Running in XP instead of VISTA knocked off almost .8s, though had to take the voltage a touch higher from 1.6875 to 1.7v. Runs a little cooler in XP too.
WannaGoFast- 05-11-2007
That is a pretty significant difference for sure. Figured you would have better luck with XP
Merc- 05-11-2007
Wow Wanna, i didn't even notice you took the lead. Well done. I have to get my RAM to 1T. CC, well done as well. You are #2 now. Not a good advertisement for Vista.
WannaGoFast- 05-11-2007
It would've been fun to hold top INTEL and top AMD. But Etracer would prove very hard to catch on the AMD! And once you guy's get dialed in you will be right up there to. Thats why I created the 11 second category. Might even need a 10 second one with the quads comin in.
cool_case- 05-11-2007
QUOTE (WannaGoFast @ May 11, 2007 06:58 am)
That is a pretty significant difference for sure. Figured you would have better luck with XP
Yeah - glad that the XP suggestion from you and others came forward. I like having XP by itself on a SATA drive that can be either connected or not. Much less problematic than a dual boot. Was hoping it would give better benches and it did!
I see you're oc was only 5Mhz higher in the fsb than mine. That means two things - my chip is pretty decent and I'll have to try to get in the < 13s club.