Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
AMDs Top FSB and newer/faster FSB mobos - PC Perspective Forums
Well, I'm curious!
I read that AMD CPUs are capped at a certain FSB.
266? So, would going to a motherboard that allows for a faster FSB really allow the CPU to take advantage of it?
Something alluding to that was posted on Anandtech's website.
The beginning paragraphs for a KT400 motherboard talks about it.
Quote: d from their article:
"Yes, I know, the title is sensational.
There's really nothing to get excited about.
While it might look great at first glance, gaining unofficial DDR400 support for Athlon XP-based systems is hardly anything too special.
There are some perfectly good reasons why DDR400 is essentially useless for Athlon XP systems.
The first reason is simple;
The Athlon's FSB allows no more than a peak bandwidth of 2.1GB/s (this 2.1GB/s of bandwidth is achieved through the Athlon's double pumped 266MHz FSB).
Knowing that DDR400 memory (also know as PC3200) has a peak theoretical bandwidth of ~ 3.2 GB/s, you can see that a lot of that bandwidth is simply unnecessary.
Even DDR333 (PC2700) memory, which offers a peak bandwidth of 2.7GB/s, essentially adds, at best, a few percentage points to application performance compared to previous DDR266 (PC2100)-powered Athlon XP platforms.
"
So, basically a motherboard based on the KT266 chipset would be the fastest type of motherboard that the AMD CPU would take advantge of, right?
Thanks,
Hector
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
P.S.
Not even KT266 but more like KT133!
KT133 IS already running at the 266 FSB!
What's up with that?!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be patient, the upcoming Nforce2's dual channel memory controller combined with the Barton's 512 L2 cache and a 333 FSB will be a big boost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : AMD CPUs are capped at a certain FSB.
266 \
Isn't this why we all overclock?
Really, there's not too much reason to get a KT400 unless they've increased the performance of the memory controller quite a bit.
Quite a few people have gotten their KT333's running at that speed now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, basically forget about the CPUs FSB and just keep on getting faster chipsets while the CPU stays behind, right?
I get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : So, basically forget about the CPUs FSB and just keep on getting faster chipsets while the CPU stays behind, right?
I get it. Uhm... is that sarcasm or is that you not understanding what overclocking the FSB does or is it both?
Hmmmm, i'm trying not to jump the gun on this one
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
XP2300+ = 1.87GHz T-bred B 333FSB
XP2400+ = 2.00GHz T-bred B 266FSB
XP2500+ = 2.00GHz T-bred B 333FSB
XP2600+ = 2.13GHz T-bred B 266FSB
XP2700+ = 2.13GHz T-bred B 333FSB
XP2800+ = 2.27GHz T-bred B 266FSB
XP2800+ = 2.13GHz Barton 333FSB
XP2900+ = 2.27GHz T-bred B 333FSB
XP3000+ = 2.27GHz Barton 333FSB
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5335
AMD is raising the FSB in future CPUs...and very soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Well, I'm curious!
I read that AMD CPUs are capped
at a certain FSB.
266? "
What do you mean by "capped"?
I have a Duron 1ghz running 334fsb and it will run as high as 380fsb and all thats holding it back is the pc2100 memory.
The bus is capped at an official 400fsb.
But some have gotten higher than that.
The fsb is not locked the multiplyiers are on most AMD cpu's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then the information I read on AMD CPUs is flawed or they meant to say something else.
I really like AMD chips and that little article almost makes me change my mind.
I guess, once again, I was confused about FSB settings and such.
Thanks guys.
Damn, I love this forum!
Really!
:-) Hector
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The cpu isnt the problem, lots of times it sits around waiting for memory to do it's thing, thats why many mobos run memory at a higher clock speed than the cpu HostClk+33 Async is an example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK.... time put all of these "misconceptions" of yours to rest.
The FSB on all the new AMD's have never been locked.
I've owned a Duron, T-Bird, and an XP and I've always been able to change the FSB w/o any alterations to the chip.
266 is just the default for the XP's and some Tbirds.
As for the difference in chipsets (I'm going to be talking for now using the default FSB of 266), there is a increase in performance going to kt133->kt133a->kt266->kt266a->kt333.
Its all about the mobo's memory conroller.
As the chipsets got better and better, their abiltiy to handle bandwidth got better and better.
In my opinion, ending w/ the kt266a chipset being the king of the default FSB.
Now to the overclocking part.
Many kt266a mobos are great overclockers being able to handle higher FSBs.
As long as you had the ram to take the beating the board could handle it.
But once you started getting 170, 180, 190, and 200+ FSB is where the kt333 steps in.
Not saying that the kt266a couldn't SOMETIMES handle the highest of FSBes, but the kt333 is definately better equipt to.
We're just going to see how the final release version of the kt400's memory controller will handle the higher FSB's.
This is a very breif overview and if you'd like me to explain anything else to go into any more detail, just ask.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Drew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|