Better to have lower multiplier in processors?

[orcorcorc5]

I've read a few places that it's better for the processor to have a lower multiplier, as it leaves room for more overclockability. I can't see how this makes sense considering Intel locks all their multipliers. So why should a 2.53 GHz at 533 FSB (multiplier of 19) be better than a 2.40A GHz at 400 FSB (multiplier of 24) when it comes to overclocking? Just increasing the FSB to 133 on the 2.4A makes it a 3192 MHz processor.

Would the 2.53 have a better chance of reaching 166 and even 200 than the 2.4A would? I hear that 1.6A's don't even have a problem reaching 166, it's usually other components like the ram or the motherboard or the cooling that stop them from reaching these speeds.

How is a 2.53 different from an overclocked 1.9A running at 533 FSB? The 1.9A is less than half the price.

 

[madthumbs]

The lower the multiplier, the smaller jumps that must be made for each step of the overclock. This gives more speed options. Higher FSB's usually mean better performance at the same speed especially if the ram and other bus's are OC'd.

 

[Holmecollie]

Yea... I'd like to see a 400-533 fsb jump without changing the multiplier... hehe

 

[orcorcorc5]

I'm about to buy a 2.2A with a 22 multiplier... is this a bad idea?

 

[orcorcorc5]

Alright, how about a 2.4. What's the difference between a 2.4A and a 2.4B? The 2.4A has a multiplier of 24 and runs at 400 FSB. The 2.4B has a multiplier of 18 and runs at 533 FSB. Which one is the better one to get and why? The 400 has more room to overclock the bus. But the 2.4B has a lower multiplier. I don't really understand.

 

[orcorcorc5]

can anyone answer that 2.4 question? I think I'm still going with a 2.2 but would love to know the difference.

 

[Kingofcomputer]

2.4A = 24x100 = overclock to 24x133 = 3.2
2.4B = 18x133 = not much overclocking 18x150 (let's say) = 2.7
even 18x166 = 3.0

multiplier - doesn't matter.
fsb - lower is better if you'll do ultimate overclocking.