# What's Your FSB?



## Praetor

Simple question


----------



## Cromewell

well I'll just fill in my standard FSB speed since actual would be a bit silly to poll


----------



## dave597

I always thought mine had a bus speed of 200 or 400.


----------



## Praetor

LOL i see the perfect streak has been broken  *giggles uncontrollably to himself*


----------



## j0hn00

Don't you usually correct everyone with "Athlon 64's don't have FSB"?


----------



## Praetor

*pauses momentarily* ... I quite usually do ... *continues giggling fit*


----------



## j0hn00

Trick question?  Is that why you're laughing?


----------



## Praetor

Trick question? Valid responses are available


----------



## robina_80

2000 fsb???!!! is that intel p4s or something thats alot or just overclocked


----------



## Praetor

Yeah thats a serious friggen overclock


----------



## mgoldb2

I said 200 because I believe that what athlon 64 fx-55 run at.  CPUID dont say that info when you have a athlon 64.  I have a HTT of 250 thoe .

edit:  I just learned I was wrong from praetor.  there is no fsb and the HTT is 200.  so I guess I was wrong when I chose 200 for my fsb. At least I did not think I had 2000


----------



## <<seS>>Saint

AMD +3000 2.1 GHz OCed to 2.4GHz

FSB 183MHz


----------



## Bobo

<<seS>>Saint said:
			
		

> FSB 183MHz



OI!!  OI!!  Read the rest of this thread


----------



## Praetor

> OI!! OI!! Read the rest of this thread


You mean... your post?


----------



## <<seS>>Saint

Bobo said:
			
		

> OI!!  OI!!  Read the rest of this thread



Well not sure what you are getting at but if it is the fact that I said FSB instead of HTT, and then correct me if I'm wrong but isn't HTT only unique to the 64 bit processors.  

I am one of the unlucky poor saps on this forum that doesn't have 64bit yet.     hehe  I have an AMD 3000+ 2.1 GHz processor with a BARTON core Overcloced to a 2.43 with a FSB of 183.  When I go to CPUZ bus speed is labeled not HTT.

Praetor: please shed some light on this.


----------



## Praetor

> and then correct me if I'm wrong but isn't HTT only unique to the 64 bit processors.


And the Sempron 3100 



> Praetor: please shed some light on this.


If you've got the latest version of CPUz just consider it a small glitch ... its actually a FSB  (the poll was intended for stock FSB though )


----------



## <<seS>>Saint

Praetor said:
			
		

> And the Sempron 3100
> 
> 
> If you've got the latest version of CPUz just consider it a small glitch ... its actually a FSB  (the poll was intended for stock FSB though )




Oh okay I thought it was a stab at my intellect which I don't mind I am always up for criticism.

Well then my FSB is 166 MHz


----------



## Blue

N/A here  although i'm not feeling left out LOL.


----------



## Praetor

> Oh okay I thought it was a stab at my intellect which I don't mind I am always up for criticism.


Not at all, its just that if we decided to poll all FSBs id have to do so in 1MHz increments  (as things stand Im already missing the new Intel 266 one but oh well)


----------



## compfreak

whats amd's fx55 cpu bus speed


----------



## mgoldb2

compfreak said:
			
		

> whats amd's fx55 cpu bus speed



It has a HTT of 200 which is what amd uses instead of fsb.


----------



## compfreak

k thanks so i have htt of 200 then


----------



## Tha Killa

My FSB speed is 166 Mhz.


----------



## 4W4K3

Well defaults i believe my FSB is supposed to be (133) 266MHz. But why would i run that lol?

I run (233) 466MHz...right now thats my wall. Dunno if its mobo/RAM/PSU that is causing this. I think its a matter of Mobo cooling and crappy PSU really. But i'm selling this machine soon hopefully and going A64...so no worries.


----------



## Greg J.

400 Mhz Frontside Bus P4 Williamette (that's from the year 2002)


----------



## Praetor

_*Announcer's Voice*_ Ladies and gentlemen, looking at the scoreboard we have a *47%* fatality rate......  lol *giggles*


----------



## Ku-sama

sorry to dig this up, but preator, what in the heck is my FSB? i put N/A for my A64, sence "they dont have a FSB" yet in my BIOS its a 200MHz FSB, clearly it cannot be wrong right  so tell me


----------



## Cromewell

It is wrong  I'd say they put it there because most people expect to see it.


----------



## Ku-sama

so it is N/A, correct? also, what was the update days for CAD-Online?


----------



## Zhuge Liang

1800 not listed.


----------



## dragon2309

what the hell happened to praetor, havent seen him post in a good 2 couple of weeks, where is he?


----------



## spacedude89

from what i can decipher from his posts in this thread, he probley died of somekind of drug overdose..


----------



## elmarcorulz

> from what i can decipher from his posts in this thread, he probley died of somekind of drug overdose..


If anything, it would of been a caffeine indused heart attack.





> what the hell happened to praetor, havent seen him post in a good 2 couple of weeks, where is he?


He does post every now and then, but not like how he used to. He's probably a very busy man.


----------



## Jon Boy

Ok is FSB same thing as front side bus??? and what is it and how do I find out lol??


----------



## Cromewell

Ku-sama: Yes N/A was correct.  CAD updates everyother day.

Peaple asking about Praetor: It's approaching the end of crunch time for university students so he'll probably be making an appearence soon.

Jon Boy: Yes FSB is front side bus.  You can check yours a few ways.  The BIOS, CPUz (I think it still inaccruately displays FSB for A64s) and there are a few other utilities that can check it.


----------



## Jon Boy

I assume you can find it on "Fresh Diagnose" Tells me everything about my PC.  But what section am I looking under.  Will it be under its own heading, under CPU, ram GPU or what????  (sorry your speaking to a retard lol).


----------



## Jon Boy

I can find supported external bus  which is 133mhz quad pumped AGTL+ whatever that means lol.  No frontside bus (I will keep looking).


----------



## penguinrusty

1000mhz A64.


----------



## Geoff

penguinrusty said:
			
		

> 1000mhz A64.


I bet praetor made this thread to see how many people think that an A64's FSB is 1000Mhz.  An AMD actually doesnt have an FSB. (no offense penguin, lots of people make that mistake)


----------



## Chris Chan

I have a P4 Northwood - 200*4 makes 800FSB.


----------



## palmmann

i have a 1.2ghz celery mobile, but it is not runnin yet, so my best running fsb is 33mhz or 66mhz from a old pentium


----------



## gamerman4

I got A64 so i dont got one but my HTT bus speed is at 250mhz with a HTT multi of 4 so 1000mhz HTT speed. Maybe a little more info than you needed.
Nice question Praetor, fun times with dumb minds (no offense to anyone)


----------



## JFlo

was 200 dunno w/ my new comp yet hasnt been built lol.


----------



## apj101

chuckle chuckle chuckle. Voted stock fsb.


----------



## Bobo

I voted 2GHz FSB.   (actually I have no idea....FSB versus bus speed has always confused me cause the companies advertise the bus speed as the FSB speed)


----------



## Jon Boy

Ahaa after seaching the net I think I have found I have an 800mhz FSB.  Is it any good?? and what does FSB actualy do exactely???


----------



## Bobo

Jon Boy said:
			
		

> Ahaa after seaching the net I think I have found I have an 800mhz FSB. Is it any good?? and what does FSB actualy do exactely???


 
FSB is the speed with which components in your computer talk to each other. ( I don't know what components)


----------



## Cromewell

> Ahaa after seaching the net I think I have found I have an 800mhz FSB


Nope. 800MHz is the marketing line, your is 800MHz equivalent (200MHz*4 signals per clock)





> I voted 2GHz FSB


Also wrong  You've got an A64 so any answer with *Hz on it isn't right.





> I don't know what components


Pretty much all of them, unless your board has locks


----------



## Jon Boy

Ahh I see thanks Cromwell.  I expect almost everybody on here has posted the wrong FSB then lol.


----------



## apj101

Jon Boy said:
			
		

> Ahh I see thanks Cromwell.  I expect almost everybody on here has posted the wrong FSB then lol.


not everyone


----------



## Jon Boy

apj101 said:
			
		

> not everyone



haha rub it in why don't you lol.  And well atleast I can say I wasn't as wrong as the people who thought they had a FSB and ran AMD 64 processors lol.  Well I would of if I was given the chance and had one


----------



## Cromewell

Of 79, 24 possibly have it right.  It's a common mistake and the A64 stuff makes it even easier for people who were told by sales folk what the FSB is to be wrong.


----------



## Sophocles

The new AMD 64's are all rated at 1000 Mhz frontside bus and in dual channel they're even further rated (I'm not sure I agree with it) as 2000 Mhz frontside bus. My frontside bus is at 1092 Mhz and since I also have dual channel memory running it can then be said that my frontside bus is 2184 Mhz.


----------



## Sophocles

I wanted to mention that AMD's HTT is (5X 200 which is its actual speed). Hyper transport and frontside bus essentially perform the same function except that HTT is on chip. But both are input/output through main memory.


----------



## Praetor

> what the hell happened to praetor, havent seen him post in a good 2 couple of weeks, where is he?


Lets stay on topic



> I bet praetor made this thread to see how many people think that an A64's FSB is 1000Mhz. An AMD actually doesnt have an FSB. (no offense penguin, lots of people make that mistake)


You mean like *you?*


			
				geoff5093 said:
			
		

> the socket 939 is newer, and has a 1Ghz fsb vs the 754's 800Mhz.


----------



## Geoff

Praetor said:
			
		

> You mean like *you?*



I wasnt paying much attention to what i wrote, i meant to say that they have 1Ghz *bus*, which is because of the hypertransport.


			
				www.amd.com said:
			
		

> With up to a 2000 MHz system bus using HyperTransport technology with up to 14.4 GB/sec total processor-to-system bandwidth


----------



## Praetor

> (no offense penguin, lots of people make that mistake)





> wasnt paying much attention to what i wrote, i meant to say that they have 1Ghz bus, which is because of the hypertransport.


Well "no offence" to you either, does this fall under the "saving face" or the "i was too busy knocking on other people" category?


----------



## Charles_Lee

whats FSB??


----------



## Bobo

Charles_Lee said:
			
		

> whats FSB??



Front Side Bus

it is the speed at which the components on the motherboard communicate with each other.


----------



## Charles_Lee

Bobo said:
			
		

> Front Side Bus
> 
> it is the speed at which the components on the motherboard communicate with each other.



oh ic, thanks


----------



## P11

Charles_Lee said:
			
		

> oh ic, thanks


I told you that today...walking home.


----------



## Chiefs27

I really dont like my processor. Only a Pentium 4 and 3.06 GHz, i cant wait until i get the money to go Pentium D (socket 775 mobo)


----------



## Geoff

Chiefs27 said:
			
		

> I really dont like my processor. Only a Pentium 4 and 3.06 GHz, i cant wait until i get the money to go Pentium D (socket 775 mobo)


Dont go Pentium D.


----------



## P11

geoff5093 said:
			
		

> Dont go Pentium D.


go x2.


----------



## Chiefs27

But idk if i'll have the money that i'd need to get a new motherboard, thats the thing. But i'm just keeping watch for any good deals. This will have to do me for now though.


----------



## tweaker

geoff5093 said:
			
		

> Dont go Pentium D.


 
Theres nothing wrong with getting a Pentium D, you have to take the given price (that we don't know) into consideration.

Anyway my best performing machine is running a FSB of 200MHz, and just to chock a 'few people', it performs really good!


----------



## Charles_Lee

P11 said:
			
		

> I told you that today...walking home.



you told me whats Front Side Bus, i didn't know FSB stands for that. lol


----------



## dmw2692004

robina_80 said:
			
		

> 2000 fsb???!!! is that intel p4s or something thats alot or just overclocked



amd 64/x2.


----------



## Jon Boy

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by robina_80
> 2000 fsb???!!! is that intel p4s or something thats alot or just overclocked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amd 64/x2.
Click to expand...


Wellfrom what I gathered from this thread is that AMD dont have a FSB.

So im going to say  

Your wrong (correct me if im wrong someone)


----------



## Bobo

Jon Boy said:
			
		

> Wellfrom what I gathered from this thread is that AMD dont have a FSB.


Can somebody please clarify this issue?  I know that it was discussed sometime before, but I just can't remember if they don't have a fsb, if they do, or if they just have something similar that is not called fsb.  And what relation does HTT have to do with it?


----------



## Cromewell

Athlon 64s don't. Socket A and earlier AMD chips do. A64 CPUs use a HyperTransport which is similar to FSB


----------



## Dr Studly

133mhz now in a few months 1ghz mebbe oc more


----------



## Xycron

HT for me, 4X


----------



## tweaker

Encore4More said:
			
		

> in a few months 1ghz mebbe oc more


 
X2's doesn't have FSB...


----------



## Dr Studly

tweaker said:
			
		

> X2's doesn't have FSB...


what are u smoking...
Tech Spec
Core 	Manchester
Name 	Athlon 64 X2 4200+
Operating Frequency 	2.2GHz
*FSB 	1GHz*
L1 Cache 	128KB+128KB
L2 Cache 	2 x 512KB


----------



## elmarcorulz

Encore4More said:
			
		

> what are u smoking...
> Tech Spec
> Core 	Manchester
> Name 	Athlon 64 X2 4200+
> Operating Frequency 	2.2GHz
> *FSB 	1GHz*
> L1 Cache 	128KB+128KB
> L2 Cache 	2 x 512KB


It doesnt have FSB, it has HTT, or HT, i cant remember


----------



## Dr Studly

then lets sue newegg for saying it has fsb!


----------



## tweaker

Encore4More said:
			
		

> what are u smoking...


 
 

Because K8's use HyperTransport technology instead (quite similar).

*CPU 101*


----------



## Dr Studly

i already read alll the 101 things
but y do they say it has FSB?


----------



## fade2green514

P11 said:
			
		

> go x2.


tweaker will say dont spite pentium D but nobody else likes it anyways... pentium d is for cheapskates that dont like performance lol...
anyways yea X2 is the best way to go as you see by my setup.

also, my fsb is actually running at 960mhz hypertransport, in two channels... you should put a choice "other" in there for us overclockers... i mean this section _is_ cpus and overclocking.


----------



## bigsaucybob

fade2green514 said:
			
		

> tweaker will say dont spite pentium D but nobody else likes it anyways... pentium d is for cheapskates that dont like performance lol...
> anyways yea X2 is the best way to go as you see by my setup.



Pentium D is for people who want the power of dual core but are on a tighter budget. They also might already have an socket 775 board and dont have the extra money to switch their mobo and get an X2 processor.


----------



## MasterEVC

Dont see mine listed, 2310


----------



## Ku-sama

aw, come on, dont you read, A64s dont have a FSB *CPU101*


----------



## Dual_Corex2

I was un-aware that we have stock fsb speeds above 400mhz?

Isnt the Core 2 Duo X6800s FSB 266mhz?  I believe thats the fastest stock....
But they got that OCed to 640mhz fsb, very impressive.


----------



## 4W4K3

Holy necro batman!


----------



## Dual_Corex2

How does any cpu NOT have an FSB? Isnt the FSB what controls the speed of the memory and the cpus speed in communication with the other components in the computer?  : /.  I would think in ANY bios with ANY cpu you would find the FSB.


----------



## Infected Cat

I would never buy an AMD as there unreliable and very temperamental. AMD produce high fsb output to compensate for lack in GHz. I haven’t yet seen AMD produce a CPU that is above 3.2GHZ, and they probably don’t have a chip that physically runs at 3.2 GHz. It's probably why most ppl buy Pentium CPU’s as there reliable and don’t crash while you're in the middle of a game or document.

Regards
Hacker Cat


----------



## Dual_Corex2

Infected Cat said:


> I would never buy an AMD as there unreliable and very temperamental. AMD produce high fsb output to compensate for lack in GHz. I haven’t yet seen AMD produce a CPU that is above 3.2GHZ, and they probably don’t have a chip that physically runs at 3.2 GHz. It's probably why most ppl buy Pentium CPU’s as there reliable and don’t crash while you're in the middle of a game or document.
> 
> Regards
> Hacker Cat



:/.  That is a very........uneducated statement..

Until recently, AMD held the lead with its lower clock speeds.  Intel had their cpus past 3.5ghz at this time, while they really werent faster.  The AMDs had alot more thought put into their cpus i guess is an easy way to put it.  From what i heard, the Pentiums needed the higher clock speeds becuz the pipelines in the cpu were longer then the ones in AMD chips.  So really, Core Clock speed in cpus is much like Peak Power in car audio.  It doesnt mean much.  You cant judge a cpu by its core clock speed.  Put a 3ghz P4 up against a 2.6ghz AMD Athlon and you will see the Athlon has the edge on most things.  And i find even todays AMD chips to be very reliable, my P4 was also reliable.  Both have been great CPUs.  

But the point is, AMD never needed their CPUs to have the high clock speeds the Pentiums did to produce the same or better performance.  

And your FSB is more important then your clock speed.  The faster the fsb, the faster the ram and other components connected will run.  The FSB is more/less the core clock of the entire system.


----------



## ceewi1

Dual_Corex2 said:


> I was un-aware that we have stock fsb speeds above 400mhz?


We don't - this thread was originally created to see how many people thought they did!



> How does any cpu NOT have an FSB? Isnt the FSB what controls the speed of the memory and the cpus speed in communication with the other components in the computer? : /. I would think in ANY bios with ANY cpu you would find the FSB.


Read CPU101.  Or the rest of this thread.


			
				Praetor said:
			
		

> *HyperTransport, Lightning Data Transport*
> Implemented on AMD K8 series processors, this is, for all intents and purposes a bidirectional FSB but is clocked significantly higher. The base clock for the HyperTransport is 200MHz and the multiplier's go up to five. Factor in the principle of DDR and you get a maximum net effective hypertransport clock of 1000MHz (2000DDR). Naturally, marketers will often write this as FSB1600 or FSB2000 however this is incorrect as the actual clock speed is still half of that (marketers forget that DDR only means "effective") and that HyperTransport and Front-Side-Bus are mutually exclusive. Intel platforms do not have support for HyperTransport.





> I would never buy an AMD as there unreliable and very temperamental.


No more or less so than Intel chips.


> AMD produce high fsb output to compensate for lack in GHz. I haven’t yet seen AMD produce a CPU that is above 3.2GHZ, and they probably don’t have a chip that physically runs at 3.2 GHz.


AMD chips have a completely different architecture, that allows greater performance at lower clocks.  So do Intel's new Core 2 Duos, for that matter.


----------



## Dual_Corex2

ceewi1 said:


> AMD chips have a completely different architecture, that allows greater performance at lower clocks.  So do Intel's new Core 2 Duos, for that matter.





Yes, Intel did a great job in turning the tables i must say


----------



## Dual_Corex2

ceewi1 said:


> Read CPU101.  Or the rest of this thread.




Even so, arnt you guys saying that Athlon 64s dont have an FSB? Mine does though, its 200mhz.  I know AMD calls it something different now, but is it not the same thing?  Everything is getting skewed for marketing if you ask me.


----------



## Infected Cat

Pentium CPU’s are high in GHZ due to Pentiums architecture. Pentiums architecture is much more advanced than AMD's allowing Pentium to reach speeds of 3.8 GHz. some users of amd are now relising that amd's architecture is to blame for tha lack in GHz power, it’s so basic that FSB is the only part that can be advanced. 

FSB is probably very important but not as important as clock speed, even Bill Gates said “a computer low in clock speed and high in fsb is not a computer i would have" 

AMD have fsb's of 2000 now which is pointless as this will lag the information between the ram and CPU. Memory these days go up to 800 MHz, when running that with a CPU that has an fsb of 1000 will not improve much, in fact the ram would be playing catch up. This is why clock speed is important it makes up for the gap between RAM and CPU FSB.


----------



## Dual_Corex2

Infected Cat said:


> Pentium CPU’s are high in GHZ due to Pentiums architecture. Pentiums architecture is much more advanced than AMD's allowing Pentium to reach speeds of 3.8 GHz. some users of amd are now relising that amd's architecture is to balme for tha lack in GHz power, it’s so basic that fsb is the only part that can be advanced.
> 
> FSB is probably very important but not as important as clock speed, even Bill Gates said “a computer low in clock speed and high in fsb is not a computer i would have"
> 
> AMD have fsb's of 2000 now which is pointless as this will lag the information between the ram and CPU. Memory these days go up to 800 MHz, when running that with a CPU that has an fsb of 1000 will not improve much, in fact the ram would be playing catch up. This is why clock speed is important it makes up for the gap between RAM and CPU FSB.



No.....that is incorrect.  The AMDs Athlon architecture is better then the Pentiums, thats why they did not NEED higher clock speeds to achive better performance then a Pentium at the same speed.  The clock speed truely means nothing man.  Compare the 1.8ghz Core 2 Duo to the 3.6ghz P4 and i doubt the P4 would win on any of the benchmarks.  And bill gates can shove that up his ass, the man knows nothing.  Iv always hated him......but thats besides the point.  I dont know if he really said that or not, but if he did, thats his opinion, if he doesnt want a good computer then let him have crap. 

Shall we go back.  The FSB is the speed at which the cpu communicates with the other components in the computer (ie. memory, video card, other PCI cards, hdd, etc.) whereas the clock speed is nothing more then a high number put out to sell.  I would never buy a 3.4ghz P4 over a 2.6ghz Athlon.  I feel that anyone that would should be educated more on cpus.  

My friend, you need to read some of this stuff and do some research before you go bashing AMD and making these incorrect statements....

And i can bet you anything if you had a cpu with an FSB of 1ghz you would truely amaze the world and it would have astonishing performance.  However being able to find the ram that would run close to 1ghz would be a problem.....but if you get the ram to run 1ghz as well, you got yourself one of the (if not) fastest machines out there.


----------



## Dual_Corex2

Infected Cat said:


> AMD have fsb's of 2000



Would this be in mhz or ghz? lol.  Either way that is also incorrect.  As stated earlier, there is no current cpu with an actual FSB above 266mhz (stock).  The highest reached in an overclock was 640mhz.  What you are thinking about is called AMDs HTT.  Which actually, is much more advanced then Intels Hyper-Threading.  I really didnt like the idea of Intels HT.  I dont think it was really useful, all it did was make the system believe there was 2 cpus instead of one.  Im not sure how that would make anything more effective.....  But AMDs are also better since the memory controller is built into the chip, making it faster to access rather then having it on the board taking up useful space as Intels do.


----------



## Dual_Corex2

Infected Cat said:


> \
> 
> AMD have fsb's of 2000 now which is pointless as this will lag the information between the ram and CPU. \.




I want to know........even if this statement was true (that AMDs have a 2ghz FSB) then how would it be pointless and lag the information?  If anything that would make the information move at lightning fast speeds.


----------



## Anatago tarusaki

Dual_Corex2 said:


> I want to know........even if this statement was true (that AMDs have a 2ghz FSB) then how would it be pointless and lag the information?  If anything that would make the information move at lightning fast speeds.




After adding the DDR, the fastes RAM i think right now is 1192MHz out of the box. plu there is a 1066MHz FSB on the newer Intel processors. and I would take a 2.4GHz C2D over ANY AMD out there. and nice tripple post.


----------



## Dual_Corex2

Anatago tarusaki said:


> After adding the DDR, the fastes RAM i think right now is 1192MHz out of the box. plu there is a 1066MHz FSB on the newer Intel processors. and I would take a 2.4GHz C2D over ANY AMD out there. and nice tripple post.



Thats a common misconception due to the marketing.  They advertise the bus speed (now has more names like HTT speed) as the FSB.  When that is not the case.  The 1066mhz FSB you speak of is really the bus speed  and the FSB is 266mhz.  And yes the new Core 2 Duos will pwn any AMD at anything really.  They are great cpus.  I highly doubt the fastest ram is actually 1192mhz.  Again, a misonception due to marketing.  Like the DDR400 thing.  Advertised to run at 400mhz and it only runs at 200mhz.  I believe if you cut that in half youd get a more accurate reading of 596mhz.  Which still seems like an outragous number to me.


----------



## Anatago tarusaki

Dual_Corex2 said:


> Thats a common misconception due to the marketing.  They advertise the bus speed (now has more names like HTT speed) as the FSB.  When that is not the case.  The 1066mhz FSB you speak of is really the bus speed  and the FSB is 266mhz.  And yes the new Core 2 Duos will pwn any AMD at anything really.  They are great cpus.  I highly doubt the fastest ram is actually 1192mhz.  Again, a misonception due to marketing.  Like the DDR400 thing.  Advertised to run at 400mhz and it only runs at 200mhz.  I believe if you cut that in half youd get a more accurate reading of 596mhz.  Which still seems like an outragous number to me.





Sorry, DDR2-1150
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820227184

And technically speaking the FSB of C2D models and other P4 and other processors that are newer use the 1066MHz FSB WITH a bus of 266, the FSB is 1066

As far as the RAM being twice the speed, it DOES run at the 575MHz, but it has the speed of 1150...


----------



## Dual_Corex2

Anatago tarusaki said:


> Sorry, DDR2-1150
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820227184
> 
> And technically speaking the FSB of C2D models and other P4 and other processors that are newer use the 1066MHz FSB WITH a bus of 266, the FSB is 1066
> 
> As far as the RAM being twice the speed, it DOES run at the 575MHz, but it has the speed of 1150...



Again with marketing....thats almost all it is nowadays.  They have skewed the meaning of bus speed and FSB now.  The FSB is that speed thats in your bios, which will NOT read 1066mhz.  Instead, it will read 266mhz which in the Intel cpus its quad-pumped to produce the 1066mhz bus speed.   And if your memory is running at 575mhz.....it cant have a speed of 1150mhz...

And logically, it wouldnt make sense to run the ram faster then the FSB (266mhz) anyway.  Your ram should always be synced with your cpus FSB.

Also, another misconception, DDR (double data rate) does NOT mean twice the speed.  It simply means its twice as fast as SDR at the same speed.


----------



## Anatago tarusaki

Dual_Corex2 said:


> Again with marketing....thats almost all it is nowadays.  They have skewed the meaning of bus speed and FSB now.  The FSB is that speed thats in your bios, which will NOT read 1066mhz.  Instead, it will read 266mhz which since the Intel cpus have 4 pipelines its quad-pumped to produce the 1066mhz bus speed.   And if your memory is running at 575mhz.....it cant have a speed of 1150mhz...
> 
> And logically, it wouldnt make sense to run the ram faster then the FSB (266mhz) anyway.  Your ram should always be synced with your cpus FSB.



Is that why I get better benchmark results and better performce with my BH-5's at DDR650 compared to DDR400?


----------



## Dual_Corex2

Anatago tarusaki said:


> Is that why I get better benchmark results and better performce with my BH-5's at DDR650 compared to DDR400?



There is no such thing as DDR650.  The highest DDR there is would be DDR400.  Anything higher (DDR500, DDR600 etc.) is nothing more then overclocked DDR400.  That is why you get better performance.  Another marketing seller.


----------



## Anatago tarusaki

Sigh.

You said it better to run with sync'd speeds. I can run it at DDR400 to be matched with my processor, but I can overclock it, which is essentially the smae as what you said with DDR2, You'd rather have DDR2-667 then DDR2-1150?


----------



## Dual_Corex2

Anatago tarusaki said:


> Sigh.
> 
> You said it better to run with sync'd speeds. I can run it at DDR400 to be matched with my processor, but I can overclock it, which is essentially the smae as what you said with DDR2, You'd rather have DDR2-667 then DDR2-1150?



I dont know much about the newer stuff with DDR2 and all.  I know that with DDR400 it was best to just run it with the cpus FSB, as you would gain a very small difference (if any) in performance as opposed to overclocking the FSB with the RAM.

DDR2-667 will run at 333mhz
DDR2-1150 will run at 575mhz

Im guessing with all the new stuff, the memory speed being higher then the FSB doesnt matter anymore.  Also, the DDR2-1150 will allow for alot more bandwidth then the DDR2-667.  You have to think about that as well.  That is, if the CPU will allow it.  Your memory bandwidth can also be limited by your CPU as well.


----------



## ceewi1

Dual_Corex2 said:


> Even so, arnt you guys saying that Athlon 64s dont have an FSB? Mine does though, its 200mhz.  I know AMD calls it something different now, but is it not the same thing?  Everything is getting skewed for marketing if you ask me.


The AMD CPUs have an integrated memory controller, so no northbridge link, and no FSB.




> Would this be in mhz or ghz? lol. Either way that is also incorrect. As stated earlier, there is no current cpu with an actual FSB above 266mhz (stock). The highest reached in an overclock was 640mhz. What you are thinking about is called AMDs HTT. Which actually, is much more advanced then Intels Hyper-Threading. I really didnt like the idea of Intels HT. I dont think it was really useful, all it did was make the system believe there was 2 cpus instead of one. Im not sure how that would make anything more effective..... But AMDs are also better since the memory controller is built into the chip, making it faster to access rather then having it on the board taking up useful space as Intels do.


Hyperthreading and Hypertransport are completely unrelated.



> And technically speaking the FSB of C2D models and other P4 and other processors that are newer use the 1066MHz FSB WITH a bus of 266, the FSB is 1066


Other way around.  FSB=266, effective bus speed=1066.  Read the rest of the thread.


----------



## Cromewell

> Instead, it will read 266mhz which since the Intel cpus have 4 pipelines


There's only 1 'pipeline'





> And technically speaking the FSB of C2D models and other P4 and other processors that are newer use the 1066MHz FSB WITH a bus of 266, the FSB is 1066


Accurately speaking, the FSB of a Core 2 Due (say an E6600) is 266 and it transfers 4x per cycle giving it an effective speed of 1066.





> You'd rather have DDR2-667 then DDR2-1150?


I would, but that's because my brain still functions and says it's silly to pay the price premium to buy those.


----------



## Dual_Corex2

ceewi1 said:


> Hyperthreading and Hypertransport are completely unrelated.



I know.......and?  I was using AMDs HTT since thats one of the speeds they have in place of the fsb now.


----------



## Dual_Corex2

Cromewell said:


> There's only 1 'pipeline'




Thanks for clearing that up.  Someone had told me that they had 4 and AMDs had 2 and thats why Intel cpus were quad-pumped and AMDs were dual-pumped FSBs.  I was unsure of that information though.  But it made since at the time


----------



## Geoff

Dual_Corex2 said:


> There is no such thing as DDR650.  The highest DDR there is would be DDR400.  Anything higher (DDR500, DDR600 etc.) is nothing more then overclocked DDR400.  That is why you get better performance.  Another marketing seller.



What do you think DDR400 is?  Just overclocked DDR333 or DDR266


----------



## Mankz_91

nope.

DDR-500 ect. is what the RAM is garunteed to run upto.

the highest clocking DDR RAm that was ever on sale went upto DDR-700

http://www.patriotmem.com/products/groupdetailp.jsp?prodgroupid=45&prodline=5&group=PC5600&catid=1


----------



## Jet

Anatago tarusaki said:


> After adding the DDR, the fastes RAM i think right now is 1192MHz out of the box. plu there is a 1066MHz FSB on the newer Intel processors. and I would take a 2.4GHz C2D over ANY AMD out there. and nice tripple post.



1. You should add "effective" after the 1192Mhz.
2. There is faster memory than "1192Mhz", in your language.


----------



## Infected Cat

the highest DDR there is would be DDR400.  Anything higher (DDR500 said:
			
		

> Wrong..........you can now buy DDR2 which is capable of reaching speeds of 800 MHz. Depending on how you're bios is configured speeds of 800mhz can be achieved with PC2-6400 DDR2 800MHz. Configuring bios is not really classed as over clocking you are enabling certain options within the bios, where on the other hand software that has been downloaded, giving you the option to over clock is forcing the system that does not have these options to be over clocked.
> 
> They our selling 800 MHz ram on eBay check the link below..
> 
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-TEAM-512M...5QQihZ013QQcategoryZ44938QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


----------



## apj101

> you can now buy DDR2 which is capable of reaching speeds of 800 MHz


he said ddr, not ddr2


----------



## Dual_Corex2

apj101 said:


> he said ddr, not ddr2



Yes, DDR and DDR2 have 2 different interfaces.  But its possible to get DDR up to semi-DDR2 speeds like the 700mhz one that was mentioned.  But they are not the same.


----------



## Dual_Corex2

Mankz_91 said:


> nope.
> 
> DDR-500 ect. is what the RAM is garunteed to run upto.
> 
> the highest clocking DDR RAm that was ever on sale went upto DDR-700
> 
> http://www.patriotmem.com/products/groupdetailp.jsp?prodgroupid=45&prodline=5&group=PC5600&catid=1



Well hey now, i had a stick of "DDR500" ram and when i oced my cpu to 250mhz (which would be equal to DDR500) the ram wouldnt run, i increased timings and voltage still no go.  So much for its "500mhz" speed


----------



## 4W4K3

I've had standard DDR400 run up to 255MHz. That's ~DDR500. And I KNOW I've seen people top 280MHz with Corsair/OCZ RAM, along with other "no-name" stuff that turned out to be golden. I just really liked OCZ


----------



## jedijeff123

2000mhz FSB?????             
i thought that 800 was second best......


MEDICAL WARNING
Excessive use of smileys could cause brain damage or even permanent mimicking of smileys.


----------



## Geoff

jedijeff123 said:


> 2000mhz FSB?????
> i thought that 800 was second best......
> 
> 
> MEDICAL WARNING
> Excessive use of smileys could cause brain damage or even permanent mimicking of smileys.



Praetor put those in to fool AMD users 

The highest bus speed now is 1066Mhz, while the 1333Mhz will be out soon.


----------



## NikonCP

[-0MEGA-];547956 said:
			
		

> Praetor put those in to fool AMD users
> 
> The highest bus speed now is 1066Mhz, while the 1333Mhz will be out soon.



I got my HTT speed over 1200mhz stable and i hear that HTT doesnt take to OCing well


----------

