Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel - General › Current Core2Quad: a rushed project?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Current Core2Quad: a rushed project? - Page 2

post #11 of 13
Thread Starter 
speaking of data between cores to be transferred via the FSB.

for an overclocked quad (say q6600), would it be better to run 6x500 rather than 333x8 ???

so quads are a good buy. my point in this thread was not to be a news, but to ask whether the current line of quads are worth buying.

so another question: if it where in 2005, PentiumD had a huge price drop, and even though Intel said it was a rushed project. would you buy it?
post #12 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu View Post
speaking of data between cores to be transferred via the FSB.

for an overclocked quad (say q6600), would it be better to run 6x500 rather than 333x8 ???

so quads are a good buy. my point in this thread was not to be a news, but to ask whether the current line of quads are worth buying.

so another question: if it where in 2005, PentiumD had a huge price drop, and even though Intel said it was a rushed project. would you buy it?
Disclaimer: The following analogy is for demonstration purpose only, and does not fully take into account the complexity of the actual hardware or other bottleneck that may exist due to software design, hardware design, or other factors that may come in to play.

The FSB vs Multiplier debate can be tricky. It does not follow hard and fast rules, and does not apply to all situations. I am going to change your 333 X 8 to 375 X 8 just so we end up with the same overall clock speed.

Lets think of the FSB/Muliplier settings like a freeway of automobiles. The FSB is the speed limit in which the automobiles are allowed to travel. The Muliplier is the number of vehicles that are allowed on the freeway. At the 6 X 500 setting, 6 cars would be allowed on the freeway at a time, and could travel at 500mph. At 8 X 375 setting, 8 cars are allowed on the freeway at one time, but are allowed to only travel at 375mph. What happens is that any give car will get to its destination in a shorter amount of time, but the net total of cars that arrive at there destination of any set amount of time would be the same. Some software is more affected by the speed in which cars get to there location, and other depend more on the actual number of cars over said amount of time.

The system uses the FSB to do most of its important communications. So a higher FSB, not taking into account boosts gained by memory dividers, will yield better overall memory bandwidth. This can be important if you software is memory intensive and pushes you systems ability to keep the L2 cache loaded with fresh information for you CPU to process. But if you software is not memory intensive, but more hardware and calculation intensive, you may see no difference between the two settings.

In general though, at any given overall speed, the one with the higher FSB vs Mulitplier will yield better performance.

But you cant sacrifice too much overall mhz in order to get a higher FSB. Because you still need to get as many cars to there destination as possible.

There is alway a point of diminishing returns and so finding the right combination is not so simple. My suggestion would be to get as high of a FSB as you can, without sacrificing too much overall CPU mhz. You may be better off at 400 X 8 instead of 500 X 6 because of the overall 200mhz gain.
Folding Rigs
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD or Intel Anything with a lot of GPU Slots PPD Cruncher Just enough to fold. 
Hard DriveOptical DriveMonitorPower
Smallest Possible None None Whatever it takes 
Case
Bare Naked 
  hide details  
Reply
Folding Rigs
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD or Intel Anything with a lot of GPU Slots PPD Cruncher Just enough to fold. 
Hard DriveOptical DriveMonitorPower
Smallest Possible None None Whatever it takes 
Case
Bare Naked 
  hide details  
Reply
post #13 of 13
Thread Starter 
im asking this because q6600's communications between the 2 dual-core chips are also done by the FSB.

so will the current quad core's higher FSB produce more performance gain, at the same frequency?
or is it still the same as your analogy?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel - General
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel - General › Current Core2Quad: a rushed project?