CPU bandwidth or Memory bandwidth?
This is what I call a self fulfilling prophecy, but it helps to wrtie it down so you can drww the conclusions you need:
Okay after reading Kemnny's and Dizzy's OC thing it got me thinking a little.
FSB is king - biut is more important to have ram at warp speeds and cpu at high mhz but lower FSB so that you have a mighty memory multiplier?
I read a lot of 550-600mhz on a cpu - but ram has to be in 1:1, unless you pick up some golden samples of RAM and can run a 5:4 multiplier or even the FSB can be limited by teh ram itself.
Of course DDR3 me and Blindfitter were running 1:2 the ram was running twice as fast as the cpu, the results were very pleasing.
Truth is there is always a bottleneck somewhere - high cpu fsb usually equates to running ram 1:1 which hampers peformance.
I think on todays core2 cpu's the happy compromise for those who do not have golden sample ram is to have a 440-500mhz fsb on cpu and have the ram running quicker 580-600mhz on DDR2 or higher on DDR3.
The above explains why a higher CPU multiplier is always an advantage when trying to gain max cpu/ram performance.
Or have I got it totally wrong?
One of the things the really gets my goat is the lack of consistently good overclocking DDR2 RAM (1200mhz+ should be the norm by now) that prevent mere mortals from realising the potential of there cpu's - simply coz the ram can't peform, was teh same on DDR1 and DDR3 is the future for that very reason - to get consistnely higher FSB on the RAM you need a new technology.
How important will this all be with Barcelona? Will average Joe get more from his system than a core 2 owner simply because the RAM demands will be more achievable with of the shelf PC8500 ram?
Still got a few 939 UK records :O
(highest rank ever: 1st at 05 Nov 2006 12:30, most hwboints ever: 331.7 points at 05 Nov 2006 12:30)
- Still got pedigree