play with multiplier

[n23sh]

When the performance is the main which one is better for E4300: 1) Multiplier:9, FSB: 200 ==> 9x200=1800 2) Multiplier: 6, FSB: 300 ==> 6*300=1800

 

[cprince]

CPU wise, it doesn't matter because, either way, it's running at the same speed(1.8GHz). However, the rest of the system might take a performance hit because of the slower FSB. I would go with 300MHz FSB. Now, why would you want to underclock the thing when you know that you can overclock it?

 

[f4phantom2500]

What do you mean underclock? The E4300 is stock 9x200. If those are your options, just leave it at that. If you want to underclock, leave the FSB at 200 (stock) and lower the multi. If the performance is a factor then overclock.

 

[yuppiejr]

I believe this article addresses the question of "same clockspeed, is a higher FSB better?"

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6

They specifically compare a x6800 clocked at 2.66, a 10 x 266 fsb and 8 x 333 fsb - and depending on the app the performance gain was up to 7.5%. The biggest gains were in media encoding (video/audio) and gaming but the list of tested apps wasn't exactly exhaustive.

So a higher FSB is always better as long as your northbridge is adequately cooled and your RAM can keep up.

 

[f4phantom2500]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
I believe this article addresses the question of "same clockspeed, is a higher FSB better?"

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6

They specifically compare a x6800 clocked at 2.66, a 10 x 266 fsb and 8 x 333 fsb - and depending on the app the performance gain was up to 7.5%. The biggest gains were in media encoding (video/audio) and gaming but the list of tested apps wasn't exactly exhaustive.

So a higher FSB is always better as long as your northbridge is adequately cooled and your RAM can keep up.

Yeah, but I don't see why he's willing to overclock the RAM (presumably) but not his E4300 😵.

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: f4phantom2500

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
I believe this article addresses the question of "same clockspeed, is a higher FSB better?"

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6

They specifically compare a x6800 clocked at 2.66, a 10 x 266 fsb and 8 x 333 fsb - and depending on the app the performance gain was up to 7.5%. The biggest gains were in media encoding (video/audio) and gaming but the list of tested apps wasn't exactly exhaustive.

So a higher FSB is always better as long as your northbridge is adequately cooled and your RAM can keep up.

Yeah, but I don't see why he's willing to overclock the RAM (presumably) but not his E4300 😵.

If he's using DDR2 667 or 800 he's still well within spec at a 300 mhz FSB (600 mhz RAM if it's 1:1). Running DDR2/533 would either require a mild overclock or a RAM divider which would probably negate any gains the FSB improvement would yield.

I would assume the reason he's asking is to maximize performance while keeping heat to a minimum, media center application perhaps?

 

[n23sh]

Yes, I have the DDR2, 800. so I'm going to rise my fsb and use the lower multiplier.
Thanks yuppiejr.