Okay, i really want to know if...

364 fsb at 1:1 ratio is worth it over the 490+ fsb i can reach on ratios. which is better, high fsb at ratio, or lower at 1:1?

Aphex_Tom_9 said:

364 fsb
, 490+ fsb i can reach

Click to expand...

?? ...Dream on!

What was the question?

Aphex_Tom_9 said:

364 fsb at 1:1 ratio is worth it over the 490+ fsb i can reach on ratios. which is better, high fsb at ratio, or lower at 1:1?

Click to expand...

Wow... For a second there I thought you were just messin..

But after looking at your sig, I really think you listed those as DDR speeds, right...?

Athlon XP systems do *not* handle async memory frequencies well at all. RAM bandwidth will go down the tube with the added latencies. Sometimes it will make the system unstable as well (nforce2 namely).

Private Joker said:

?? ...Dream on!

What was the question?

Click to expand...

erm, that's ddr speed, sorry, 182 or 245+ fsb i meant
and i understand the thing about athlon systems not working well on ratios, but maybe such a high fsb would make up for it, even be better, that's my question. would running asynch at a very high fsb be better than synch at a lower fsb.

No, you really cannot make up the performance hit with the increased FSB.

Unfortunately async creates stability problems at high FSB. . You can try it, and run benchmarks in the two setups, but I seriously doubt you will gain performance and/or have a stable system.

The only time I've had success with it, is running low fsb (133/266DDR CPU) with DDR400 type RAM @ 200mhz, and even in that setup, the performance is roughly equivelent.

here is a idea ... since bios settings are SOOOOOO simple to change, why not run a benchmark with both settings and post them ... all of us would love to see just how much difference there really is ...

come on

do it ....... do it !!

maybeh i will, but not now...