what's more important: fsb mhz or cpu mhz?

[zodder]

What's better for pure speed: a faster fsb and a slower processor (600e@800) or a slower fsb and a faster processor (750e@900)? Going with the first setup (600e@800), you would loose 11% of the processor speed (900 vs 800) but you would gain 9.7% on the fsb speed (133 vs 120). Which is better?

[grover]

I'd say the 10% gain in FSB would probably be better since it's overclocking *everything* on your computer, including the AGP card and RAM. But it would really come down to what applications you put the most priority on. Stuff that accesses RAM a lot would run faster at 133, while CPU intensive apps (like SETI) would do better at 900MHz. Try benchmarking it both ways with whatever program you put the most priority on, and see which is better

[kashi80]

i guess FSB, coz i had 550 running at 733 (5.5x133) and 3DMark2000 score was 5400, now i have 750 @ 840 (7.5x112)..now um getting 5520 score....not much improvement from 733
(i have CL Annhilator Pro)


i once clcoked my 750 at 878MHz (124Mhz FSB) n my 3DMark score went to 5712

[Big Lar]

Hi Zodder I'd go with the fsb myself, and save yourself some money

------------------
Help me get this Boot outta my azz!!!!

[D|sElMiNk]

Higher FSB is always better - what good is it if the cpu is XXXXXXMHz, but it has to wait three years between the request times to the memory ?

Oh and - SETI LOVES FSB!

[NiteOwl]

Yes. Seti does love high FSB, but I think mainly RAM performance.

Hello, Larry, long time no see.