Systemlord Posted December 21, 2007 Posted December 21, 2007 I have wondered about this for sometime but never really got around to asking the question, so here I am finely asking. There are a few ways to reach 3.2GHz, one way is @ 400x8, the second way is @ 466x7 both = 3.2GHz but one has the FSB higher than the other and the other has the higher multiplier, so which is the better one? On another note (A) one has more memory bandwidth, (B) the other one has what a higher multiplier? Ok I am confused here! Have a happy holiday members. Systemlord Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guticb Posted December 21, 2007 Posted December 21, 2007 Why not 355X9, like my Q6600 is at right now. It's at 3195MHz, but that's close enough to 3.2GHz to call it as such. I've wondered this too though. What's the difference? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdingeling Posted December 21, 2007 Posted December 21, 2007 This question really depends on your RAM timings If those Ballistix can run 466 @ decent timings (as in, 4-4-4-12 or something like that), then I'd go with that. It's usually a little bit better performance with higher FSBs. 400x8 just has the convenience of not needing to overclock your RAM, I was running that on my E6400 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemlord Posted December 21, 2007 Posted December 21, 2007 This question really depends on your RAM timings If those Ballistix can run 466 @ decent timings (as in, 4-4-4-12 or something like that), then I'd go with that. It's usually a little bit better performance with higher FSBs. 400x8 just has the convenience of not needing to overclock your RAM, I was running that on my E6400 My Ballistix can do 3-3-3-8 800MHz @ 2.2 volt or 5-5-5-15 1200MHz @ 2.2 volts. CAS 3 doesn't seem to do much for performance which is strange. These X38's were designed to run at higher latency DDR3 speeds, my old Asus P5B Deluxe could go low in nano seconds on the Ram at CAS 3. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardnrg Posted December 22, 2007 Posted December 22, 2007 this is what benchmarks are for, comparing performance... higher bus speed gives higher performance, but the resulting dividers and ram speed/timings can result in worse performance... so bench, compare, conclude... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemlord Posted December 22, 2007 Posted December 22, 2007 this is what benchmarks are for, comparing performance... higher bus speed gives higher performance, but the resulting dividers and ram speed/timings can result in worse performance... so bench, compare, conclude... What else is out the besides Everest and 3DMack06 as far as CPU based benchmarking? These are the only two that I know of. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardnrg Posted December 22, 2007 Posted December 22, 2007 Check out an OCC CPU review for examples: http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/in...50_review/4.htm SuperPi, 3DMark01SE, Aquamark3 are all good benchmarks for comparing CPU/RAM/FSB configurations Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comp Dude2 Posted December 23, 2007 Posted December 23, 2007 you realise the difference is probably TINY anyway, its the 3.2Ghz that will make the difference Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardnrg Posted December 24, 2007 Posted December 24, 2007 the difference to what? I think you didn't read the question lol... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now