Need help .

Well I have tryed to figuer out why this is but I can not maybe you all can help me out . ? I hope so .

I have been changing between 3 different OS's . First windows Vista home premium ( not a good Over Clocking OS and mostly just eye candy ) huge and bloated kept the Q6600 from hitting 3.4GHz every time with 1T timing as well . Highest I got was 3.2GHz 5-5-5-15 2T on ram . (Not at all very good ) and with 50+ Processes what a huge resource HOG ! OH yeah and you take a huge performance hit as well .

Switched to Windows XP pro. and was able to get 3.4GHz with 4-4-4-10 1T timings fully stable With 20 Processes running WOW and a huge gain in performance as well .

Switched to windows XP 64 bit Pro. again I see 26 Processes able to install OS with the same timings as XP pro 32 Bit . I get a bigger performance gain and well a 64 Bit os as well .

So why is it that Vista has lower OC potential ? Lower performance ?
Why is it that my XP 32 bit and 64 bit are higher OC potential and netting me way more performance ?

 

P.S. you all can see my scores from Vista to XP to XP64bit in the benchmark area of the forum.

 

http://www.planetamd64.com/index.php?showtopic=36806&st=0#entry341562

I posted this up here as well and well maybe I am wrong as I seemed to be getting bashed for posting what I have come across .

 

You are seeking a comparative assessment of OS versions and series in different environments which is "very" difficult to quantify and as you are finding results are very confusing,potentially contradicting from test to test. Your right all the eye-candy bloat to the practical and proven OS is an important consideration, next OS in 18 months :yum.

You presenting some damn good data hope your saving it in a good "data" form for analysis!

 

I haven't read that thread, but don't be surprised if some geeks want their e-pe-ises bigger than yours. They LOVE to correct people, instead of answering a question at hand. I like this forum the most to be honest cuz those geeks aren't around here. Yet.

That's an interesting finding. I don't disagree Vista is more of a resource hog than XP. But you can disable Aero if you wish. See what happens. With MS discontinuing XP, we can't hold onto XP for too long.

You're trying to achieve the highest stable overclock on windows with all your software installed. Some people are trying to show off their highest o/c on a fresh copy of windows. That's a difference. Some of them even optimize Windows to get a few more Mhz out of it. Don't know if that's considered cheating. I do the same as you. My o/c needs to be stable 24/7 with all my security software running. No compromise.

 

Thank You for that . I have to agree with you about that forum you want a laugh go and read what they said to me . It was a bashing on me I tried to tell it like I seen it ( Like I told you all here as a matter of fact ) and boy did I get a bashing for saying any thing about vista ! what a joke really we all know vista is a bloated OS and I know for a fact that I get higher scores with XP and XP 64 Bit ( both the pro version) .

 

Can any one here agree with this ?
From : Athildja I am sorry you feel that way but it is simply not the cae in the real world. If you are having stability issues with an OS during an overclock it is not the OS but more likely your drivers.
There are people that ran both XP Pro and Vista Ultimate.
and Vista outperformed XP on the same system. look at the post that contains the 3DMark Scores.
I am not going to argue with you anymore. I have a feeling you had your mind made up before you started testing.


This person over at the other forum is saying this to me . and I have looked all over the web to see the exact opposite ! And if it really is a driver issue then they have there heads up there RAM as they don't give me a lick of trouble in any one of the XP OS's even the 64 Bit one has great driver support . what is this person trying to say ? That I am wrong ? That I don't know what I am doing ? I do not get it . HELP me get it !

 

Some are living in a sense of denial I think and don't want to observe or admit the data you are presenting. It would be good if you did each run 3 times and generated averages. Some people become "one-eyed" and cant admit to the facts because it goes against their self imposed belief. It is like being an obsessive fan boy of Intel or AMD or nVidia vs. ATI and then staying with your beliefs rather than facts and then losing out in performance. In 4-5 years I might have an AMD system with nVidia but at the moment Intel with ATI is giving me decent bang for buck.

 

Yes I agree I just did a google search Vista Ultimate VS windows XP and well it is amazing the people that are saying the very same thing I am and I have proof . I can not run 3 tests on 3 different OS's I am really done taking the Fdisk to the max the past week and I just got XP back in 32 bit and all my games installed . Went back because 3 of my most fav. games would not run on the 64 bit OS so any way yeah it is back to XP till there is a new OS the can beat this one there is not going to be any more redoing of the computer for a long time .
I just do not get why it is so hard for some people to see the facts as they are right there I gave you all here that same stuff . all the same benchmarks with all 3 Operating systems and not one of you are telling me with the people over there are ! what gives with them ? so much blind fanboyisum ! I tell you this I do not like it one bit .

 

Just don't take it personally, if you keep an "open mind" you will at least see the benefits.

 

Dang Crash, you almost had me ready to buy XP64bit! What games don't run on the XP64?

Your info on the other thread is interesting. I have found that if you run one benchmark several times, you can end up with one really good score. Never figured that out.

E

 

I used to find that the second run was a little better as the first run RAM was accessing and storing data but by the second run most of the data was in the RAM and ran a little better especially with intense apps like 3DMark06.

 

Halo2 I could not get to run ( have it running great on XP pro) . lost planet extreme condition did not want to play . home world 2 was a no go for me as well .

Man I tell you I have to thank you all over her e very much for not only helping me out but keeping a calm and cool head over at the other place it is a debacle ! I have resined myself to thinking they just can not accept the facts that I have come out with and can not seem to think that some one just can not get there presious vista to run as well as XP pro or better yet XP 64 bit . this one person over there have even said that Vista 64 bit can run circles around XP pro 64 bit ( I can not say one way or the other on this ) I do know that when I goggled it the evidence proved that there is now way that the Vista 64 bit os was better than XP 64 bit . see some peole you just can't reach .

 

How do you know I am not on the other forum giving you hell? :-D

I like facts, and you have screen shots to back your ideas. Interesting to me.

E

 

LOL yesh I don't Know really . But they sure are giving me hell for the facts I have shown . I find it funny that the one admin there posted up scores on a Q6600 running both vista 64 bit and xp 64 bit and then I posted mine on my 64 bit (yes mine was at 3.4GHz ) But that was my whole point ! I can get way more from the previous versions of Windows and less ( WAY LESS) from the new version of windows and well that was what I was trying to get across not that the Vista OS was crap or any thing just that is was slowing ME down while the "OLD" OS was speeding me up !
Strange to me is all .

 

Ok you all must see that thread over there is is a JOKE I wrote this just now .
Ok so lets say that Vista is the end all be all of OS's why then the difference in OC'ing ? There is a big difference when you go from 1T - 2T timings and from 4-4-4-10 - 5-5-5-15 and another difference from 3.2GHz to 3.4GHz .
I can not deny these facts as you would have me . I am pointing out what I have been going through and once more as I know I could not test Vista home premium under the 3.4GHz state I guess you have a point but so do I . MY point being really that Vista is a good OS lots of eye candy and tons of processes 50 ! ( there is no doubt about that ) it for me is just a over all lower performing OS than the other 2 I have .
I think you miss the point on over clocking as we all know the bios controls the OC but it takes the OS to boot up and if you can not get a CPU to boot up on one OS but on another it is fully stable and fine at the same OC and HIGHER then this would make me believe that the OS is not stable not the OC . Being bloated and full of processes does not an OS make .
So in conclusion to my findings .
XP pro great performance great OC'er fast OS . Both 32 and 64 Bit .
Vista once again is slower overall and gives ME less performance over all . so how come this is so hard for you to take in? "
Still I fail to see why it is so hard for them to get it . You people here get it and know what I am talking about but these folks just can not handle the truth for some reason . WHY ???

 

We have still not seen any benchmark scores from Vista, compared to XP Pro at the same clock speed.
You are generalizing and comparing apples to oranges again you compare a 3.4GHx OC in x64 running 64-bit apps to a 3.2GHz OC in x86 running 32 bit apps.
What did you expect???

Hey, my 9770@3.2GHz in Vista x64 is faster than your Q6600 in XP x64 so that makes XP x64 crap right?

Now this guy is just plain *** lieing ! what a joke ! I seen his score and I seen mine faster than his !

 

Some just don't get !

http://www.planetamd64.com/index.php?showtopic=36806&st=0

Please read and tell me am I really that wrong ? I mean come on I have posted my results here and not one has told me any of the crap these people are telling me so what am I wrong ? or stupid or just not doing it right ?
Fromn the first post to the last post I hear them telling me that I am wrong so am I ?

 

Thank You . I will try not to match wits with others as well you got it right .