• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Intel Processors : Which would be more ideal?

M

MrFace

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 23, 2003
Messages
2,716
8.5x500

or

9x450?

Obviously the former results in 50mhz more, but I'm wondering if the increased FSB will show an improvement in speed.

Are there any results out there that settle this argument? I'd like to do testing myself, what's the "new hotness" for doing good tests? Synthetic benchmarks or would a gaming benchmark be better?
 
Synthetic benchmarks would def. give you an idea which settings perform better, games might not (depending on what the rest of your system looks like, which games, resolution, etc , etc).
 
8.5 x 500 = 4250
9x 450 = 4050

I am guessing 200mhz faster with faster bus would probably win out ;)
Did you mean 8.5x470? why not just run 476x8.5?

Anywho, increased FSB does increase memory speed. I have no idea whether 50mhz core is worth more than 100mhz fsb + 50mhz ram. Either way, the difference is probably very very tiny.
 
There is no substantial real-world difference between the two. I would run the lower FSB in order to put less strain on the chipset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top