Hmm, apparently memory speed/timings don't means as much on my new machine as back in Athlon XP days...

[dug777]

The questions of a n00blet to be sure, but I know my tbred-b was much quicker at a higher fsb/lower multi than vice-versa for the same clock speed.

EDIT: Oops, machine is a Q6600(G0)/P5Q-Pro/4GB Kingston 800

 

[Denithor]

Not really a difference for most applications in real life (versus certain benchmarks).

If you look at several recent comparisons here on the main AT page you will see typically 2-3% difference max from higher fsb/lower multi versus same clockspeed with lower fsb.

Just set a high fsb + high multi for max OC performance.

 

[cubeless]

bus xfer is a lot higher now... but the intels still like higher bus speed in some apps, it's just not as huge a thing as before... and they seem to like higher bus speeds better than lower latencies if u need to trade off...

 

[Denithor]

Eh...

Went looking. Unless you run Adobe software extensively don't worry about it.

FSB: 1333 versus 1066

 

[magreen]

Right. FSB and memory speed both make hardly any difference on Intel Core architecture.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Its because intel put a lot of prefetch logic on new cpus.

 

[GundamF91]

If you remember T1 vs. T2 was a big debate on Athlon, but this has gone to nonissue now that DDR2 pretty much all use T2 feeding Core system.

Also the increased size in L2 (huge 4-6mb in dual, and massive 8-12mb in quad) is far bigger than Athlon's. So CPU does not have to constantly wait on memory to feed every little bit of data. It retains some essential stuff and it's nearly instant access from L2 cache.

 

[Denithor]

Actually that brings up an interesting question: do the lower cache chips gain more from higher fsb than their better endowed big brothers? IE would an e2180 show more of a difference at 6x400 versus 9x266 compared with how an e8400 would perform at those multipliers/fsb speeds?

 

[magreen]

Interesting question. I remember that e4300 vs e6300 performed exactly in proportion to their clockspeed difference (1.8GHZ vs. 1.86Ghz) even though one has 800fsb and the other 1066. That's at 2mb cache. I don't know what happens at 1mb and below.

 

[GundamF91]

Supposedly the difference between 1MB and 2MB is huge in terms of L2 amount, so that's the reason E2xxx are great overclockers, but the E4xxx is where it's at for performance/price ratio. Then when you go from 2MB to 4MB is not as drastic, and from 4MB to 6MB is more application dependent, but generally more L2 is always better.