Win2k better at o/c'ing than 98??????

[M 0]

overclock my celery to 550mhz in 2000, and it fires up and i can quake till my heart's content....TRY to boot up '98, NO WAY...go figure...

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[chameleon 0]

hmmm, thats pretty lucky, and what's that a celery 300a ? c'mon celery lovers lets see if M got lucky or if it really is win2k !?

 

I would think with windows 2000 better resource management and with its way better 32bit code that it wont crash so quick as win98 will crash if you sneeze too many times, win2k is too stable for an overclocked celery to find a weakness to quick, could be. hey M what's the longest uptime you've had, both in win2k and quake ?

 

chameleon win2kbox.8m.com

[Adospaz 0]

Oddly enough, I got the same results, but it does crash after a LONG while, and the crashes are few and far between. (I hate win2k blue screen of death, it makes it seem so serious.)

 

Adam

[M 0]

Well, it's actually a 366 guys...

 

do that with a 300? is that possible with the clock multiplier?

 

win2k is rock steady, it won't crash, even at 1.95 volts. 98 needs 2.1 volts, then quaking is fine...

 

Also, the processor being clocked at 550 seems to have made clocking my tnt2 more difficult...98's just plain unstable.

 

Can't wait till all the 2000 drivers are ready for prime time!

[Seldzar 0]

Hmmmm sounds odd.....I had my pc boot into 98 at 550(100x5.5@ 2.1 volts) but win2k would not boot it would blue screen on me right at boot up or partway through bootup. I really haven't screwed with it that much but 528 is solid for me. Be happy with the fact that it works good in win2k =) screw win98.

 

[This message has been edited by Seldzar (edited 21 November 1999).]

[M 0]

Muhahahhahaaaa

 

(Need good tnt drivers.....)

 

then 98 is banished forever...

[Laddyboy 0]

In Build 2160 I run my 366@550 without a problem....played lots of UT

 

Lator Gator

[dolce 0]

dam it....

i though it was easy to overclock in win2k :-( . just ****ty that i can't overclock mine in win98 or even win2k at 682mhz on my abit BP6.. i guess i am happy with 605mhz at 1.95 volts..

 

but 682mhz is just the next front side bus up too.. arrgh.. why couldn't they have made 112fsb, 115fsb, (117fsb 1/3 1/4)

cause 110fsb on my 366's are just not what these things are able to do.. it can go more...

 

well i should be happy with dual 366's at 605mhz.

only costed me $83 tax included for these cheap cpus.. i even bought an extra one.. hehe

[M 0]

FREAK!

[Greggy 0]

I have always run my dual 366 Celerons at 566MHz at 2.0 volts under NT4/Win 2000 and Win98 and have had no problems at all with the CPUs. I'd have to say Win 2000 was the most unstable...probably due to TNT2 Ultra driver issues rather than overclocked CPUs.

[antrant 0]

when idle, win2k give the cpu(s) a hlt command, which actually cools them down. win89 just let them idle with a regular instruction loop.