No trust me, they do have an fsb wall. I've seen it myself, and so have others. People can play with multi's, only to find that their e4300 or whatever, will always crap out at say 360fsb, always. Core clock doesn't even matter, and fsb is what stops the OC. Trust me, it exists no question.
So instead of thread jacking the e4300 questions thread I thought it best to start a thread aimed at clarifying whether CPUs really have a max fsb limit or not.
So far I'm inclined to say cpu's have an overall maximum frequency independent of a maximum FSB wall. I will go from my own personal experience and say that all e4300s don't crap out @ 360 fsb. I have been able to reach 380x9 bench stable. Not only that but others have sucessfully broken upwards of 400+fsb and only been able to do so by lowering their multiplier. Munchers and a few others can attest to that. Also heres a thread from over in Xtremesystems:
That guy was able to hit 500 fsb with his e4300, so to generalize and say " People can play with multi's, only to find that their e4300 or whatever, will always crap out at say 360fsb, always" seems a little misguided and inturn misleading.
Another case in point would be the improved overclocking of quads on the new P35 chipset boards:
From what I had seen quads had not hit FSB speeds as high before on the older chipsets (p965,975X,680i). Which brings me to where I believe FSB walls are determined, the chipset or the motherboard.
I could be completely wrong. Infact I started this thread in the hopes of finding clarification. I welcome all opinions, but please include "proof" to justify your position.