Vista not reading OC

bigrich0086

bigrich0086

Active Member
in vistas properties its still showing my cpu at stock 2.3 but i have it at 2.41.
Everest, core temp,and cpuz all read 2.41

209fsb
x11.5multi
1.25vcore
so i think vista is garbage and unreliable when it comes to OC
 
are you sure that is a reading? Many CPUs have a name that includes the stock clock speed. This is what Vista shows about my CPU "Intel Core 2 Quad CPU @2.40Ghz 3.00 Ghz
the first clock is actually just a part of the name of the CPU, the second clock is the detected clock.
 
yes im sure. is jsut says 2.3 which is stock name nothing else is shown after. but everything else does show the new OC settings along with bios
 
Its the same for me,im not sure why?

it says 2.4Ghz but im actualy running just over 3.2Ghz.

wvr.jpg
[/IMG]
 
Vista reads my overclock...it has the stock frequency and then to the side it lists the overclock frequency.

Untitled-8.jpg
 
ScOuT said:
Vista reads my overclock...it has the stock frequency and then to the side it lists the overclock frequency.

Untitled-8.jpg
Click to expand...

hmm its wierd how it shows some peoples and not others.

btw,whats with your temps? :D
 
Vista says mines at 3.6Ghz, when it's actually only at 3.2Ghz, it's because I'm using a X8 multi instead of the stock X9.
 
Kornowski said:
Vista says mines at 3.6Ghz, when it's actually only at 3.2Ghz, it's because I'm using a X8 multi instead of the stock X9.
Click to expand...

what are the advantages of x8 multi danny?

sorry to go slightly off topic bigrich0086 but as been as he mentioned it :good:

i dont know what it is with Vista rating,my system was rated 5.9 with 4gb of ram and now with 5gb its 5.8? :D

i scored more in 3d mark 06 with 5gb of ram...maybe because my timings changed.
i think vistas system rating thing is just crap :P
 
Most people seem to think that a higher FSB generally gives better performance. More throughput... If there is any its only by a very tiny margin :P

Damn I have a hair stuck in my laser mouse :D
 
Vista says mines at 3.6Ghz, when it's actually only at 3.2Ghz, it's because I'm using a X8 multi instead of the stock X9.
Click to expand...

same here now with x8 multi

rrr.jpg
 
Last edited:
Bootup05 said:
Most people seem to think that a higher FSB generally gives better performance. More throughput... If there is any its only by a very tiny margin :P

Damn I have a hair stuck in my laser mouse :D
Click to expand...

I have seen posts on people dissproving this to show a higher multi is actualy faster, I have no idea personaly but food for thought. At the very least I would agree it is a small difference either way.

I have my multi at 425x8 so I can run at 3.4 (preparing for summer, good bye 3.6 till next winter) and have ram at stock settings 1066. at 378x9 I can't hit 1066 with any memory multis. At 425 I can use 2.5c mem multi to hit 1066. I have G.Skill ram so I can't OC it. G.Skill is great, stable ram but, they sell it at max speed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top