- May 16, 2002
- 27,299
- 16,129
- 136
OK, I am late with this. Same system,, the only variable is the fsb speed, all @3360 on a Q6600
Doing F@H, times per frame (lower is better, min:sec)
@470x7 = 12:02
@420*8 = 12:23
@373*9 = 12:33
Or 4.3% improvement. If I had dual channel for the test, the results would have been way different. If I get a chance, I may try that test if I get another system with dual channel I can test with (I don't shut down my F@H boxes for benchmarks) I will update the results.
Doing F@H, times per frame (lower is better, min:sec)
@470x7 = 12:02
@420*8 = 12:23
@373*9 = 12:33
Or 4.3% improvement. If I had dual channel for the test, the results would have been way different. If I get a chance, I may try that test if I get another system with dual channel I can test with (I don't shut down my F@H boxes for benchmarks) I will update the results.
