Slower speeds = better performance???

[Eldraad]

Now, just to show you that I have too much time on my hands I would like to post what I am seeing and find out if others have noticed the same "strangeness" with their systems...

I replaced an MSI Pro 2-A motherboard with their K7T Turbo (due to a flash error) and moved all of the rest of the system to the new motherboard...
WD ATA 66 15 gig HD 7200 rpm
Voodoo 3 2000 pci
2 sticks generic 128 PC133 ram
Cheapo NIC (works great though)
T-Bird 850 MHZ (overclocked to various speeds...see below)
WBK 38 heatsink/fan (6800 rpm)
Windows 98SE
(other stuff I am sure that I have forgotton)
Bios version 2.4

Here is what I am getting at different speeds though using Sandra 2001:

@ 850 Mhz Memory 428/512 Cpu 2311/1156 HD 15061 fsb 100 x8.5
@ 950 MHz Memory 433/516 Cpu 2628/1292 HD 15042 fsb 100 x9.5
@ 988 MHz Memory 446/532 Cpu 2713/1334 HD 15028 fsb 103 x9.5
@ 1 Gig Memory 439/522 Cpu 2767/1372 HD 14891 fsb 100 x10
@ 1 Gig Memory 455/542 Cpu 2761/1357 HD 14858 fsb 105 x9.5
@ 963 MHz Memory 461/548 Cpu 2660/1309 HD 15002 fsb 107 x9

These are some of the speeds I ran stable at. My best Cpu score was at 1 Gig fsb 100 x 10 but the best Memory score was at 963 MHz and in all cases when I raised the speed I dropped the HD scores (except for 963 Mhz score which I thought might fall inline between the 950 MHZ and the 988 MHz scores but didn't).

I guess like a lot of folks I thought faster was faster all around...but maybe not? The memory is best at 963 Mhz, Cpu best at 1 gig and HD is best at 850 MHz. The shock was to see the HD scores drop... :Q

Any Thoughts/Ideas on this or ist it all my imagination (or "FSB Magic&quot?


After Edit: Sorry about the mess folks it didn't format the way I thought it would...

 

[rommel]

well havent run sandra...but i ran 3Dmark2001 and all the cpu increases increased the scores i was getting but when i would run my hercules ultra gf2 card at higher core and ram speeds i would get lower scores...thought that strange.