Why no 166 or 200 mhz FSB?

[BDSM]

I've beard nothing about higher FSB's on the Athlon front. Why is this?

Running FSB at 133 and mem at 166 like with the kt333 sucks. It doesn't give much of an improvement over 133/133.. and running mem at 200 will give an even smaller performance increase!

We all know it's not impossible to use 200+ FSB speeds. many boards handle it with ease. And that is without the correct divisors!

So.. Why oh WHY won't they release higher fsb cpu's or chipsets with the correct divisors?!?!?!

I know that the ALI chipset has /5 /6 divisors but performance wise it sux anyway.

 

[Athlon4all]

It's really a matter of AMD not wanting to spend moneyon the development of 166fsb platforms, and further, if you look at the end of Anand's XP2100+ review, the Athlon XP doesn't benefit much at all from 166fsb when compared to 133/166 async operation on KT333, so really, the Athlon XP isn't changing at all really.

 

[BDSM]

well.. it's not that much.. but a few percents "for free" ain't bad. AMD needs all it can get.

And it can't be that expensive. Like I said.. many mobo's handle 200+ bus already. All they would have to do is to enable the correct divisors. I doubt that is very hard or expensive at all! Since the mobo's are solid at those speeds it wouldn't be a problem.. And they would be rock solid if the pci and agp weren't so insanely far out of spec!

 

[AA0]

Heres the problem, most people are using a 133 bus, and some still 100. AMDs manufacturering capabilities are not good right now, and they need help. Introducing another bus variation, or even two will severely hamper them. Making 133/166 and possibly 200 bus cpus won't work well, I hope they skip right over 166 and move to 200 with new chipsets supporting them, it'd be unlikely though.

I'm not sure, but I think they still are making 100 bus 1.4sGhz xpus