Esato Forums - General discussions : Non mobile discussion : 64 bit problems

> New Topic
> Reply
< Esato Forum Index > General discussions > Non mobile discussion > 64 bit problems Bookmark topic

zyexx Posts: 127

I bought this board (K8N Neo2-F) and a 64 bit processor to go with it. The precessor can be clocked in the bios from 200 to 232. So I put on a beta version of Vista on it at 200, then I tried to increase the clock speed to 232 now it not booting...it searching for the os. I tried to install a 64 bit version of windows but drivers that I got with the mother board for Sata hard drives not compattable with that version of windows (64 bit). When I try to use a regular version of Xp it says there is an error and it cannot continue, however when I set the clock speed back to 200, it boots ok back to the vista as before. What u think I should do...ned some help

--
Posted: 2006-06-05 15:19:24
Edit : Quote

Cycovision Posts: > 500

Don't put the clock speed upto 232

Seriously, overclocking a modern processor is pretty pointless, the performance increase is in most cases barely noticible. If you must overclock, do it in increments using a software utility from within windows (most mobo manufacturers provide an overclocking utility).

Also, since Vista is still very much in beta I wouldn't try fancy stuff like overclocking with it just yet. What happens if you try to install XP with the default BIOS settings? Still get an error message?

_________________
'He who laughs last, laughs longest. Or didn't get the joke...'

[ This Message was edited by: Cycovision on 2006-06-05 17:04 ]
--
Posted: 2006-06-05 18:03:08
Edit : Quote

Sage Posts: 233

Quote:
On 2006-06-05 18:03:08, Cycovision wrote:
Don't put the clock speed upto 232

Cycovision Posts: > 500

@Sage

Why? It's a question of percentages.

In the good old days, if you had a processor running at 1GHz and you overclocked it by 333Mhz, you'd have a speed increase of around about +33%, which is very noticeable. On the other hand, if you overclock a 2 GHz processor by the same amount you only get a 17% increase in performance. Do you think you could physically recognise a 17% increase in performance? I'd like to bet that you couldn't.

The point here is that you don't notice a 17% performance increase unless you are running a highly processor intensive task or you're idea of multi-tasking involves opening every single f*****g program in your start menu's all programs list at the same time.

I'm sorry mate, but I've been building and repairing computers for years and believe me, the only difference you'll see from overclocking modern machines is slightly improved scores in your benchmarking software.

And this isn't even beginning to take into account different system architectures, processor architectures, operating systems, configurations...

_________________
'He who laughs last, laughs longest. Or didn't get the joke...'

[ This Message was edited by: Cycovision on 2006-06-05 22:25 ]
--
Posted: 2006-06-05 23:24:08
Edit : Quote

Sage Posts: 233

aha! but cooling technology has increased considerably, so the percentages remain the same

. I can easily OC a 1.6 Ghz to a 2.3GHz, depending on the RAM.

but you are right on the "you won't notice much difference visibly" bit. Then again, it depends on what exactly he is goin to do with his computer. If he wants to run FEAR on full graphics on a triple monitor setup with autocad and mp4 encoding all at the same time, you bet your ass that little bit will make a difference.

[ This Message was edited by: Sage on 2006-06-13 15:42 ]
--
Posted: 2006-06-13 16:39:17
Edit : Quote

govigov Posts: > 500

well it sounds pretty clear to me dont OC !

--
Posted: 2006-06-13 16:42:13
Edit : Quote

New Topic Reply