Help me I am stupid.

Thanks guys.

I have been reading post after post but can not get it through my thick head what is what.

I have built many Intel based systems and I want to build an AMD based system relatively soon. I want "bang for buck," so I was looking at a mobile Barton core processor and appropriate motherboard.

My question is, I have no clue what the FSB means to me. Please use simple English if possible. Currently I have an Intel P4 2.53 Ghz with 533 FSB. I can overclock this to 3.1 Ghz on air. I have a vague idea what is means to be quad pumped (i.e. 4x), but how does that compare to an AMD mobile CPU with 266FSB (I read that it is dual pumped?). Would a non mobile Barton core processor be better, as it is already 333Mhz? Or what does that mean?

How high can I reasonably increase with FSB (no heroic cooling, just a reliable increase)? How is that comparable to what I have?

Will I see an improvement?

If the improvement is not noticable (with all other components being similar), I am also thinking about waiting a couple of months (maybe a year) to see how the 64 bit arena works out.

I built my system over 2 years ago. I believe I just want to get something new. I want know if it is worth the money.

I know these are basic questions, but help me out.

Thanks

Liver

Welcome to the forums! We're here for the enlightenment and education of all those who come here.

The frontside bus runs between the processor (be it an AthlonXP (not 64) or Pentium) and the north bridge unit. The North bridge communicates with the RAM, the PCI/AGP busses and the south bridge, which controls other perhipherals.

Intel touts their front side busses as "quad pumped". 533 is just 133MHz clock rate times four. AMD front side busses are "dual pumped". Honestly, the whole MHz war ****es me off; it leads to customer confusion as you are experiencing.

Good decision to wait on 64-bit. AMD is coming out with a new processor socket and new manufacturing process (Socket 939 and 90-nanometer, respectively) but 64 bit appears to be the immediate future.

For information on Mobile Bartons, you should read this thread which contains a wealth of information about the Mobile Bartons. They do seem to do really well

You will definitely see an improvement if you go from a P4 at 2.5 to a Mobile Athlon at say 2.2GHz. This is because AMD processors do more work per clock cycle == very, very awesome.

Once again, welcome to the forums.

Ok.

Captain,

Thanks. Now I know what the FSB does and how it is manipulated for marketing.

After reading the "Mobile FAQs" I still do not understand the relationship between

1. Intel and AMD and how the FSB rating works. I have heard that AMD chips do more work per cycle and that is one of the reasons AMD dropped the clock speed in the chip designation. So what do you think would be a comparable chip to a Intel P4 2.53 Ghz with 533Mhz FSB in AMD terms (consider no overclock, and all other components similar). I realize this is somewhat an artificial guage, but I do not have a reference point.

2. The relationship between mobile and non mobile FSB values. Is the non mobile FSB at 333Mhz inherently make it a faster chip? Or can the FSB on the mobile go greater than 333mhz during overclocking?

I like the idea of building a mobile AMD system. Getting something better and such, but from your last post I think I should wait and get something that will considerably faster (and a better value) than what I have now (i.e. AMD 64 bit du jour).

Thanks again,

Liver

1) I don't know but I'd think a fair guess would be a 1700/1800 oc'd to 2.5 or a 2500 barton at stock (I'd think it would be hard to compair because the your intel runs at 133x4fsb, t-breds run at 133x2, and desktop bartons run at 166x2.

2)The 133 fsb on the mobile can be raised well over the 166mhz of the desktop. From what I've read, they both can be raised to about the same frequency somewhere in 200+ land.

Edit: didn't read the question right so revised and was unaware mobiles came 133 stock (negligance because I don't have one)

Unless you are dieing to use an AMD system or have to upgrade NOW, I suggest waiting for sure.

1. Intel and AMD and how the FSB rating works. I have heard that AMD chips do more work per cycle and that is one of the reasons AMD dropped the clock speed in the chip designation. So what do you think would be a comparable chip to a Intel P4 2.53 Ghz with 533Mhz FSB in AMD terms (consider no overclock, and all other components similar). I realize this is somewhat an artificial guage, but I do not have a reference point.

Click to expand...

A 2500+ or 2600+ at stock speeds would be comparable. AMD's PR system works fairly well in comparison to P4B's.

How high can I reasonably increase with FSB (no heroic cooling, just a reliable increase)? How is that comparable to what I have?

Will I see an improvement?

Click to expand...

You almost definitely will not. It may even feel like a downgrade. A P4 at 3.1GHz is very competitive with a mobile Barton at 2.3-2.5GHz.

People say its a bad idea to invest in the A64, which will be updated in the near future, but I say that it's even worse to invest in a platform that's been obsolete for over a year, which the Athlon XP has.

If you want a nice upgrade, the Athlon64 is worth every penny. It's just tricky to overclock. However, at stock speeds, it leaves even heavily overclocked P4's and AthlonXP's in the dust. New sockets and chipsets are due in the next few months, but don't expect a large difference compared to what's out now.

I would just hold 'em for now and wait for Socket 939, which I am.

I do not think you will see an improvement over a 3.1GHZ P4. Keep the rig until you go A64. A mobile Athlon will probably be a downgrade.

Of course buying an Athlon system to play around with might be cool.

Thanks all

Gents,

I appreciate the advice.

I will also abide by the advice given and wait. I have no real need to get another system except experimentation and fun, but if I am going to experiement and spend the money I should make that into an improved system.

I admit getting a mobile AMD system would be a toy.

I suppose the boat for waiting on the 939 platform is getting crowded.

I used my Dial, did you?

Liver

The vast, vast, masses that are waiting for 939 are bound to be disappointed when they find that those of us who jumped into 754 months before them still match or outdo them in everything. Except for the Sandra junkies, of course.

Gautam said:

The vast, vast, masses that are waiting for 939 are bound to be disappointed when they find that those of us who jumped into 754 months before them still match or outdo them in everything. Except for the Sandra junkies, of course.

Click to expand...

Could you explain based on what a 754 can match or outdo a 939 in everything, on CPU raw power, memory bandwidth, system bandwidth, cache perofrmance, ....

I suppose you would compare two CPU's with same L2 cache size running at same frequency for a fair comparison.

The 939 CPU and motherboard are not out yet (at least to the general public), do you have any data to substantiate that (prediction).

hitechjb1 said:

Could you explain based on what a 754 can match or outdo a 939 in everything, on CPU raw power, memory bandwidth, system bandwidth, cache perofrmance, ....

I suppose you would compare two CPU's with same L2 cache size running at same frequency for a fair comparison.

The 939 CPU and motherboard are not out yet (at least to the general public), do you have any data to substantiate that (prediction).

Click to expand...

Socket 940 results. Registered memory doesn't take a significant toll on raw bandwidth, so I'd say they're quite indicative of how 939's will do. We've established that in memory-intensive tasks, the 939 will have an advantage, however the majority use their systems for gaming and light tasks such as web browsing. In gaming especially, the greater amount of cache will have an advantage. In synthetic benchmarks, the 939 will top the 754 in nearly everything. But real-world is a completely different story. The FX-5x's don't exhibit an especially earth-shattering performance difference when compared against 754's. Considering that the only difference between the 939-based Newcastles and the current 940-based Sledgehamers are cache and lack of registered memory, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to extrapolate from the results that the 940 has produced thus far.

Analogous to this 939/754 is running a P4 system in dual channel and without. In synthetic, memory-focused benchmarks, the latter loses out. But in real-world tasks, the single-channel system remains competitive.

The reality of the matter is that 939 won't deliver a marked performance increase compared to 754 for most, and considering that it will begin at PR 3500+, it will hardly be affordable. The 3400+ costs $400, and AMD usually prices according to PR rating. I'd expect a $500+ pricetag for 939 at debut.

So without going into the details about specific performance comparision, I don't see any support for your claim that "754 can match or outdo a 939 in everything".

A 939 system has about twice the max memory bandwidth, higher stock HT bus speed compared to a 754 system, so I think a 754 system cannot match or outdo a 939 system (running at same frequencies).

Since the 939 CPU + motherboard hardwares (including pricing) are not yet out, from a theoretical standpoint, something like "a 754 system can at most match the performance of a 939, in certain class of applications" is a more objective statement.

Touché.

Still though, I still believe that, unless one performs memory intensive tasks, the socket 754 is a safe bet.

Gautam said:

Touché.

Still though, I still believe that, unless one performs memory intensive tasks, the socket 754 is a safe bet.

Click to expand...

You may well be correct, but it ain't over until AMD sings.