What's the point of 1333 fsb?

[tigersty1e]

You could just OC a computer to 1333 fsb and beyond.

Is there more OC potential?

 

[covert24]

it was developed to allow the quad cores and later stepping core2's to have more bandwidth to send information. And in tern improving speeds and throughput

 

[PhlashFoto]

I have a major theory that just might be revolutionary to the industry: Technological advancement and selling more products.


Can I get my Noble Prize now?

 

[Aluvus]

Most people have no interest whatsoever in overclocking.

The point: Intel gets to keep introducing new, slightly better parts while AMD plays catch-up.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: covert24
it was developed to allow the quad cores and later stepping core2's to have more bandwidth to send information. And in tern improving speeds and throughput

:thumbsup:

And it's counter productive to overclocking because of the lower locked multi's, requiring even higher FSB's to overclock the lower clocked stock parts.

 

[SerpentRoyal]

The P35 chipset generally provides more overclocking headroom with no FSB hole from 200 to 500MHz. P35 also run a little cooler than P965.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Honestly? Mostly marketing, studies have shown that although increasing your FSB should, in theory, allow for more bandwidth, but because of the conservative bandwidth usage of the C2D core, it really doesn't matter. IOW, bandwidth isn't exactly limited by the existing 1066 FSB speeds, so the bump to 1333 doesn't really help all that much. It may theoretically help for the dual-die quad-cores, because they have to exchange their L2 cache snoop information over the FSB, but that remains to be seen.

But with the 1333 FSB tier, Intel gets to introduce new CPUs and new chipsets to support those new CPUs, causing people to spend $$$ upgrading, to think that they are getting a performance increase when they are really not.

Same with PCI-E 2.0, more bandwidth, but current GPUs aren't nearly close to exceeding the bandwidth that PCI-E 1.0 x16 provides.

It's all just like the ATA-100/ATA-133 debate really.

 

[Shimmishim]

Originally posted by: Aluvus
Most people have no interest whatsoever in overclocking.

The point: Intel gets to keep introducing new, slightly better parts while AMD plays catch-up.

i think your first statement is very true.

1333 is for those that don't overclock.

again, for the overclocker there really isn't a clear cut advantage to 1333 fsb. even AT's review shows not a huge gain over 1066 fsb.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

AT showed the great combo of P35 and 1066FSB chips. setting the FSB to 1333 alone yields a painless yet substantial OC. unfortunately, this combo no longer makes financial sense for a new CPU purchase.

 

[gobucks]

i imagine that apps that truly use all 4 cores would benefit substantially from the faster bus. Since each pair of cores needs to communicate over the FSB, which is rather inefficient, the faster FSB speeds should help minimize the problems associated with this approach.

But in general, they just bumped the FSB up because their chips are more than capable of supporting the faster bus, and there isn't much reason for them not to just let them run faster (except for overclockers, but since we aren't paying for the extra OCing performance I doubt intel cares if its new FSB makes it more difficult to get a huge OC). I also get the impression that once you get multipliers higher than 12x, you start to get FSB limited (maybe this has something to do with the 12 stage pipeline?), and in order for intel to release a chip faster than 3.2GHz, they would need a multiplier of 13x using a 1066MHz FSB.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: covert24
it was developed to allow the quad cores and later stepping core2's to have more bandwidth to send information. And in tern improving speeds and throughput

Also, it fits better with the 667MHz DDR2 RAM (fewer wait states). Anyway, Intel has this idea of introducing faster FSBs on desktop components, and then migrating them on server components (the later ones having a much tougher certification testing).
Is the 1333FSB better for current quad cores? Yes, barely.

It's not about performance, but about selling. Intel built versions of Pentium 3 at 4x133MHz (533Mhz) and also 11x100MHz (1100MHz). Using a faster bus on a much slower processor stinks of reasons not related with performance

 

[tigersty1e]

Originally posted by: Shimmishim


1333 is for those that don't overclock.

again, for the overclocker there really isn't a clear cut advantage to 1333 fsb. even AT's review shows not a huge gain over 1066 fsb.

I didn't think there was either. Both 1066 and 1333 fsb chips are on the same platform. The only thing is that the 1333 fsb already comes out of the box as 1333.

Maybe they use the best performers as the 1333 fsb and the least performerfs as the 1066.

 

[zephyrprime]

Could it possibly be that 99% of computers are not overclocked?!?!?!

Also, since it seems like it's pretty easy for chipsets and boards to run at this speed, there simply isn't any reason to
*not* introduce this speed grade. It probably won't be a much use for most apps but it could be useful for server environments which are more bandwidth constrained due to multiple sockets.