Whats more stable Higher FSB or Multiplier ?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Just like to know, like the other people reading this.

Thanks.

HELLO NURSE.
27 answers Last reply
More about whats stable higher multiplier
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Orbital Defence" <ModenMr@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    news:fhahj0to5ruvsnr39tiuuv8f5glrg6m50h@4ax.com...
    >
    >
    > Just like to know, like the other people reading this.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > HELLO NURSE.

    Since the multiplier only overclocks the processor and the FSB overclocks
    memory as well, unless you have faster memory than the board requires, then
    I would expect the multiplier overclock to be more stable at the same speed.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Orbital Defence" <ModenMr@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    news:fhahj0to5ruvsnr39tiuuv8f5glrg6m50h@4ax.com...
    >
    >
    > Just like to know, like the other people reading this.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > HELLO NURSE.

    Neither. There should be no difference, as long as you are running within
    specifications. If you are stupid enough to overclock, then both higher fsb
    and higher multiplier can cause stability problems. -Dave
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    > Since the multiplier only overclocks the processor and the FSB overclocks
    > memory as well, unless you have faster memory than the board requires,
    then
    > I would expect the multiplier overclock to be more stable at the same
    speed.
    >

    Well, you're half right. Components are generally matched to the
    performance of a particular CPU. If that CPU is performing above
    specifications, then other components are working harder to keep up, even if
    their clock frequency is unaffected. That is, a CPU running at default FSB
    but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default FSB to
    have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for. If you are having
    trouble grasping that, think of walking two miles to the local grocery store
    at default walking speed. Now imagine walking two miles back from the
    grocery store at the same speed carrying ten full bags of groceries. Now
    you understand why changing a CPU multiplier can overload other components,
    even though they are operating at the same speed. By upping the CPU
    multiplier, you've just dumped many grocery bags on other components. -Dave
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 14:15:31 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

    >> Since the multiplier only overclocks the processor and the FSB overclocks
    >> memory as well, unless you have faster memory than the board requires,
    >then
    >> I would expect the multiplier overclock to be more stable at the same
    >speed.
    >>
    >
    >Well, you're half right. Components are generally matched to the
    >performance of a particular CPU. If that CPU is performing above
    >specifications, then other components are working harder to keep up, even if
    >their clock frequency is unaffected. That is, a CPU running at default FSB
    >but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default FSB to
    >have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for. If you are having
    >trouble grasping that, think of walking two miles to the local grocery store
    >at default walking speed. Now imagine walking two miles back from the
    >grocery store at the same speed carrying ten full bags of groceries. Now
    >you understand why changing a CPU multiplier can overload other components,
    >even though they are operating at the same speed. By upping the CPU
    >multiplier, you've just dumped many grocery bags on other components. -Dave
    >

    LOL! that's so silly, there are at least a dozen chips that all run at the same FSB speed and use a different multipliers, the chips are almost identical, in fact many
    slower chips are just the faster ones marked down to fill the demand for them!

    Ed
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in news:2prqlfFo1ppgU1@uni-berlin.de:

    > That is, a CPU running at default FSB
    > but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default
    > FSB to have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for.

    This long post doesnt make any sence. Different speed CPUs are often
    produced with same FSB and different multipliers.

    If a very fast CPU is talking over a slow BUS it simply has to wait for a
    reply.


    --
    Lordy
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Dave C. wrote:

    >> Since the multiplier only overclocks the processor and the FSB overclocks
    >>memory as well, unless you have faster memory than the board requires,
    >
    > then
    >
    >>I would expect the multiplier overclock to be more stable at the same
    >
    > speed.
    >
    >
    > Well, you're half right. Components are generally matched to the
    > performance of a particular CPU.

    Poppycock. No engineer in his right mind is designing motherboards, or
    anything else for that matter, 'to the performance of a particular CPU' and
    certainly no manufacturer that's been in business for more than a few days
    is either because nobody wants to stock 16 bazillion parts 'tuned' to 'a
    particular CPU', even if there were such a thing, and make special builds
    for each 'particular CPU' in every model option that's going to change on
    the next price adjustment anyway.

    > If that CPU is performing above
    > specifications, then other components are working harder to keep up, even if
    > their clock frequency is unaffected. That is, a CPU running at default FSB
    > but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default FSB to
    > have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for.

    More poppycock.

    > If you are having
    > trouble grasping that, think of walking two miles to the local grocery store
    > at default walking speed. Now imagine walking two miles back from the
    > grocery store at the same speed carrying ten full bags of groceries. Now
    > you understand why changing a CPU multiplier can overload other components,
    > even though they are operating at the same speed. By upping the CPU
    > multiplier, you've just dumped many grocery bags on other components.

    I warned you about the ridiculous analogies before.

    > -Dave
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    > > That is, a CPU running at default FSB
    > > but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default
    > > FSB to have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for.
    >
    > This long post doesnt make any sence. Different speed CPUs are often
    > produced with same FSB and different multipliers.
    >
    > If a very fast CPU is talking over a slow BUS it simply has to wait for a
    > reply.
    >
    >


    This is why people shouldn't overclock if they don't understand how that
    will affect ALL components. And the people who do understand it DON'T DO
    IT. OF COURSE the CPU is waiting for a reply . . . and the CPU is only one
    component of your entire system. If you don't understand that, don't worry
    about it. Just don't overclock. -Dave
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Dave C. wrote:

    >>>That is, a CPU running at default FSB
    >>>but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default
    >>>FSB to have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for.
    >>
    >>This long post doesnt make any sence. Different speed CPUs are often
    >>produced with same FSB and different multipliers.
    >>
    >>If a very fast CPU is talking over a slow BUS it simply has to wait for a
    >>reply.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    > This is why people shouldn't overclock if they don't understand how that
    > will affect ALL components. And the people who do understand it DON'T DO
    > IT. OF COURSE the CPU is waiting for a reply . . . and the CPU is only one
    > component of your entire system. If you don't understand that, don't worry
    > about it. Just don't overclock. -Dave


    What people shouldn't do is post absurd arguments about overclocking when
    it's obvious they don't know what they're talking about.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in news:2psalkFolpbuU1@uni-berlin.de:

    > This is why people shouldn't overclock if they don't understand how
    > that will affect ALL components. And the people who do understand it
    > DON'T DO IT. OF COURSE the CPU is waiting for a reply . . . and the
    > CPU is only one component of your entire system. If you don't
    > understand that, don't worry about it. Just don't overclock. -Dave

    You post prior to this one was still full of nonsense.
    I dont mind people being wrong. I have been on occasion! Its just when the
    are stubbornly wrong and ignore correction...

    You said

    "That is, a CPU running at default FSB
    but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default FSB to
    have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for"

    Which is bollox I'm afraid. Then you went on with a long "analogy" to
    further illustrate your mistake.


    --
    Lordy
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in news:2psalkFolpbuU1@uni-berlin.de:

    >> If a very fast CPU is talking over a slow BUS it simply has to wait
    >> for a reply.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    > This is why people shouldn't overclock if they don't understand how
    > that will affect ALL components.

    Please explain how a CPU waiting for a response from a slow component over
    a slow BUS affects the component. Esp as the FSB is running in spec and
    thus the components attached to it are running in spec.(eg PCI, AGP etc)

    If components cant run at specced FSB than what does that imply about them?

    --
    Lordy
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in news:2psalkFolpbuU1@uni-berlin.de:

    > This is why people shouldn't overclock if they don't understand how
    > that will affect ALL components. And the people who do understand it
    > DON'T DO IT. OF COURSE the CPU is waiting for a reply . . . and the
    > CPU is only one component of your entire system. If you don't
    > understand that, don't worry about it. Just don't overclock. -Dave

    You post prior to this one was still full of nonsense.
    I dont mind people being wrong. I have been on occasion! Its just when the
    are stubbornly wrong and ignore correction...

    You said

    "That is, a CPU running at default FSB
    but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default FSB to
    have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for"

    Which is bollox I'm afraid. Then you went on with a pointless "analogy" to
    further illustrate your mistake.


    --
    Lordy
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    >
    > You said
    >
    > "That is, a CPU running at default FSB
    > but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default FSB
    to
    > have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for"
    >
    > Which is bollox I'm afraid. Then you went on with a pointless "analogy" to
    > further illustrate your mistake.
    >
    >

    Ah, what's the point of arguing with someone who doesn't understand duty
    cycle and how overclocking affects it? When you can tell me how RAM (for
    example) works on a bit-by-bit basis, come back and tell me again why you
    think I'm wrong. Until then, you can scream at the top of your lungs that I
    made a mistake, but that doesn't make it so. -Dave
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Dave C. wrote:

    >>You said
    >>
    >>"That is, a CPU running at default FSB
    >>but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default FSB
    >
    > to
    >
    >>have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for"
    >>
    >>Which is bollox I'm afraid. Then you went on with a pointless "analogy" to
    >>further illustrate your mistake.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    > Ah, what's the point of arguing with someone who doesn't understand duty
    > cycle and how overclocking affects it? When you can tell me how RAM (for
    > example) works on a bit-by-bit basis, come back and tell me again why you
    > think I'm wrong.

    Show me what RAM you use that has a 'duty cycle' spec less than it's
    rating. Then show me the RAM you use that says it's PC2700, or PC3200, or
    anything else for that matter, but for only a 'particular processor'; as
    you claimed they make components for.

    Show me the nforce2 chipset that's for XP3200+ CPUs and then the same
    chipset that's made for XP2500+ CPUs 'particularly' so that the poor thing
    will be 'over stressed' if we plug an XP3200+ into it, or transparently
    overclock an XP2500+ to the same speed.

    > Until then, you can scream at the top of your lungs that I
    > made a mistake, but that doesn't make it so. -Dave

    He isn't screaming. It's simply that you are wrong which makes it so.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in news:2ptk89Fovq4gU1@uni-berlin.de:

    > When you can tell me how RAM (for
    > example) works on a bit-by-bit basis, come back and tell me again why
    > you think I'm wrong. Until then, you can scream at the top of your
    > lungs that I made a mistake, but that doesn't make it so


    OK, how does a XP2000 FSB 133 multiplier overclocked to equiv of a XP2400
    with the same FSB, causes any increase "duty cycle" on other components
    compared to a stock XP2400 at the same FSB on the same mobo ?

    --
    Lordy
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    >
    > OK, how does a XP2000 FSB 133 multiplier overclocked to equiv of a XP2400
    > with the same FSB, causes any increase "duty cycle" on other components
    > compared to a stock XP2400 at the same FSB on the same mobo ?
    >
    > --
    > Lordy

    It doesn't. But that small of an overclock won't make any difference in
    performance, either. Basically, you gain nothing by overclocking a small
    amount, and overstress all the components of your system if you overclock
    enough to gain a significant performance increase. Or as I've stated a
    billion times before, if you need a faster system, build one. -Dave
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Dave C. wrote:
    >>OK, how does a XP2000 FSB 133 multiplier overclocked to equiv of a XP2400
    >>with the same FSB, causes any increase "duty cycle" on other components
    >>compared to a stock XP2400 at the same FSB on the same mobo ?
    >>
    >>--
    >>Lordy
    >
    >
    > It doesn't. But that small of an overclock won't make any difference in
    > performance, either. Basically, you gain nothing by overclocking a small
    > amount,

    Besides your opinion of whether a 20% increase in processor speed 'makes a
    difference' being irrelevant, it is, again, also irrelevant to your
    argument because you flatly said, with no 'qualifiers', that overclocking
    by raising only the multiplier, leaving the FSB the same, would increase
    the 'duty cycle' on everything else in the system so he provided you with
    an example 100% consistent with your claim and challenged you to support it.

    You dealt the cards and you've been called. Either play or fold.

    > and overstress all the components of your system if you overclock
    > enough to gain a significant performance increase.

    More wild generic claims with no basis whatsoever.

    > Or as I've stated a
    > billion times before,

    Gobbledygook is not improved by repetition

    > if you need a faster system, build one. -Dave

    And overclocking is one way to "build one."
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    >
    > > if you need a faster system, build one. -Dave
    >
    > And overclocking is one way to "build one."
    >

    Well on that much at least we can agree. We'll never agree on the correct
    way to build one, but overclocking is certainly one way. -Dave
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    > Well, you're half right. Components are generally matched to the
    > performance of a particular CPU. If that CPU is performing above
    > specifications, then other components are working harder to keep up, even if
    > their clock frequency is unaffected. That is, a CPU running at default FSB
    > but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default FSB to
    > have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for. If you are having
    > trouble grasping that, think of walking two miles to the local grocery store
    > at default walking speed. Now imagine walking two miles back from the
    > grocery store at the same speed carrying ten full bags of groceries. Now
    > you understand why changing a CPU multiplier can overload other components,
    > even though they are operating at the same speed. By upping the CPU
    > multiplier, you've just dumped many grocery bags on other components. -Dave

    Sorry, but setting the multiplier one higher than spec will have no
    difference on the rest of your system as replacing the CPU with a
    slightly faster version. As long as your mobo supports the faster chip
    it will support the overclocked slower chip.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    >>>if you need a faster system, build one. -Dave
    >>
    >>And overclocking is one way to "build one."
    >>
    >
    >
    > Well on that much at least we can agree. We'll never agree on the correct
    > way to build one, but overclocking is certainly one way. -Dave

    I would agree that if you *need* a faster system you should build one,
    but for some people overclocking is a hobby. Hell I would make the
    argument that most people don't really *need* a computer at all :)
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in news:2ptrfjFp5jmpU1@uni-berlin.de:

    > Or as I've stated a
    > billion times before, if you need a faster system, build one

    I agree with that. I just think you overstated your case.

    --
    Lordy
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in news:2ptrfjFp5jmpU1@uni-berlin.de:

    >>
    >> OK, how does a XP2000 FSB 133 multiplier overclocked to equiv of a
    >> XP2400 with the same FSB, causes any increase "duty cycle" on other
    >> components compared to a stock XP2400 at the same FSB on the same
    >> mobo ?
    >>
    >> --
    >> Lordy
    >
    > It doesn't.

    But you said

    ""That is, a CPU running at default FSB
    but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default FSB to
    have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for""


    --
    Lordy
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in
    news:10jjgrpr3utrfbe@corp.supernews.com:

    > Show me what RAM you use that has a 'duty cycle' spec less than it's
    > rating. Then show me the RAM you use that says it's PC2700, or PC3200,
    > or anything else for that matter, but for only a 'particular
    > processor'; as you claimed they make components for.

    Exacty. Todays CPUs alreay have large multipliers compared to the FSB.
    So they can already saturate the FSB without breaking a sweat. The FSB
    throttles everything down so Memory, PCI, AGP and all other parts run
    within spec.

    In a way this supports Daves Cs ill-presented argument that multiplier
    overclocks dont generally give much performance gain (but we all know this
    already) as at the same clock speed, the faster CPU sits around twiddling
    its thumbs almost as much as a slower one. If you have very CPU bound
    applications then this can make a difference. (Photoshop Filters, Encoding
    video etc) but for Joe Bloggs nothing to write home about.

    --
    Lordy
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in
    news:10jjgrpr3utrfbe@corp.supernews.com:

    > Show me what RAM you use that has a 'duty cycle' spec less than it's
    > rating. Then show me the RAM you use that says it's PC2700, or PC3200,
    > or anything else for that matter, but for only a 'particular
    > processor'; as you claimed they make components for.

    Exacty. Todays CPUs alreay have large multipliers compared to the FSB.
    So they can already saturate the FSB without breaking a sweat. The FSB
    throttles everything down so Memory, PCI, AGP and all other parts run
    within spec.

    In a way this supports Daves Cs ill-presented argument that multiplier
    overclocks dont generally give much performance gain (but we all know this
    already) as at the same clock speed, the faster CPU sits around twiddling
    its thumbs more than a slower one. If you have very CPU bound
    applications then this can make a difference. (Photoshop Filters, Encoding
    video etc) but for Joe Bloggs nothing to write home about.


    --
    Lordy
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    David Besack <daveREMOVEbesack@mac.com> wrote in news:chcral$br88$2
    @netnews.upenn.edu:

    > I would agree that if you *need* a faster system you should build one,
    > but for some people overclocking is a hobby. Hell I would make the
    > argument that most people don't really *need* a computer at all :)
    >

    What is this a Dave/David convention?

    --
    Lordy
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Lordy wrote:

    > David Besack <daveREMOVEbesack@mac.com> wrote in news:chcral$br88$2
    > @netnews.upenn.edu:
    >
    >
    >>I would agree that if you *need* a faster system you should build one,
    >>but for some people overclocking is a hobby. Hell I would make the
    >>argument that most people don't really *need* a computer at all :)
    >>
    >
    >
    > What is this a Dave/David convention?
    >

    LOL

    Feeling left out?
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Lordy wrote:

    > David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in
    > news:10jjgrpr3utrfbe@corp.supernews.com:
    >
    >
    >>Show me what RAM you use that has a 'duty cycle' spec less than it's
    >>rating. Then show me the RAM you use that says it's PC2700, or PC3200,
    >>or anything else for that matter, but for only a 'particular
    >>processor'; as you claimed they make components for.
    >
    >
    > Exacty. Todays CPUs alreay have large multipliers compared to the FSB.
    > So they can already saturate the FSB without breaking a sweat. The FSB
    > throttles everything down so Memory, PCI, AGP and all other parts run
    > within spec.

    Agreed, although I wouldn't use 'throttle' because I think it might give
    impressions that may not be quite accurate (It isn't as if it's 'purpose'
    is to slow things down. It's there because the other things are inherently
    slower and need the accommodation). Suffice to say that, in the given
    examples we're dealing with, those devices are operating at the speeds
    they're spec'd to operate at.

    Which wouldn't necessarily be the case for all kinds of overclocking but
    we'd first need to get over the hump of the simple version before moving to
    more complex varieties.


    > In a way this supports Daves Cs ill-presented argument that multiplier
    > overclocks dont generally give much performance gain (but we all know this
    > already) as at the same clock speed, the faster CPU sits around twiddling
    > its thumbs almost as much as a slower one. If you have very CPU bound
    > applications then this can make a difference. (Photoshop Filters, Encoding
    > video etc) but for Joe Bloggs nothing to write home about.
    >

    The same thing can be said for the person trying to decide between buying
    an XP 3000+/333 vs the less expensive XP2500+/333, but that's a different
    topic.

    Amusingly enough, it could also be used as an argument 'for' (experimenting
    with) overclocking just as much as against it because if you manage it then
    'kewl' but if you don't then it doesn't really matter ;)

    Btw, I'm not suggesting that anyone should overclock anything, and there
    are definite tradeoffs/risks involved, but Dave C's 'explanations' of the
    matter are simply and fundamentally incorrect.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Dave C. wrote:

    >>>if you need a faster system, build one. -Dave
    >>
    >>And overclocking is one way to "build one."
    >>
    >
    >
    > Well on that much at least we can agree. We'll never agree on the correct
    > way to build one, but overclocking is certainly one way. -Dave

    It's very possible that, given a particular set of circumstances and a
    definition of what 'correct' is in those circumstances, we might agree but
    I don't agree with one-size-fits-all, broad brush generalizations based on
    myth and faulty assumptions.
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Hardware Systems