Legit Reviews

this a simple question that should probably arleady know, but which makes a difference, the FSB or the total frequency? i know the frequency is the FSB x its multiplyer, so is this number basically useless, and the FSB clock speed is what to look for?

The FSB determines a few things, firstly the FSB multiplied by the CPU Multiplier (as you mentioned) gives you the CPU clock speed. The FSB also determines the RAM clock speed after the RAM Divider is taken into account. Finally for Intel systems the FSB will be 'Quad Pumped' to give the Intel Equivalent to AMD's HyperTransport, but it's still just known as the Front Side Bus.

For RAM, if you're interested, it's FSB x RAM Divider / 200 = RAM speed (real clock).

Don't worry about the FSB, it's the actual clock speed that matters in most cases!

skierkid450 wrote:this a simple question that should probably arleady know, but which makes a difference, the FSB or the total frequency?

BUS interface is time based primitive interface no longer suitable to new hardware, no one really used it any more including Intel since the P4 series with RDRAM and "Quad-Pumped BUS", RDRAM used scalalable Link Interface so did "Quad-Pumped BUS".

skierkid450 wrote:i know the frequency is the FSB x its multiplyer, so is this number basically useless, and the FSB clock speed is what to look for?

Scalable Link Interface is bandwidth based hence the clock speed alone is useless --> Bandwidth = both Time AND Frequency.

Hey nein, were you even replying to Skierkid's post?

What has SLI bandwidth got to do with processor frequency? Are you trying to cram as much irrelevant knowledge into every post to impress us all? ^_^

I agree that the FSB concept is going to limit Intel very soon, and that they are going to rework it soon.

Dan

DMB2000uk wrote:Hey nein, were you even replying to Skierkid's post?

Yes, I did... Though I didn't garanty that everyone could comprehend the answer.

DMB2000uk wrote:What has SLI bandwidth got to do with processor frequency? Are you trying to cram as much irrelevant knowledge into every post to impress us all? ^_^

SLIâ„¢ is nVIDIA's trademark brand name, the trademark is the word play of "Scan Line Interleave" and "Scalable Link Interface", nVIDIA didn't invent "Scan Line Interleave" nor "Scalable Link Interface".

DMB2000uk wrote:I agree that the FSB concept is going to limit Intel very soon, and that they are going to rework it soon.

Most of Intel's customers are still stuck in superior "Symmetric Processing" world and could barely comprehend "Symmetric Processing" terminologies.

They're too slow and having too great beliefs to comprehend "Distributed Processing" terminologies. Despite the fact that Intel had gone "Distributed Processing" beginning/staring with P4s series incorporated "Distributed Processing" features.

HyperTransport Scalable Link Interface is a default "Penta-Pumped BUS" in AMD's Opterons, very well engineered and suitable to Quad-core direct connect architecture.

It could be direct connect point-2-point simultaneous "Quad-Pumped" 4-ways to 4-cores, and still have left over 25% standard deviation bandwidth for maintaining sustained performance and stability.

Scalable Link Interfaces are not rated in MHz nor GHz, they're rated by bandwidth throughput and the number of connections. For example PCI-e --> 1x, 2x, 8x, 16x, etc...

You obviously pride yourself on your knowledge of stuff. If you don't mind me asking, how old are you and what do you do in life (career wise)?

Dan

DMB2000uk wrote:You obviously pride yourself on your knowledge of stuff. If you don't mind me asking, how old are you and what do you do in life (career wise)?

I was born before world war II, raised and educated in a third world country... Realtime graphic hardware is what I do for a living.

DMB2000uk <---

BTW... How old are you and what is it that you do? What knowledge pride greatness did you have that would let you assumed what I said to another as "irrelevant"?

I'm afraid that your posts seem to come across with an air of superiority, almost condescending, and I let the fact that you have been banned from another forum influence my opinions of you.

For that I apologise.

I'm 20, currently studying software engineering at university.

When I say that the knowledge that you are bringing is irrelevant, you are quoting high level computing theory and engineering that people who asking fairly simple stuff (no offence to anyone). To people who haven't covered this, or have a general in-depth idea of more than just basic computing, its more than they need (and in some cases want to) know.

Now while some people might want to know all the intricacies of how what works where, it can be confusing to people fairly new to the subject. Take your first reply, you didn't actually answer the original poster's question but merely (in my understanding) said why his question was wrong.

If you however don't feel like changing the way you do things, then don't. I'll not say anything more about it beyond this post. (Unless on the small chance I think that something you said is inaccurate ^_^).

So, here's to new starts?

Dan

keep it clean - geez (no need to measure e-penis here)

3dfx introduced the world to SLI - scan line interleave way back on the Voodoo 2 series. This was released way back in February 1998, but in development before that... so SLI is already over 10 years old..

As far as FSB is concerned --- it's not out of it's uses or limiting Intel performance yet now that it's at 1333MHz.

DMB2000uk wrote:When I say that the knowledge that you are bringing is irrelevant, you are quoting high level computing theory and engineering that people who asking fairly simple stuff (no offence to anyone). To people who haven't covered this, or have a general in-depth idea of more than just basic computing, its more than they need (and in some cases want to) know.

Now while some people might want to know all the intricacies of how what works where, it can be confusing to people fairly new to the subject.

I noticed that people not much good at giving factual answers often are experts at how factual answers should be given.

DMB2000uk wrote:Take your first reply, you didn't actually answer the original poster's question but merely (in my understanding) said why his question was wrong.

If you however don't feel like changing the way you do things, then don't. I'll not say anything more about it beyond this post. (Unless on the small chance I think that something you said is inaccurate ^_^).

English is not my native tongue, I may not be much good at it but I assured you the answer was complete in 2 paragraphs.

It pointed out the misconception, the wrong question, as well as what he was looking for --> Bandwidth = both Time AND Frequency.

God forbid, he'd found the factual answer he was looking for and couldn't comprehend it. Is it not time to ask for further more questions if he wanted to do so?

Or is it only if people are doing things in your way would you then be better satisfied?

Apoptosis wrote:As far as FSB is concerned --- it's not out of it's uses or limiting Intel performance yet now that it's at 1333MHz.

Intel needed not do anything but inventing an another new name technology, something that sounds technical and believable for the ignorant masses. "Symmetric Processingâ„¢" sounds much better than "Time-share/Time-Division Processing" or just plain "Time Based Processing".

HyperTransportâ„¢ Scalable Link Interface is already getting nearly a decade old, Intel needed to invent brandnew 3GIOâ„¢/PCI Expressâ„¢ Scalable Link Interface.

Sorry but your answer was far more complicated than it needed be. He was asking a simple question and wanted a simple answer. It seems to me that question relates to overclocking. Frankly i have no idea what you were talking about, and to be blunt, i didn't even attempt to understand it.

When you change the FSB you don't need to know the technical in's and outs of how it actually works, all you need to know is what will it do to your CPU clock speed, and the RAM speed. At least that's all i need to know. The technical workings of the technology are neither here nor there.

Solinari wrote:Sorry but your answer was far more complicated than it needed be. He was asking a simple question and wanted a simple answer. It seems to me that question relates to overclocking. Frankly i have no idea what you were talking about, and to be blunt, i didn't even attempt to understand it.

Actually, some fools always whined whatever that maybe...

"Nein! Nein! Nein!... Please don't use 10th grade calculus explanations. It's a private language Nein of us Super-computing experts ever had a use for."

"Nein! Nein! Nein!... Please don't use 6th grade PSU explanations. Nein of us 20+ years PSU experts ever had 6th grade advance studies."

"Nein! Nein! Nein!... Please don't use factual garden-variety common sense... it is overly obtuse. Nein of us graphic expert extraordinaires are capable of it."

Solinari wrote:When you change the FSB you don't need to know the technical in's and outs of how it actually works, all you need to know is what will it do to your CPU clock speed, and the RAM speed. At least that's all i need to know. The technical workings of the technology are neither here nor there.

If you don't like my answer don't read it. No one forced you to do it, nor did I give it to you.

Lads,
Take this as a final warning....this thread will be locked if this goes on any longer.

This is skierkid450's thread, he asked the question, so the answer should be aimed towards him.

To answer the question. The FSB is important for the CPU to get data quickly.

All current Intel CPU's have a FSB of 800MHz or above, so this isn't too important with single and dual core cpu's.
When it comes to quad core cpu's, then higher FSB can benefit as the cpu can process more data.

When your overclocking, you need to increase the FSB to increase the frequency. Ideally you should use the lowest cpu multuplier and raise the FSB till it's max. The problem here is the motherboard / chipset will usually hold you back.
Basically, test and re-test to find your optimal setting. High FSB means more cooling and good ram though.

Wow, hey i wasn't trying to be hostile man, i was merely pointing out that your reply seemed to me to be overly complicated. Accurate? I couldn't say.

Most of us here just want to know what happens when you change the FSB frequency, and well, it allows you to overclock (or underclock if you wanted). I really have no idea what you were talking about, but i wasn't flaming you for it, i was just trying to be honest.

As for your last reply, again i really have no idea what you're talking about, i understand that english isn't you first language and i don't hold that against you.

I'm not trying to flame you or "prove you wrong", i really couldn't say if what you said was accurate or not, i am merely saying that someone asking what the FSB is or does, probably wouldn't understand what you were talking about.

I think we should just move on and forget about it. I'm not looking for a flame war nor am i a troll.

Solinari wrote:Most of us here just want to know what happens when you change the FSB frequency, and well, it allows you to overclock (or underclock if you wanted). I really have no idea what you were talking about, but i wasn't flaming you for it, i was just trying to be honest.

Try to talk for yourself instead of "US". I didn't give the answer to "US" nor to you.

Solinari wrote:I'm not trying to flame you or "prove you wrong", i really couldn't say if what you said was accurate or not, i am merely saying that someone asking what the FSB is or does, probably wouldn't understand what you were talking about.

That must be a very important opinion you had to share. But please try to wait until someone asks for it.

Charming.

What's the purpose of these posts?

Well done guys..you've just ruined skierkid450's thread.

@skierkid450, sorry if you haven't got the answer you wanted, but feel free to start another thread (which will be monitored very closely) if you wish.

Thread Locked!