I've read in a few different places about people either not impressed, or just completely against the shift from 1066mHz to 1333mHz FSB on the upcoming Intel Bearlake chipset...
Why is that? I've always thought increases in FSB speed are superior to increases in CPU clock speed.
Especially with the new E6x50 Intel CPU's due out in May (alongside the release of Bearlake) that also have 1333mHz FSB I would have thought it's a good match. Some are in opposition to those CPUs as well, mainly because of a lower multiplier I think.
Also in my research on DDR2-667 vs. DDR2-800 most say DDR2-800 isn't worth the extra $, since noticable gains aren't there. I would think 1333mHz FSB from the CPU/Chipset will be more synchronous with DDR2-667.
I ask because I plan on purchasing a new system soon and was waiting on Bealake and the Intel E6650. Not worth the wait?
Your thoughts? Debate?
Why is that? I've always thought increases in FSB speed are superior to increases in CPU clock speed.
Especially with the new E6x50 Intel CPU's due out in May (alongside the release of Bearlake) that also have 1333mHz FSB I would have thought it's a good match. Some are in opposition to those CPUs as well, mainly because of a lower multiplier I think.
Also in my research on DDR2-667 vs. DDR2-800 most say DDR2-800 isn't worth the extra $, since noticable gains aren't there. I would think 1333mHz FSB from the CPU/Chipset will be more synchronous with DDR2-667.
I ask because I plan on purchasing a new system soon and was waiting on Bealake and the Intel E6650. Not worth the wait?
Your thoughts? Debate?
I'm guess that was a typeo and they meant to say 1333 MHz.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram