HTT Clock vs CPU Clock Questions

[Rotax]

I'm guessing I know the answer...
Will running the CPU at 2.7g w/ a HTT of 900 be *OVERALL* faster than running at 2.4g w/ a HTT of 1080?

HTT refers to memory bandwidth does it not? Can anyone give me a explanation of how HTT relates to realworld..or what it is/does.. Communication speed/bandwidth between CPU/mem controller and motherboard??

Main usage of this machine is gaming, so, memory bandwidth does have SOME factor here.. But I'm guessing the > clock speed will prevail??

I'm just havin a hard time deciding which is *better*?

 

[stevty2889]

HTT is the replacement for the FSB. It is a point to point bus that interfaces the CPU with the rest of the motherboard. You are very right that 2.7ghz with 900HTT is faster than 2.4ghz with 1080HTT. It's not refering to memory bandwidth. The mem controller is on the CPU itself, and has direct communication, doesn't go through the HTT. It's been shown that even dropped to 600, the HTT doesn't have a performance impact. Running the HTT at above 1000 gives no performance increase either, but having it over 1000 does increase the chance of being unstable, so it's always best to keep it at 1000 or less.

 

[Rotax]

very good, exactly what i wanted to know..and prob cause to my instabilities.

thanks much.

 

[nJett]

I saw some benchmakrs on some site where they dropped the HTT down to as low as 400mhz or so and it had less than 1% of a performance decrease assuming all other factors remained the same. Can't remember where that was but if it's true it's an interesting result. Has anyone here confirmed how low HTT can be before it has a significant impact on real world performance?