overclocking fubar after vista

[tornadog]

I had my Opteron running at 350 x 8(1.5V) on my box running XP SP2. During summer I had set it back to 250 x 9(1.35V) because of high ambient temperatures. Anyway I upgraded to Vista since then and yesterday, I was trying to overclock for the first time in Vista. The system booted fine at 350 x 8 but in Vista, it gave me mutiple errors like SVHost has to close, network Conenctions has to close, etc. Finally when I tried opening the control panel, I got a BSOD with DRIVER IRQ less or not equal error. I set it back to 250 x 8 and now its working fine. I have also tried different other Mhz and multipliers but nothing above 250 seems to be working.

 

[biostud]

vista 32 or 64-bit

 

[T2k]

Vista is a crap anyway, pathetic memory and CPU hog for nothing and it's worse when it comes to OC.
I had EXACTLY the same experience when I tried my Opty 175 running @2.8-3.0GHz (depends which season it is ) but I was barely able to pass 2.6xGHz and never got stable.

Do what I did - avoid Vista, as long as you can. No need for Vista anyway, still full of bugs (using it at work since last November), a crapshoot in many ways and real resource hog without any meaningful return.

 

[Acanthus]

If your system was stable, vista will not make your overclock lower...

That being said, you may have installed on an unstable OC. Thats the only thing i can think of that will cause the intermittent problems you have described.

Make sure you are 100% stable in memtest86, format and reinstall should fix it all.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: T2k
Vista is a crap anyway, pathetic memory and CPU hog for nothing and it's worse when it comes to OC.
I had EXACTLY the same experience when I tried my Opty 175 running @2.8-3.0GHz (depends which season it is ) but I was barely able to pass 2.6xGHz and never got stable.

Do what I did - avoid Vista, as long as you can. No need for Vista anyway, still full of bugs (using it at work since last November), a crapshoot in many ways and real resource hog without any meaningful return.

Name some vista "bugs" for me. I've had trouble spotting them.

Memory and CPU hog? You are aware that windows caches your most used programs so they load faster...

And my idle CPU is 0% so i have no idea where thats coming from.

 

[MDE]

Why are you guys complaining about Vista in CPUs and Overclocking? Even so, if anything, Vista just exposed your unstable overclock. Dial it back and you'll be fine.

 

[PCTC2]

Vista has posed no problem with overclocking for me. I have run my Q6600 @ 3.0GHz and my E6400 @ 3.3 GHz on Vista Ultimate 64 fine. And it idles at around 1-5%. Memory usage is high because it caches all my most used programs so they load faster, as Acanthus stated. Just leave it at 250 x 8 and be happy.

 

[aka1nas]

The folks who complain about one OS giving them a worse overclock than another are usually the same guys who keep saying they don't need to run Prime because all the apps they use aren't crashing.:roll:

 

[JackMDS]

Originally posted by: T2k
Vista is a crap anyway, pathetic memory and CPU hog for nothing and it's worse when it comes to OC.

You can go back to DOSS3.3:thumbsup:

Very stable need only 64MB and pair of floppies would do.

While doing so you can also get rid of your car and buy a horse.:light:

Heck, you can also sell your computer and buy an Abacus.

On a serious side Vista is Not perfect, early next year there would be a release of SP1 that would take care of some of Vista initial bugs. BTW I do not think that most of the residual bugs are of the type that affect End-Users.

Some third party vendors of Hardware and software did not adjust their hardware/programs to Vista and users of such devices/programs who cannot switch to other vendors should wait.

Being a network guy I have 8 functional computers most of them OC, all but two (I need WinXP so I can have it in front of me in case of a need to help WinXP user). None of the OC setting provided any trouble because of the switch to Vista.

 

[tornadog]

Ok tried something just for the heck of it...300 x 9 but this time HTT at 2.5x instead of 3, Vcore at 1.35V, Ram at 2.7V(3:4) @ 450 Mhz and no crashes. Havent run memtest or any stress testing tools but I have used the machine for standard use for the last 2 hours without a crash. I realize 300 x 2.5 = 750 instead of the original 1000, where does this decrease come into effect?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Name some vista "bugs" for me. I've had trouble spotting them.

Seriously? Where do I start? How about the fact that Micro$t wants to be paid to let software run on their OS? Some of the best software I've ever used has been free, and cannot be run on Vista. Oh, and what about if you pay them $400 for the retail version of their best OS, you then are only only able to change your motherboard or processor a max of 3 times.

That doesn't even mention any of the bugs that anyone who uses Vista knows are still there, which admittedly will most likely be taken care of whenever SP1 finally comes about.

 

[wwswimming]

You can go back to DOSS3.3:thumbsup:

i have a sealed copy. would love to get $100 for it.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Name some vista "bugs" for me. I've had trouble spotting them.

How about the fact that Micro$t wants to be paid to let software run on their OS?

Some of the best software I've ever used has been free, and cannot be run on Vista.

Oh, and what about if you pay them $400 for the retail version of their best OS, you then are only only able to change your motherboard or processor a max of 3 times.

That doesn't even mention any of the bugs that anyone who uses Vista knows are still there, which admittedly will most likely be taken care of whenever SP1 finally comes about.

Not a bug (and i dont know what youre talking about)
Not a bug
Not a bug

and in the 4th line you mention the bugs we all know are there, but fail to specify even one.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: JackMDS

Originally posted by: T2k
Vista is a crap anyway, pathetic memory and CPU hog for nothing and it's worse when it comes to OC.

You can go back to DOSS3.3:thumbsup:

Very stable need only 64MB and pair of floppies would do.

While doing so you can also get rid of your car and buy a horse.:light:

AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

DOS OWNS! Stupid windows!


But yeah, i have a copy of vista ultimate sitting on my desk i dont use. Got it free from microsoft though a promotion. Tried it once, noticed about 75% of my software doesnt work. Cant install because it said i didnt have administrator privlages. WTF!

Im back on winXP 64. Havent looked back yet. Maybe give Vista another shot at SP1.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: tornadog
Ok tried something just for the heck of it...300 x 9 but this time HTT at 2.5x instead of 3, Vcore at 1.35V, Ram at 2.7V(3:4) @ 450 Mhz and no crashes. Havent run memtest or any stress testing tools but I have used the machine for standard use for the last 2 hours without a crash. I realize 300 x 2.5 = 750 instead of the original 1000, where does this decrease come into effect?

Running at 300x2.5 will have no real impact. There were a lot of test done previously that show lowering the HTT has basicly no performance impact. Good to see you got your OC stable.

 

[stevty2889]

Regardles of the fact that Vista isn't perfect, there should be no impact on an overclock based on the OS. Either the OC is stable, or it's not. My only complaint I still have about Vista is gaming performance.

I've benchmarks showing equal performance for Vista and XP, but nothing I tried has improved my vista gaming performance. I haven't had problems getting any to run, I havne't had problems getting any other application to run(other than core temp, but there seems to be a fix for that now). As for stability, Vista seems to be more stable, the readyboost makes it feel more responsive(and it takes advantage of my 6gig of ram). There are still no drivers for my soundcard either, but thats hardly Vista's fault, M-audio has had more than enough time to at least get a beta driver out there.

I switched back to XP from vista, but only because of gaming performance, I really don't have any other issues with it.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: JackMDS

Originally posted by: T2k
Vista is a crap anyway, pathetic memory and CPU hog for nothing and it's worse when it comes to OC.

You can go back to DOSS3.3:thumbsup:

Very stable need only 64MB and pair of floppies would do.

While doing so you can also get rid of your car and buy a horse.:light:

AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

DOS OWNS! Stupid windows!


But yeah, i have a copy of vista ultimate sitting on my desk i dont use. Got it free from microsoft though a promotion. Tried it once, noticed about 75% of my software doesnt work. Cant install because it said i didnt have administrator privlages. WTF!

Im back on winXP 64. Havent looked back yet. Maybe give Vista another shot at SP1.

Simply disable UAC.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Originally posted by: tornadog
I had my Opteron running at 350 x 8(1.5V) on my box running XP SP2. During summer I had set it back to 250 x 9(1.35V) because of high ambient temperatures. Anyway I upgraded to Vista since then and yesterday, I was trying to overclock for the first time in Vista. The system booted fine at 350 x 8 but in Vista, it gave me mutiple errors like SVHost has to close, network Conenctions has to close, etc. Finally when I tried opening the control panel, I got a BSOD with DRIVER IRQ less or not equal error. I set it back to 250 x 8 and now its working fine. I have also tried different other Mhz and multipliers but nothing above 250 seems to be working.

Overclocking is all about margin. All cpu's have plenty of margin at the default speed. This allows for reliable operation in high ambient temperatures, dust on cooler fins, failing fans, etc.

You can run on lower margin and achieve higher speeds but that comes at the risk of crashing if you breach that absolute max speed the cpu will run at. It would appear that your original overclock that you settled upon was too close to the margin limit as evidenced by having to turn things back with higher temps. Newer operating systems with their increasingly complex requirements/ios, etc. WILL stumble if the system has a problem.

I've overclocked many systems that could run desktop applications for weeks and even play games or run 3DMark. A serious stress testing program like PrimeSMP or OCCT would crash in seconds, however. For a much higher success rate in overclocking, find the limits of the hardware and back off a few notches so you still have some margin for higher temps. (and sticky things like Vista hehe!)

I strongly disagree with this statement.

If it was prime stable in the 1st place, the issues would not have cropped up, regardless of the OS.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Originally posted by: Acanthus

I strongly disagree with this statement.

If it was prime stable in the 1st place, the issues would not have cropped up, regardless of the OS.

The OP said when it was warm they had to back down. It's all about margins. If Prime is not used correctly it's not of any use. For example a system tested for a week prime stable (blend) failed within 30 minutes using small blocks. The CPU will run hotter and fail the test.

I've had systems pass all tests in Prime but fail OCCT. Never had a program err out but reducing the speed resulted in everything stable. It's either stable or not. I'd be willing to bet most overclocks are not truly stable under a variety of conditions. Fortunately modern day (core) chips are good overclockers and this large margin guarantees stability under the most adverse of conditions.

We seem to be saying the same thing, only your description is a lot more wordy

If you dont stress all of the components of your rig when you are stress testing, putting it in a condition that wasnt stressed can cause it to crash.

Both of us seem to be saying that it wasnt tested properly, if thats the case, i retract my disagreement from yesterday.