Which combination is better?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Say if I want my CPU to run at 2Ghz and I have three possibilities:

- 10 x 200Mhz
- 12 x 166Mhz
- 15 x 133Mhz

Which combination would be the better for overall performance? Assume memory BUS
runs at 400Mhz (PC3200). Ignore the few negligible Mhz difference.

Thanks!

 

[tE]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

The best bet is to run with as fast of a FSB that you can, so the
10x200 is the best bet.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

<te@ivorypetal.com> wrote in message
news:1106442849.585964.116310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> The best bet is to run with as fast of a FSB that you can, so the
> 10x200 is the best bet.
>
Also running the FSB in sync with the memory speed always provides the best
performance. Even if it's slower overall. I.E. Memory and FSB at 166 is
faster than Memory at 200 and FSB at 166.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Kill Bill" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:9qEId.63810$Ew6.2264@twister.socal.rr.com...
|
| <te@ivorypetal.com> wrote in message
| news:1106442849.585964.116310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| > The best bet is to run with as fast of a FSB that you can, so the
| > 10x200 is the best bet.
| >
| Also running the FSB in sync with the memory speed always provides the best
| performance. Even if it's slower overall. I.E. Memory and FSB at 166 is
| faster than Memory at 200 and FSB at 166.
|
|

Thanks all for replying!

I am actually running at 10x200 and in-sync memory!