Higher FSB vs CPU multiplier

[Technophobe]

To get the best 'general' PC performance I gather you would try to max out the FSB and lower the CPU multiplier rather than the other way around?

E.g. would an 8 x 475 be overall better than a 9 x 423? They both give you 3.8GHz but I assume the 475 FSB would give you better data bandwidth (to memory / HDD etc.). Is there anything running better in the CPU at 9x compared to 8x? Internal cache maybe? How much impact would this have on general performance?

 

[Splave]

why not try each and run your main apps and see which one is faster? I would assume the higher fsb may be a tad faster but also depends on NB straps used etc which can change things.

 

[BinarySynapse]

To get the best 'general' PC performance I gather you would try to max out the FSB and lower the CPU multiplier rather than the other way around?

E.g. would an 8 x 475 be overall better than a 9 x 423? They both give you 3.8GHz but I assume the 475 FSB would give you better data bandwidth (to memory / HDD etc.). Is there anything running better in the CPU at 9x compared to 8x? Internal cache maybe? How much impact would this have on general performance?

The CPU's going to run at 3.8GHz no matter what, so I don't think there'd be much difference in applications that aren't starved for memory bandwidth. However, a higher FSB would increase the available memory bandwidth to those applications that do need it though.

But higher FSB can require that timings be loosen on the memory chips, which can lower the memory throughput and have a negative impact. So it's a guessing game that you have to constantly check and recheck every change you make to see if it makes a useable difference.

 

[Leman]

I'd take 9x423 and see how low the RAM timings will go. I'm guessing 4-4-4-12ish, but you with GODLY LUCK (or voltage), you might get 3-4-4-1x.

That, or drop to 7, and go [H] on your RAM.