Isnt higher fsb better than higher multiplier....

[habanero]

Why do so many people bump up the multiplier so much, but leave the fsb at only 105 or so. wouldnt it be a lot faster if you went down a little on your multiplier, but bumped your fsb to at least 133 if not higher like 145 or so?
I have an intel right now, but I plan on building a T-bird 900 with the A-bit KT7-A, dropping multiplier to like 8.0 and then pushing the fsb to something like 140 or 145, which would give me about 1.1 - 1.2
Your fsb is the key, isnt it?

[AKDUDE]

I agree, Im running a 150fsb with at 7x multiplier
AKDUDE

[OpenFriday]

Well yes and no. Yes higher fsb will give you better preformance, BUT stability is the key. the reason some people have the Multiplyer so high is sometimes because their ram cant handle higher fsb's or even if they can its just not stable and the only way for it to be stable is to have the high multiplyer. Idealy youd want a low multiplyer/high fsb because say you had two identicle systems side by side and the only difference was one had say their fsb @150 and the other @133 with higher multiplyer then the pc150 would have higher benchmarks. You just have to find the multiplyer/fsb settings that are just right.

btw-im using an Intel so multiplyer is not a question but just for an irrelivent point im running a 6x multiplyer and 150FSB.

[Rocky55]

to a point.146 or so, mine at 150 is slower, because my ram is pc133.

[OpenFriday]

I think we can all agree that you just have to test and find out which combination works best for you?

[proze]

habanero.. the reason you'll see so many people with low fsbs and high mutlipliers is that a lot of us have kt133-based boards. the chipset can't handle fsbs much over 100, so we're limited to overclocking the multiplier. you'll see that anyone with a newer kt133a board does have their mutliplier lower and their fsb higher, cos the kt133a can take it. higher fsb IS better, no ifs or buts.

[diehrd]

I agree with all the fsb statements,But Unless you can afford the best of everything,the multiplyer is the safest move with some fsb upping.I grabed the 266 M/B and 266fsb processor for this very reason.All the 200 fsb owners screm there systems are no different then the new 266fsb chips,I disagree toatly.First at a stock setting we all know 266 is better than 200.just as 100 was better than 66.So like I have done, I uped the chip to 10.5 and fsb at 133 for a 1.4,{stock chip is a 1.2 266fsb}Temps are great computer is stable as hell, prime 95 will get my temp to a max of 41c.SO i think I got a decient system without all the serious cooling mods.It all comes down to were your thinking takes you,Do you want the highest possible or a really good stable system that is oced at a respectable level.

[habanero]

Hey, thanks a lot for everyones comments. I am really excited about building my new system. I think I will order the parts in like two weeks. I have an intel celeron 566 @ 850 which is nice, but I have an A-bit VA6 mobo, and my saundra memory scores are only 130. I am looking forward to the possible saundra memory scores of 600 with the A-bit KT7-A, Tbird 900 OC'd, and 256M Crucial pc 133 cas 2 ram!

[lollypop]

the closer to spec you can get the better always shot for 133 and then the highest multipyier

[Nagorak]

Higher FSB is better, but it can also be a headache. As for myself, my KT133A starts having problems at higher than 140 MHz FSB. Even at 140, my network card doesn't like things that much. I really have no intention to swap every thing out of my computer just to get it to run at 150 MHz. In reality this results in a very SMALL improvement. If you can get it to run at 150, then so be it, but it's not practical to go through ten different mobos just to hit 150 FSB.