Windows 7 requires more Voltage for same OC?

[ravaneli]

I decided to make a new thread instead of updating my old one, because other people may have the same problem.

I had been running a 64b Vista ultimate for several months at 4.0 Ghz @ 1.31V(in BIOS, `1.26 after vdroop)

Fresh install of W7 Ultimate 64b without touching anything in BIOS gave me a hell of a headache. I was getting blue screens randomly. Messed with all drivers to no avail. Finally, just to write that off as well, I increased the voltage to 1.35 in BIOS (~1.31 after vdroop). Ten days later, and not a single blue screen ever since.

Anyone has any explanation about this? I thought W7 was more power efficient than Vista?

 

[nd4spdbh2]

havnt had any probs ... been running 3.4ghz on my e6600 at the same voltage on xp and win 7... havnt had any stability issues... tbh Win7 has been far more stable than xp was.... less quirky.

 

[Sydney]

The OS shouldn't have any effect on how stable the OC is, the only explanation I can think of would be that vista wasn't using the CPU to the same amount that W7 is.

 

[DaveHCYJ]

Anyone has any explanation about this? I thought W7 was more power efficient than Vista?

Where did you hear that? I saw a review on tomshardware that showed Win7 in any given moment using MORE power than Vista, but also getting jobs done more quickly than Vista.

So this is probably just another one of those cases where a new/diff program taxes your system in a way it had never been taxed before that exposes an instability that was already there?

 

[ravaneli]

well, it had longer battery life on laptops... Anandtech source

And OS DOES have effect on overclock. Ask any AMD owner that you can't OC the Phenom II past 4.0 Ghz with a 64b system, but you can do it with a 32b.

Weird, but all problems gone with a lil more juice. I guess I was running right on the border w Vista, and with W7 being faster uses more power too. On desktops at least.

 

[DaveHCYJ]

Win7 does have better battery life, but that is for a host a reasons. Some of which have nothing to do with OC such as dimming the screen sooner by default, but it could also have to do with being more efficient. Ex: if Win7 draws 100watts for 10 minutes while Vista draws 90watts for 15 minutes then Win7 taxed the system more And used less total power.


The OS arguement is still a false one though -- if you use a 32bit OS and the 64 bit instructions in your processor do not execute propperly you would never know or care, because your OS never taxed the processor in that way. When you move to a 64bit OS and all of a sudden are doing new different things (using the 64 bit instructions that were previously unused), it isn't that your OS just made your system unstable -- the OS just revealed the previously hidden instability.

 

[iLoki]

Win7 does have better battery life, but that is for a host a reasons. Some of which have nothing to do with OC such as dimming the screen sooner by default, but it could also have to do with being more efficient. Ex: if Win7 draws 100watts for 10 minutes while Vista draws 90watts for 15 minutes then Win7 taxed the system more And used less total power.


The OS arguement is still a false one though -- if you use a 32bit OS and the 64 bit instructions in your processor do not execute propperly you would never know or care, because your OS never taxed the processor in that way. When you move to a 64bit OS and all of a sudden are doing new different things (using the 64 bit instructions that were previously unused), it isn't that your OS just made your system unstable -- the OS just revealed the previously hidden instability.

I think it all depends on how you look at it really. Both of your are somewhat correct. While its not the OS itself that caused the instability it did expose it.

Back on topic for a sec here: I always restore defaults before I install the OS, just to avoid any potential for issues that may or may not be there.

My specs are in my sig and they're exactly the same as I was running in Vista.
(now Windows 7 Ultimate x64)