35:07 PDT 2007

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:35:02 -0700, Carlos
<Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Charlie:
>Overclocking is just a placebo.
>The marginal gains obtained by these operations are hardly noticeable.

Unlike the fanboy crowd that constantly throws spaghetti
up against the wall to see if their latest bullshit sticks, I don't
say something UNTIL I've tried it myself and proved it is true.

As I've said many times I use one of my computers to do professional
grade video editing, one of the more intensive things you can ask any
PC to do is the rendering phase where it is transcoding the source
files with all the adjustments, filters and effects you want to arrive
at some final version. This is a real test of CPU performance since a
great deal of CPU intensive calculations are going on behind the
scenes.

I use Sony's Vegas, which while rendering shows progress FRAME BY
FRAME in it's preview window. So you can visually SEE how fast the
rendering is progressing by just watching.

Actual test results:

Rendering a 42 minute project using a Intel Dual Core 6400 2.13GHz CPU
in it's native, NOT overclocked mode took 94 minutes, 18 seconds.

Rendering the same project using the same Chip but modestly
overclocked to a new rating of 2.67GHz the rendering time dropped to
77 minutes 32 seconds. A noticeable, real world improvement proving
overclocking made a tangible difference.

As far as the claim overclocking overheats the CPU or causes
corruption, again, BS if you do things correctly. Nothing is more
sensitive to file corruption than some video. One bad byte is all it
takes to mess things up. Yes, again by actual testing the CPU
temperature did rise, a very modest 6 degrees F, but still well below
any worrisome range.

People of course have their own opinions which is fine. What isn't
fine is to attempt to elevate some opinion based on a clear bias to
make it sound like fact. Fanboys do that constantly on a wide range of
topics. I only deal is facts that can be demonstrated to be true by
repeating them. Something the fanboy club never does. They just bellow
and expect everybody to simply accept what they said at face value.


Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by dennis

dennis
Thu Oct 18 09:01:58 PDT 2007


"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?


Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Charlie

Charlie
Thu Oct 18 09:27:45 PDT 2007

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"?
>>


Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Adam

Adam
Thu Oct 18 10:30:02 PDT 2007

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.


Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Frank

Frank
Thu Oct 18 11:18:52 PDT 2007

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

Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by dennis

dennis
Thu Oct 18 11:41:35 PDT 2007


"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?


Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Adam

Adam
Thu Oct 18 11:48:59 PDT 2007

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:18:52 -0700, Frank <fb@osspan.clm> wrote:

>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'.

The liar is you like you always demonstrate. You claimed you "build"
computer hardware. Somebody pushed you to explain what you meant.
After your usual bluster and bullshit about also claiming you're an
engineer, then admitting that was a big fat lie, saying they called
you that where you once worked you lacking any formal education in the
field you also admitted you ONCE replaced a single capacitor on one
circuit board. That's the extent of you "building" computer hardware.

I've "built" probably a hundred or more systems from scratch for
myself and associates and friends. I always qualify the term "build"
with explaining not even the big box makers like Dell and Gateway
actually build computers, a more accurate description is to say they
assemble them form a couple handfuls of ready made parts which anyone
with a bit of practice and patience can also do.

You being the constant and deliberate liar you always are you
attempted to imply you had both the knowledge and experience you don't
have in order to bolster your creditability which we know is
laughable.

You're sick Frank. Get the help you desperately need. Instead of
wasting your time here pretending to be what you're not you should
invest as much time as necessary to find out why you have some
compulsion to lie constantly about everything.




Re: Over-Clocking in Vista 64 by Adam

Adam
Thu Oct 18 12:19:22 PDT 2007

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:41:35 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>
>"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 com