Why FSB overclocking P!!! (CuMine) or Celeron is so much easier than Athlon (T'bird) or Duron??

[Charles]

P!!! could easily hit 133MHz FSB or more, some even running at 152MHz. I don't have to mention Celeron...

Why Thunderbird or Duron can only run at 115MHz (and it's not stable)?

My points:
-All of the processors have on-die L2 cache which I guess can eliminate the off-die L2 cache problem found in older CPUs like Katmai or Classic Athlon.
-They are both manufactured using 0.18 Micron technology.

Anyone can explain this?

 

[BurntKooshie]

the EV6 bus, and therefore, teh chipset, and motherboards. Its not the CPU's themselves.

 

[LXi]

Yea, they're all manufactured in 0.18 process. The difference in overclocking is most likely due to the architecture differences.

 

[Tripleshot]

Its already ddring the fsb to begin with.(Makes me wonder now,why isn't it twice as fast as a PIII?)

 

[Charles]

The chipsets is a good point BurntKooshie. Via and Intel released CPU and chipsets to run officially at 133Mhz while none of AMD processors or chipsets are designed to run at 133(x2) FSB. Maybe AMD 760 chipsets will...???

 

[LXi]

VIA will soon have a DDR solution, well, for Intel first, called Apollo Pro 2000 or something. Then they'll do one for Athlons. But I dont really think the DDR will help them overclock though.