I have found no need to overclock at all.

[inachu]

From the moment I touch the power button to where my pc is 100% usable is at 3 seconds.

I did this by having 4 SSD's and almost maxed out my ram.

C:\ is only for Windows OS and nothing else.
I put temp folders onto its own SSD and I put the swap file on its own SSD.
Then I even put my own windows profile onto its on SSD.
Also disabled Themes.

Can you guys get your pc to boot any faster than me?

IT is a fun and useful experiment to try.

 

[HutchinsonJC]

The relevance of the Title and the Material in the post are lost on me.

Still, 3 secs boot time is pretty fast.

 

[whm1974]

Yeah there isn't all that much benefit from overclocking these days unlike when the first Celerons were introduced.

 

[Ken g6]

I'm not sure I could get my BIOS POST to finish in 3 seconds. If I could it would make it awfully hard to enter the BIOS.

 

[UsandThem]

Yeah there isn't all that much benefit from overclocking these days unlike when the first Celerons were introduced.

There was overclocking going on before the Celerons came. The Celeron 300A is probably just the most widely known CPU that overclocked.

But I agree, the difference between overclocking then vs. now is back then, overclocking made it possible to play games over 30FPS and really improved the speed of the PC. There just isn't the same gain today as there was then. Back then it was almost a necessity unless a person had Pentium II money (which I wasn't one of them).

 

[XavierMace]

I'm not sure I could get my BIOS POST to finish in 3 seconds. If I could it would make it awfully hard to enter the BIOS.

That's because Fast Boot bypasses all of that. If you want to enter the UEFI (BIOS), you have to initiate it from the OS or clear CMOS. But that has little to nothing to do with the thread title, so not really sure what the point of this thread is.

 

[UsandThem]

That's because Fast Boot bypasses all of that. If you want to enter the UEFI (BIOS), you have to initiate it from the OS or clear CMOS. But that has little to nothing to do with the thread title, so not really sure what the point of this thread is.

Agreed.

If this post is about PC post times, it should be moved to another sub-forum. Let's see what the OP decides to do....

 

[inachu]

Agreed.

If this post is about PC post times, it should be moved to another sub-forum. Let's see what the OP decides to do....

Just started posting after many years away. Not sure how to move a thread. I will try to move it later tonight.

 

[DaveSimmons]

As mentioned, CPU speed doesn't mean much for boot speed, unless you have a really slow CPU like an older Atom. Overclocking is done now mostly for winning at benchmarks.

 

[OlyAR15]

Why are you booting your computer so often that you care about boot speeds? I just put my computer to sleep, so it takes me almost no time to wake the computer.

 

[XavierMace]

Why are you booting your computer so often that you care about boot speeds? I just put my computer to sleep, so it takes me almost no time to wake the computer.

Plot twist: With Fast Boot enabled, that's basically what you're doing as it doesn't completely shut down. Which is generally another factor when talking about how fast your computers boot time is.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Yea, I don't really need to overcloak either, though some games would benefit from improved single core performance, such as Dwarf Fortress.

 

[WelshBloke]

Plot twist: With Fast Boot enabled, that's basically what you're doing as it doesn't completely shut down. Which is generally another factor when talking about how fast your computers boot time is.

Fast boot is a PITA. Microsoft keep reenabling it with every update on my PC then I can't remotely start-up my PC because WOL doesn't work with fast boot.

 

[EXCellR8]

As a side note: overclocking was never "needed" by anyone in the first place; processors work fine at stock speeds.

Definitely a misleading title for this thread.