what is more important FSB or Multi?

The higher the FSB the better. The multiplier is useless other than the fact that it lets you change speed. It does nothing more.

So 400 x 9 = 3600 and so does 450 X 8, but you'll get more data, just like you thought, through the FSB the higher it is. That can especially effect your Memory, because thats what the FSB is for, its the only pathway to you main system memory!

Also, you'll want you memory in sync. Kinda hard to push 1066 Mhz worth of data through a 800 Mhz bus. (400 fsb x 2 for RAM) So again, the higher the FSB, the better the performance!

--Lupi!

Aha but would you say that 3GHz on FSB vs. 3GHz on multiplier is better? I would. I think if you're going to OC, may as well raise FSB first.

1600FSB or 2000FSB for the same overall Ghz- lets say 3Ghz
is not a 100Mhz difference. it's 400Mhz.
& it will be more sync'd with the DDR2-800Mhz.

so will it preform better?

it's like to compare Q66 266x8 to Q93 333x7.5, but they have some other different specs so it's kinda' hard...

some one should benchmark it... maybe the difference is not that big...
i think in games the difference will not be so big.
but how about multitasking?!! that is the whole point..
multitasking faster & better...

The Buss speed used to be very important, not so much anymore.

Toms actually did an article on this some time ago with a ton of benchmarks.
I don't know if a person could find it since they have changed the site a couple of times since then, (It just keeps getting worse, I cannot believe how badly this site is sliding down hill) so I don't know if you could find it or not, I sure couldn't.

By the way, has anyone but me noticed the forums are full questions that anyone who read Tom's would know as common knowlege? I mean over and over and over again. This tells me that very few people actually read Toms anymore. They just jump to the forums to get what they need. Can't say I blame them, I don't pay any attention to what they have on site anymore either. Sorry about the ranting....

Basically it was showing that with buss speeds of 800 and more, raising the mulitplier was better than raising the buss. Since nothing else in the PC actually could run at or benefit from buss speeds any higher. Memory can, but at higher latencies, so any benefit gained from a higher buss speed is negligable.

The higher and higher buss speeds for the moment are just like DDR3, and 1 gig of memory on Graphic cards with a 256 bit memory buss. Just bigger and bigger numbers to entice people into buying new hardware, whether it means anything or not. They have hit the ceiling with clocks speeds on CPU's. They have to keep raising numbers somewhere or people won't be willing to buy new.

z_dori

Back in the distant past when I could actually understand how computers worked (it's the computers that have changed, not me), there were so few factors that affected performance that these kinds of questions could be answered.

I suggest that the correct answer now will almost always be "It depends." What it primarily depends on is which particular application you are using. Not what type, but which application. When I look at benchmarks in recent articles, rig A is fastest on three tests, rig B on four others, and rig Z on three more. Usually not even the same kinds of tests, so you can't say "multiplier is better for gaming and memory for video editing."

I suspect that the only areas where it even matters anymore (!) are gaming, scientific number crunching, video editing, and possible massive audio processing. For anything else, current high-end machines are simply good enough. If it takes me 68 seconds to transcode an album vs 62 seconds, it simply doesn't make much difference to my life.

Things that are now more important to me than raw "speed" are

• Multitasking, which you mentioned. Multitasking gives me a better perceived response time when I am working and something is running in the background. And something is always running in the background, like an OS or antivirus or firewall.
• Quiet. My computer sits in my "home office." If I don't have TV or radio on, it's the loudest thing in the room. This despite my having custom-built it with an Antec Sonata case, slow 120mm fans, fanless video cooling, fluid-dynamic bearing disks (which were new when I build it), a honking great Zalman cooler for the CPU, and case damping. It's quiter than any other machine that I've had, but it's a noise source.
• Fast response. When I open an app, I'd like it to be there. My office machine can take two minutes to open Visual Studio with no project loaded!
• Fast startup. I've given up on this, what with firewall and antivirus and antispyware and all of these doing updates-on-startup. And the SCSI controller card that slows down the POST process.

I don't think that there are hard-and-fast rules anymore. Even a 1:1 memory bus ratio can be out-benchmarked. The trick seems to be balancing things. For example, Intel used to put out faster and faster CPUs without giving them bigger pipes to the outside world. It got way out of balance, and the CPUs starved for data. Now they are raising bus speeds and lowering multipliers (and saving watts), and it helps, but there is no magic balance that is best for everything. Balance points probably depend on the type of memory, mobo, and cpu you use. Find and eliminate the bottlenecks, and you will be within ten percentage points of the best. Good enough for most.

My personal pet peeve at this time is disk throughput. So I'm playing with a datacenter-grade RAID enclosure which takes up to eight SATA disks, attaches to my PC via Ultra320 SCSI, and sounds like a small plane's engine. I chose the Ultra320 for two reasons. One, higher possible throughput than SATA buses. But really because it can be meters and meters long, so I can have the PC in my room and the plane engine in the nice soundproof attic. I will not use NAS because the bandwidth limitation is below that of a singe directly-attached SATA drive.

Thanks for listening to me, and remember that the key answers are

• It depends
• What do you really want the machine to do
• Comfort factors: noise, heat, fast boot and application startup

Thanks WyomingKnott!

your answer is the general one.
offcourse i hate my pc noise! 12x8cm fans (not including the CPU's & PSU) is a lot of noice. i wish i could hear the Hard Drives... but this is a vacuume cleaner...

the question was from a general thinking about OC....
if i could test it myself i would, but i don't have the CPU or the MB for it...
maybe in a couple of months... with p45 boards.

Think, peoples! The Multiplier is a fake option. It does nothing by it's self. It needs the FSB to return a speed. How can a multiplier be more important?

Intel does use its multiplier to limit the frequency of its chips. If its locked low, it does make it hard to OC, because, Behold, its all FSB reliant at that point, meaning your Mother boards FSB must crank up to xxx for you to get more speed.

Although its funny to see some arguments, I still have to say that the FSB is a big factor. I am gonna test it right now, have a q6600 at stock with FSB at 266, RAM at 800 Mhz 4-4-3-15, will let ya know! Gonna take a while because I will use super pi's 32 million decimal calculations as my time frame reference.

Let ya know in like 30 mins!

--Lupi

:: does some quick calculations. :: Uhh, 28 seconds in a 20 min test is what percentage?

Anyways, thats the results. I can post the screen shots if you'd all like.

While 28 seconds may not seem like much to you and me, rest assured that your computer would appreciate the boost in speed, since its free.

(I know I'd rather not wait around 20 mins just to gain a 28 second time advantage, but since you wait for your computer all the time, that would reduce your waiting!)

--Lupi

LOL, nice, and no, it would not require any more VCore because its the Board that uses the FSB, the processor would still be at the same speed, and as long as its at the same speed, or a fraction off, you'll be just fine with the VCore you have now.

--Lupi

This has been tested time and again, by virtually everone who OCs their computer, including myself.

There is no longer a performance difference between higher multi/lower fsb and lower multi/higher fsb.

None.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums [...] 663to2.jpg

^That is of the 266 FSB at stock.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums [...] erpi32.jpg

^ That one is of the FSB 400 stock.

--Lupi

doesn't raising the FSB creates more heat? i'm pretty sure i read it in an article awhile back either on here or anandtech

i guess im a safe overclocker and only went to 400 fsb on my comp.

correct me if im wrong, but i rather go with 400x9 =3.6ghz then 450x8 =3.6ghz.

and as stated before, either you have hella good ram or you gotta OC them to keep up 1:1 with the higher FSB = more voltage = more heat.

Higher FSB does cause more issues for the chipset, but as long as the chipset can handle it, then no worries. It might put out a bit more heat, but I'm not sure how much heat a northbridge can really output.