higher fsb and lower multiplier or lower fsb and higher multiplier?

[advancedgeek]

which one is better? and isn't cpu's overclocking limited to the mhz you can achieve? like 500 x 7 = 3.5ghz 400 x 9 = 3.6ghz

 

[b1gapl]

Higher FSB/lower multiplier, will yield a better overclock. As the FSB is the channel, that the whole system communicates under. So overall the computer will communicate at 500MHz. With the FSB at 400MHz, it's only the CPU, getting most of the benefit.

 

[mnelson07]

Isn't the higher fsb/lower multi more strenuous on the proc than lower fsb/higher multi?

*edit*
Also if you don't mind me asking b1gapl, what volt did you use to get a stable 3.3GHz? I'm running stable at 3.0GHz with one notch up from the stock volt, so I believe it's at 1.19 or something very close to that.

 

[b1gapl]

Not sure about that. My guess would be no. Sora runs his E6300 with a 520FSB, everyday.

I wouldn't hesitate for a higher FSB either.

edit:
I use 1.4v

 

[mnelson07]

Thanks! I'll try upping the volt close to that to get a stable 3.2GHz or so and run Orthos tonight. I'm not complaining though, I'm liking 3.0GHz a lot; I want to comfortably push this G0 Q6600 as much as I can.

 

[zmatt]

One thing you have to realize is that clocking the fsb higher is more difficult than clocking the cpu higher. The fsb wall and the memory wall are serious issues that are only slightly alleviated by things like quad pumped fsb, and DDR memory. parallelization is a good thing.

anyways I guess that can be useful if you want to know a bit of the tech behind it. what i cant figure out is why we have a wall to begin with. is it to hard to make memory with the same speed tolerances as cpus? yeah it would cost more but then there would be no such thing as a bus bottleneck.