1.3 or 1.33 amd

E

eAzyMoney

New Member
#1
it seems to me that the 1.3 should overclock better, higher multiplier, and the fsb starts lower.

the pIII 100fsb overclocked higher than the 133fsb.

so whats the deal? i see a lot of the 1.33's overclocked but no 1.3's.

------------------
I type slow and spell everything wrong.
...glad we've got that outta the way!
 
AUDSCOTT

AUDSCOTT

New Member
#2
I don't agree with you.

The 1.33 has a lower multiplier, but that's to serve the much more effective increased bus speed. The ratings are similar, but one is on the 266 bus, the other 200.

I.E. two 1.4 Gig computers: One running 100 X 14, the other 155 X 9. If CPU & components are even remotely similar or competitive, the higher bus will acheive better memory, PCI & AGP bandwidth.

There are some complications, sure...some periphs don't run well on the higher bus, but most will.

All things being equal, I recommend the higher processor speed.

Of course, since AMD chips have proven overclockability based on stepping, your best bet is to find a dealer or computer show from which you can choose the CPU based on this Tbird code article.

Between a 1.3 & 1.33 same stepping...I'll take the 1.33 every time.

------------------
Scott
 
E

eAzyMoney

New Member
#3
but my point is (and i want to know if this is right) if the athlons have a max bus speed they can handel the bus that starts lower has more room to grow.
also, if the ram, agp, and pci can only go so high that would put a cap on your fsb.
shouldn't the higher multiplier be more valuable? (to an overclocker)

------------------
I type slow and spell everything wrong.
...glad we've got that outta the way!
 
AUDSCOTT

AUDSCOTT

New Member
#4
Originally posted by eAzyMoney
but my point is (and i want to know if this is right) if the athlons have a max bus speed they can handel the bus that starts lower has more room to grow.
also, if the ram, agp, and pci can only go so high that would put a cap on your fsb.
shouldn't the higher multiplier be more valuable? (to an overclocker)
Considering all of the processors can be unlocked, the 1.33 seemingly, would have the higher multiplier potential.

What do you think the differnece is betwen the 266/200 fsb processors?

I'll tell you what the difference is: Multiplier settings.

So, a 200 fsb 1.3 is slower than a 266 fsb 1.33, by a narrow margin, granted, but the 1.33 unlocked will, theoretically, run faster than the 1.3.

The PCI issue with peripherals is a non-issue: My 200 fsb 1.2 Tbird runs 163 fsb. All my peripherals; NIC, urner, CD, LS120, zip100 - all function fine.

Most overclockers don't or won't overclock that high - thus PCI bus is a non-issue.

I don't know if this confuses you more or not, but all the AMD Tbirds & Durons are currenly unlockable.

My previous post still reflects my point of view.

------------------
Scott
 
Todd a

Todd a

New Member
#5
The CPU is not the restricting point for maximum bus speeds. It is the motherboard and chipset and memory mostly. Some PCI or AGP devices might give you trouble eventually.

If you have good memory an a motherboard like an Abit KT7A, you do not even need to unlock the multiplier. You just increase the bus speed. Most will do 150Mhz and most good memory will handle this at even cas2. That will let you get a 1.33Ghz Athlon to 150Mhz. That will give you 1.5Ghz.

Now if you have cheap memory, you can get a 1.3Ghz Athlon and up the bus speed to 115Mhz to get the same 1.5Ghz, but a 150Mhz bus will perform MUCH better than a 115Mhz bus. Even cheap PC133 can likely do 115 at Cas2.

Now if you have really good memory and get a lucky KT7A, then you might get up to 166Mhz bus speeds or more (which several have), but you will likely either need really good cooling or lower the multiplier to 9x for a total of 1.5Ghz again. That would be cool if the AMD 760MP ran at this bus speed default and the server versions of the Palimino had the multipliers for this. Think of how mighty a dual Palimino system at 1.66Ghz or a 166Mhz bus with 2GB of DDR at 166/333Mhz.


------------------
The COMPUTER is your FRIEND!
Happiness is manditory.
 
AUDSCOTT

AUDSCOTT

New Member
#6
I'll almost bet AMD going the wicked empire route with Palimino, though.

Locked multiplier with no bridges or other means to unlock.

Whada' think?

------------------
Scott
 
E

eAzyMoney

New Member
#7
right so the limiting factors ive encounterd were:

PII 350 @ 468 with the 2/3 divider my agp was getting to high 89 x2 178.

Celey 400 @ 400 dumb thing wouldn't go up at all on the same board as the PII 350.

PIII 750 @ 908 i havent really tried to push it but thats what i have now.

so prosseser overclockability and agp bus have been limiting.

the real question is who has seen the 1.3's potential? and what, again, is the 1.33 going to? (ive heard of 1.33 @ 2.0

------------------
I type slow and spell everything wrong.
...glad we've got that outta the way!
 
AUDSCOTT

AUDSCOTT

New Member
#8
It's crazy...but I love it!


My KK266 runs 1/4 PCI, 1/3 AGP.

At 163 the only problem I encountered was with 3Com NIC. Swapped it out for a $14.00 Netgear - works great.

I can't image running much faster bus. I have some better memory coming, so actually planning to lower bus 3 MHz, but run memory cas2, rather than cas3.

I know, it'll be a whooptidoo so of thing, but gives me something to think about 'sides work.


------------------
Scott
 
O

outside looking in

Bah. Erm... Eh? Bleh!
#9
If both the 1.3 and 1.33 were based off the same AXIA core, then there should be no difference in overclocking potential, right? I mean, since you can unlock the multiplier and set the FSB to what you wish, does it really matter what number AMD stamps on it?

I would think the two chips, as long as they had the same new core, would be identical in overclocking potential.

------------------
Those who fear the facts will forever try to discredit the fact finders. - Daniel C. Dennett
 

Associates