Advantage to OC'ing FSB?
Right now, I have my processor OC'd simply with the multiplier. Is there any advantage to OC'ing the FSB as well? I mean, assuming I dropped the CPU multiplier to say 9.0, and OC'd the FSB to compensate for the 0.5 multiplier drop.
The answer: Yes.
Overclocking the FSB speeds up the entire computer. There is a distinct advantage to speeding up the system bus and raising the memory clock ... and this method is superior to simply overclocking the processor.
However, there are also some disadvantages. Raising the FSB also increases the PCI bus speed, and some motherboards "choke" when this happens. Also, there are some peripherals that are particularly sensitive to increased speeds, such as IDE and SCSI controllers, NIC cards, and of course, video cards.
But if you want the best performance from your system, I would recommend a combination of overclocking the FSB first ... and then attempting to overclock the processor.
I have to say this ... and I hope you take this advice gracefully. It is written in the spirit of being helpful, nothing more.
This is a question you could have answered by yourself, with some research, and experimentation with your computer.
Since you asked, this tells me you may have jumped the gun by overclocking the processor, and didn't take the time to really study the issues; the pros and cons ... what is most effective, the best cooling solutions, how to test for heat, how this affects the hard drive and other components.
My brother is like this ... he loves to work on his machine, and is greatly excited by different methods that might yield performance increases ... but he is also impatient, and rarely does sufficient research before he gets his hands dirty. Because of this we often exchange email while I attempt to help him extricate himself from various problems ... the majority of which could have been avoided, if he had taken the time to be sure of what he was doing in advance.
Perhaps you might see something of yourself in that description.
I don't intend to insult you, or make you angry (oh, no ... not at all ... that's not the point!) ... but the fact is ... there is a tremendous amount of information available on the Internet about overclocking, and if you don't take the time to do the research and become familiar with the material, you could damage your computer, and end up with a hunk of expensive junk. That would be bad ... the absolute <i>worst</i>, don't you agree?
I would be more than happy to email you a list of sites that you would find informative. This would allow you to get the most out of your system, and considering the prices of many proprietary computers these days ... getting something for nothing is a good thing. And in my experience, a carefully overclocked system is usually <i>more</i> stable than a computer running at the factory defaults. This is similar to tweaking the Operating System ... and no self-respecting computer user is going to run a system without correcting, or improving on all the little things that allow a system run at the optimal speed possible!
I am also willing to help in other ways ... with a detailed list of your components ... I could give you advice on the best method to overclock your system, as can many other members of this forum. That's why we are here, after all ... to lend each other a hand. But nothing beats personal knowledge and experience.
If you would like that list of sites, feel free to email me from a valid address, and I'll send them to you, pronto.
Also, if you feel this message has overstepped your personal boundaries, and you have the need to jump my ass ... go right ahead. But remember, advice is not always an easy thing to take, or give ... and cussing me will also be missing the point. Using a computer is a learning experience that has no end, and no one has all the answers. The idea is to learn all you can, and pass that information around in a constructive manner. That's what separates the geeks from the mundanes.
As always ... opinions, comments, suggestions from the Peanut Gallery?
Heh. Don't worry. No offence taken. I admit, I was lazy. Didn't want to go through the trouble of running benchmarks with the many many many permutations of FSB, CPU Multiplier, and Voltage settings. Heh heh.
Now that I KNOW there is an advantage to OCing the FSB over a simple CPU OC, I will go through the trouble.
I hope you can understand my not wanting to do all this without first having a definate answer to whether or not it is worth it.
Thanks for the help!
I'm always glad to help out, even if I am a trifle long-winded! Some people say I'm comprehensive ... my wife just tells me to shut up; it's all greek to her, anyway.
I'd love to hear the end results of all the upcoming "trial & error".
Good luck ... and let me know if I can do anything to make the job easier. I drop by the 'board a couple of times a day.
Well, the results weren't that good at all. 107 FSB wouldn't make it to post. Even at 103 Win2k forze on load. I am thinking the problem is my memore settings. I am running Infineon PC133 7.5ns CAS2, and have my BIOS setting to Turbo, which set's the memory to PC133 7.0ns 2-2-2. I am thinking that with the memory OC'd (if that's the correct term) like this, there is very little chance of getting it to cooperate at a higher FSB as well.
At the risk of being lazy again.. Would the preformance advantage of running a higher FSB outweigh those of reduced memory timings?
To tell ya the truth, I have this 750 duron running at 950, 40C under load, rock solid. I think I should just leave things alone and be happy.
I have similar results like you do, but a duron
only manage to use FSB of 103, memory speed reduce to 100 to start of with so when I set FSB to 103, the momery also runs at 103, which is considered unclocked and hence removed its possibility as the limiter.
I would like to hear some advice how to make the duron runs a FSB133 with reduced multiplier. I tried, the conventional way, it didn't work.
Heck it didn't even want to run stable at FSB104 multiplier 8 = 832Mhz. Like I said, memory also set to 104Mhz only.
It normally runs 100% stable at 900Mhz, and 99% stable at 927Mhz.
my rams are 7.5ns CL2, if only I could get my hands on some 7ns, but then again FSB can't go higher than 103????
frustrated. might try toms surgical advice one day when I am mad enough.
What you are both looking at is a limitation of an AMD or VIA chipset ... and this is why the FSB doesn't overclock that well. If you were using a PIII, raising the FSB would be a valid option ... and also the best option.
But ... with an AMD processor, your best bet is to overclock the processor, and perhaps overclock the FSB slightly afterwards ... if the system can handle it.
Even under laboratory conditions, I have not seen the FSB on an AMD motherboard go past 105 without locking up. This includes the AMD 750, the VIA Apollo Pro 133, and the VIA KT133 ... and double-pumped systems.
I would recommend, if you are running PC133, to leave the memory clock at 133, run the memory in Turbo mode, and overclock the processor.
I have not heard of any way to make this kind of mainboard run a FSB of 133, even with a reduced multiplier.
If you are able to overclock the processor by 200Mhz, then you should consider yourself blessed.
I would have mentioned this limitation if I had known in advance that your system had an AMD processor, Bandit, and saved you some time and energy!
This is my mistake ... I should have mentioned, that without a rundown of your system specs, I could not give valid overclocking instructions. What I wrote initially was correct ... but AMD mainboards for the most part don't
overclock that well in the "conventional" manner.
The best results I have seen have been with an Asus mainboard, which offers some overclocking options in the BIOS not available on many other AMD mainboards.
I, personally, am waiting for the latest crop of DDR SDRAM 'boards to emerge, and then I intend to choose the mainboard with the best overlocking options, unlock my Thunderbird, and have a good time overclocking the system. Unless, of course, I find that the Socket A configuration has been altered ... which will necessitate purchasing a new processor. I certainly hope not!