Overclocking FX-60... FSB or Multiplier?

[WAZ]

Hey everyone, just started overclocking for the first time last night. My aging-but-still-respectable system:

AMD FX-60 (2.6 GHz out of the box)
MSI K8N-Neo2 Platinum
2GB (2x1GB) of DDR400/PC3200 G.SKILL RAM

My main question: if I want to OC to 3GHz, what's the difference between the following multipliers x FSB possibilities?

12 x 250 MHz
13 x 230 MHz
14 x 214 MHz
15 x 200 MHz

Is it just RAM speed? i.e. is a higher FSB x lower multiplier ideal if the RAM can handle it?

I took the multiplier off Auto and set it to 13 x 200MHz FSB = 2.6GHz. Per some online OC'ing guides, I then started boosting the FSB. I only had a little bit of time to try last night so I only got it to 13 x 220MHz = 2.86GHz. At 13 x 220 it was running stable last I tested, so my understanding of the process means my RAM was running at DDR440 (RAM overclocked), correct? Do I want to continue that route or bring the multiplier up instead? Is there a preferred method, or does it just depend on if my RAM can handle being boosted alongside the FSB?

Sorry, it's probably really simple but I just want to make sure I have it right.

 

[error8]

I would say for the start try seeing what is the maximum speed the cpu cand handle only by increasing the multiplier. After you've found that, decrease the multiplier and increase the FSB to see if the ram can OC a bit.

 

[WAZ]

Ah, you mean to see if I can surpass 3GHz on the processor alone, not potentially hindered by RAM? That is a good idea, thanks. I've read the FX-60 can OC pretty high; it's more a matter of cooling, so hopefully I can push some extra life out of this thing.

 

[nerp]

Yeah, explore what you can do with that unlocked multi first.

 

[WAZ]

Will do. Thanks for the tips guys.

So I was correct about the relationship between the FSB and overclocking the memory, right? An ideal situation (once I determine my max processor speed via multipliers) is to have a higher FSB with a lower multiplier? i.e. 12 x 250MHz is better than 15 x 200MHz, because, assuming my RAM can handle it, it would be running 3GHz+ at DDR500 instead of DDR400 ?

Anyway, I appreciate the advice.