Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

400 MHz FSB vs 1600MHz FSB

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 7, 2006 8:33:25 PM

I have an early P4 1.8GHz at 400 MHz FSB and am considering a deal to upgrade to an A64 3500+ at 2.2 GHz. The FSB on this is 1600 MHz. The jump in processor speed itself is not that great, 1.8 vs 2.2. My question is would I see a great jump in performance playing 1st person shoot em up games by the FSB speed alone? (Looks to be 4x the FSB of the older p4) The memory is also older RDRAM vs PC3200 DDR. It will cost me about 6-700 bucks to do the upgrade and I was wondering if there will be a significant increase in performance?
July 7, 2006 9:07:28 PM

Quote:
I have an early P4 1.8GHz at 400 MHz FSB and am considering a deal to upgrade to an A64 3500+ at 2.2 GHz. The FSB on this is 1600 MHz. The jump in processor speed itself is not that great, 1.8 vs 2.2. My question is would I see a great jump in performance playing 1st person shoot em up games by the FSB speed alone? (Looks to be 4x the FSB of the older p4) The memory is also older RDRAM vs PC3200 DDR. It will cost me about 6-700 bucks to do the upgrade and I was wondering if there will be a significant increase in performance?
The FSB is still 200 Mhz on the A64 processors. You will, most definetely notice a very nice difference over the P4 1.8. But, don't forget that your video card plays a more significant role in frame rates in most games, so, don't neglect GPU.
Related resources
July 7, 2006 9:09:50 PM

you would see a gain in performance, but 6-700 for a 3500, mobo, and ram doesnt seem like that much of a "deal".

what specific parts are you looking at getting for this upgrade?

in the 6-700 dollar range (saying you prefer either intel or amd) you could go with a pentium D 805, a decent socket T mobo, 2 gbs of ram, and a PSU if needed.

with that you would see a huge jump in performance over your old pentium processor. a dual core processor with both cores faster than your old setup

just a suggestion tho 8)
July 7, 2006 9:32:02 PM

6-700 seems like a lot... I have an AM2 mobo, 3200+, and 2GB DDR2 800 for $400 from Newegg. :?
July 7, 2006 9:35:46 PM

The biggest performance increase will be due to the more efficient architecture, despite their lower operating frequency, the A64, Pentium M and Core 2 can perform more work per clock cycle than Netburst (P4), resulting in higher performances.

Note that A64 cores no longer use an FSB per se, those CPUs have an integrated memory controller that allow them acess RAM directly, resulting in lower latency.
July 7, 2006 9:43:34 PM

There is no FSB on AMD platforms, the RAM controller is integrated into the CPU core, making access with much lower latencies then Intel.
In games you'll not see great increases beceuse the graphic card plays the main role, but in normal applications the 3500 with dual channel RAM is about 3 times faster than your P4.
July 7, 2006 10:35:42 PM

I didn't post everything as I didnt think it applied. My cost was not the factor but was an upgrade going to provide me with a nice boost?
Included is case, 500w PS (which I am going to swap with my existing newer 600w for this system), DVD writer, Asus A8N Deluxe MB, AMD 64 +3500 cpu, XFX 6800 256 mB ddr3 Extreme SLI video, 2GB Dual channel ram (PC3200), 250GB SATA HD w/16mb Cache. I am going from an AGP 6600 to the PCI-E 6800.
According to what I am seeing, I would see a great boost in performance. Is this true? Any other input? I have the parts already but was thinking of returning them to save the cash. But if it will be a great increase in performance I will keep them. I was just looking at the 1.8GHz to 2.2 GHz as not being a great leap in processor speed.
July 7, 2006 10:59:37 PM

It will be a HUGE leap in performance, all around. I was in a similar situation, having a P4 1.5 and went to an AMD 4000+ 2.4 GHz. Performace difference is leaps and bounds greater than the percentage increase in the CPU's clock speed. I got 2 gigs of DDR ram and an ATi x800 pro and im seeing 68 FPS in HL2, CS:S, DOD:S, etc. (not the 90+ a 7800GT etc will give you but all I could afford) compared to low teens with my P4 and 9800 pro (CPU was a major bottleneck in that setup).

The AMD blazes at encoding, everyday aps. and esp. gaming. I would highly recommend the 3500+ over your setup, unless you can wait for Conroe :)  I play day of defeat and play music on itunes with no lag, its awesome.

Good luck and let us know how it turns out.
July 8, 2006 1:34:37 AM

Thanks. I will let you know how it comes out. I think I am going for it. I will check back to see if anyone else posts more comments on this. Thanks to all who responded and will respond.
July 8, 2006 2:15:23 AM

Quote:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PR_rating

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth

3. Where the hell are you getting a 1600 Mhz FSB from? The highest currently available is 1066, and that's only equivlant.


3. The 1066MHz FSB on some Pentiums are in reality only a quad pumped 266MHz bus. So the bus operates at 266MHz. So for a fair comparison you have to take the effective speed of the HTT-bus of the AMD 64 which is 1600 or 2000MHz (or MT/s).

But you can't really do a fair comparison since it is different architectures.
July 8, 2006 6:04:34 AM

it will be definately a nice upgrade and if you already have the parts then i say keep them.
!