Overclocking in Vista

[Cheex]

Is it true that Windows Vista is more sensitive to overclocking than Windows XP?

Thus creating more stability issues?

 

[Scottae]

I run vista x64 Ultimate... and If you OC is stable then your OS shouldnt really matter... But if your doing an overclock that is not stable just trying to do a quick benchmark run. Id agree that vistas sheer bulk would tax the system a bit more and create bsods more often. But, if loading an os is causing a BSOD then your probably not going to get a benchmark to clear anyhow.. Just my two cents.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: Scottae
I run vista x64 Ultimate... and If you OC is stable then your OS shouldnt really matter... But if your doing an overclock that is not stable just trying to do a quick benchmark run. Id agree that vistas sheer bulk would tax the system a bit more and create bsods more often. But, if loading an os is causing a BSOD then your probably not going to get a benchmark to clear anyhow.. Just my two cents.

I'm in the same boat, vista x64, and a Q6600 @ 3.5GHz. No problems here, but a "stable" OC shouldn't matter to the OS, no matter what OS it is.

 

[Cheex]

Thing is my OC is indeed stable but its just that I've heard some talk of this being so. As you say, maybe it is just the bulk that Vista has.

I was just wondering anyway.

 

[CptCrunch]

OC'd a brisbane from 1.9 to 2.52ghz and it is stable in Vista and XP. Just make sure it is completely stable, and Vista is a good test to see if it isn't.

 

[imported_wired247]

If it is stable with small FFTs in multicore prime95 for 20+ hours, it will be stable just about indefinitely in vista 64, this has been my experience.

I also run F@H 24/7 except while gaming, which stresses the CPU as well, no crashes if you OC correctly

 

[Amaroque]

Originally posted by: wired247
If it is stable with small FFTs in multicore prime95 for 20+ hours, it will be stable just about indefinitely in vista 64, this has been my experience.

I also run F@H 24/7 except while gaming, which stresses the CPU as well, no crashes if you OC correctly

I concour 100% on that thought.

 

[taltamir]

an unstable OC will crash faster on vista then on XP... But a stable one will be stable regardless of OS.
Some people however will OC their computer, ran prime for 10 minutes and say "AH, no crashes, it is STABLE!"
They will attribute the once a month crash to windows... and when they upgrade to vista would claim vista is less stable because it crashes once a week instead of once a month...

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: taltamir
an unstable OC will crash faster on vista then on XP... But a stable one will be stable regardless of OS.
Some people however will OC their computer, ran prime for 10 minutes and say "AH, no crashes, it is STABLE!"
They will attribute the once a month crash to windows... and when they upgrade to vista would claim vista is less stable because it crashes once a week instead of once a month...

+1

I can say that my e6400 @ 2.66GHz on a P965-DS3 was stable in XP, at 2.8GHz I would get a random/rare BSOD. Upgraded to Vista x64 Ultimate, crashes became more frequent. Switched to IP35-e and now run 3.0GHz with absolute stability in both XP and Vista (same chip, now on stock volts, all other components identical). So I agree, Vista may be perceived as "causing" more stability problems but in reality it simply exaggerates any problems that exist in the system.