1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

266mhz FSB vs 400mhz FSB this much better or what ?

Discussion in 'AMD Overclocking' started by We Live For The One We Die For The One, Feb 29, 2004.

  1. Speed wise would i even notice ?
     
    We Live For The One We Die For The One, Feb 29, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. We Live For The One We Die For The One

    Ben Pope Guest


    You mean 133MHz DDR vs 200MHz DDR?

    All else remaining equal, it would depend on whether your RAM is run in
    synch with your FSB, your chipset and the application you are running.

    Ben
     
    Ben Pope, Feb 29, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. No i mean the FSB, 266 vs 400 ?

    The one the Barton 3200 uses vs the one my Xp 2400 uses.
     
    We Live For The One We Die For The One, Mar 1, 2004
    #3
  4. We Live For The One We Die For The One

    BoB Guest

    Bang for the buck, not much unless you have apps you use a lot,
    and time is important, and those apps take a long time, cpu intensive.
    Compressing dvd's for me, however going from a 2600+/333/256K
    w/ cas2 333 mem, operation 28 minutes vs P43.0/ht/800, dualchannel
    cas 2.5 400 mem, operation 24 minutes.
     
    BoB, Mar 1, 2004
    #4
  5. We Live For The One We Die For The One

    bonjoey Guest

    if you're talking about fsb 266vs400, higher will always be better, if you
    have 2400+ tbred, do L12 mod then overclocked that to 200fsb x (whatever)
    and that will outperform that p4, not technically
     
    bonjoey, Mar 1, 2004
    #5
  6. Please Please Please,
    Don't bring up the P4 in this NG
    again, most of us are here for AMD only..
    And soon to be me as well, but.
    Me takes about the same time on this PC2100 (266) Overclocked @ 330 MHz
    Running 165.6
    Name of memory, (Cheap, Spec Tek.) Other ram is Kingston PC3200
    running @ the same speed..
    Sisoftware Sandra benchmark is 4.5 GB/s
    1Min. Uncompressed on both video, and audio. 1:20 that's also through a
    network.
    I cant capture Uncompressed video on my P4, my HD can't write that fast.
    Anything already compressed, takes about the same time to re-compress it, as
    it does to watch it.
    Will I have my P4 for much longer? I'm not sure, I'm thinking about
    getting a AMD 64 of some type.
    The FX53 looks like it just might beat all sides of the 3.2 GHz P4. And if
    it does, ZOOM!
    I go to what's faster.
    Denny. :) Always with a smile, even if times are bad.
     
    Dennis E Strausser Jr, Mar 1, 2004
    #6
  7. We Live For The One We Die For The One

    Ben Pope Guest

    I'll take that as a yes then.

    Ben
     
    Ben Pope, Mar 1, 2004
    #7


  8. I found I could tell the difference between a system running at 133/266
    (PC2100) and 200/400 (PC3200). . . just a *little* more snappy.

    Of course if you bring benchmarks into play the difference is *very*
    noticeable.

    XP2400+ (15x133=2GHz)

    Same chip overclocked and running on higher FSB (11x200)

    Added 1,000 extra points in 3DMark01. . .nothing to sniff at!
     
    Wayne Youngman, Mar 1, 2004
    #8
  9. We Live For The One We Die For The One

    BoB Guest

    You miss the point, for an extra grand, you can gain 4 minutes, 14%
    performance improvement, an amd example would have been just as
    pertinent! We sold our amd3200+(450$) long ago, NF2 long ago!
    My buddy went with the P4 against my advice, some crap about
    hyperthreading! He's going to sell the P4 and go amd64 next!
    I have been trashing the P4 since day one, after reading the 22page
    article by the emulation geek about the lame L1.
     
    BoB, Mar 1, 2004
    #9
  10. An extra 4Min, now what to do with all that extra time.
    Either that, or overclock and get rid of that extra 4Min. that it
    takes...

    Hyperthreading, it's nice if you make full use of it, but if you make good
    use of what you
    have, that works too. We all work doing something, so if you start a Video
    encode before you
    go to work, it's not like your going to miss that little bit of extra speed
    that Hyperthreading gives you.
    Only way to have true dual cpu, or at least right now, Is to really have
    two.
    The program I use, http://www.virtualdub.org does not really make full use
    of HTT & I didn't
    write VD So I can't say weather or not it ever will.

    Emulation, some1 along this thread said something about it..
    No emulators so far use HTT to it's fullest, as of yet. So going with an AMD
    to play Video Games
    on emulation seems like the right way to go, and if it's something like
    Project64 (N64) not C=64..
    It would seem to me playing a 64Bit game on a 64Bit CPU would go better for
    just that reason.
    64Bit into 64Bit, rather then 64Bit into 32Bit cpu.
     
    Dennis E Strausser Jr, Mar 1, 2004
    #10
  11. We Live For The One We Die For The One

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Hard to say. No CPUs that I know of run on either 266MHz or 400MHz FSB as
    standard.

    They do however run on 166MHz and 200MHz, dual-data rate, termed 266DDR and
    400DDR. That however is not measured in MHz, it just transfers data on both
    the rising and falling signal, giving the term DDR (Dual-Data Rate).

    Either speak about MHz or about DDR, don't confuse them.
     
    ~misfit~, Mar 5, 2004
    #11
  12. You like spanking don't you :)



     
    We Live For The One We Die For The One, Mar 5, 2004
    #12
  13. We Live For The One We Die For The One

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Well...... ;-)

    Actually I like accuracy and dislike FUD.
     
    ~misfit~, Mar 6, 2004
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.