I am behind the times, I just got vista premium.

m^2 · Post by **m^2** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:07 am

Nick Geraedts wrote:
m^2 wrote:Vista/2k8 is number one in 3D mark with SLI, CPU-Z, PC-Mark 05 (which has transparency test, guess why Vista wins here).
XP/2k/2k3 in 9 categories.
Some don't have screenshots.
You're also comparing apples to oranges here. You can't make an equal comparison when the systems you linked to have different hardware profiles, different overclocks, etc etc etc. The OC forums that I've looked through seem to show that Vista is more picky when it comes to determining if a system is unstable. Just because it doesn't crash in XP doesn't mean that it's fully stable.

You started the talking about top overclocking and this is never fully stable. It has to run a few apps and nothing more.

And I'm a regular visitor of a large OC forum too (XS) - no, you can't find many posts saying that Vista is more stable.

Nick Geraedts · Post by **Nick Geraedts** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:25 am

My point was to say that Vista is more picky about hardware stability than XP is. Most of those screenshots are taken with XP because it will allow the overclockers to boot up, run the benchmarks, and post them, while Vista would start throwing errors. Sure, you might get higher benchmarks in XP because you squeezed another 50MHz out of the CPU, but the if the system isn't really stable, then what's the point?

Look back at systems running at stock speed. Vista is more likely to catch hardware errors (and give you a chance to do something about them) than XP is.