LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux - General (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/)
-   -   System stability/performance, Linux vs WinXP questions... (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/system-stability-performance-linux-vs-winxp-questions-116443/)

hollywoodb 11-15-2003 03:59 PM

System stability/performance, Linux vs WinXP questions...
 
I have a couple of questions....

Hardware:
AMD AthlonXP 2100+ T-Bred
Epox 8RDA+ nforce2 mobo
Generic PC2700 DDR (1.0 GB)
WD 80GB 7200 RPM 2MB Cache HD
NEC 16x CDRW
Generic (lite-on variant i think) 16x DVD
nVidia GeForceFX 5600 256MB

Gentoo Linux 1.4
2.4.20 kernel with gentoo patches
Do most my work under Gnome 2.4 desktop

I'm a bit of an overclocker (as much as I can afford to be), and right now I'm running @ right around 2 GHz (162x12.5).... my el cheapo memory *should* be completely stable @ 166MHz (DDR333)

Anyways, I can clock my FSB up to 162 stable and still boot XP; however I can clock up to 172 and boot Linux stable. WinXP gives me blue screens above 162....
Why exactly is this?

Also, I can burn CDs just above 16x with my burner (avg right around 17.8x) under Linux, but I get burn errors if I try to do this under XP using Nero or any other prog...
Why is this? My burner *shouldn't* even be capable of burning above 16x

Lastly, my hard drive performance (transfer rates) are roughly 33% faster under Linux using ReiserFS vs NTFS under XP, even after doing every optimisation in the book.....
Why is this?

I'm just curious as to why Linux is able to utilize my hardware to a fuller potential than XP, especially regarding my hard drive (I don't understand the performance discrepancies between OSes), and why XP won't even boot correctly at my RAM's default stock speed (166MHz, DDR333)??

It really surprises me that Linux is able to run stable at 172MHz FSB when I'm using the cheapest PC2700 money can buy.

I'm looking for some technical answers, not the "because Linux is a better OS" answers....

Offtopic:
BTW, what is an "unsafe" operating temp for my processor? right now I'm always right around 50 degrees Celsius, even under constant heavy loads... I'm looking to get some new memory, some active cooling for my mobo, and a better heatsink and hopefully get my FSB up closer to 200, but I don't want to toast my processor. I've seen quite a few different numbers in regards to how hot my 2100+ can run safely.... even all the way up to 87 degrees Celsius.

chup 11-15-2003 04:41 PM

50 C seems pretty safe, it should be ok until 70 C i think.
and about the hd performance, i think its because of the filesystems.
i dont have any other answers for you, these are just my guesses :)
youll have to find a real geek for the correct answers to all your q's ;)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:22 PM.