• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Celeron Tuly Fsb Vs cpu Speed

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

davefred99

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2002
Location
Southern Californis
This is my first post and I would like to ask all you experienced oc'ers wich is the most important? FSB or Cpu clock. The threads I have read always recomend the highest fsb you can get for the best overall system performance. The problem is that sometimes you can not get a high fsb but you can use a cpu that has a very high clock speed. At what point is the slower fsb preventing your faster cpu from increasing overall system performance. My concern is primarily the new Celeron tualtins rated at 1.3 but seem to have a hard time reaching higher fsb speeds of say 133mhz. Will a slower cpu say a 1.1a with a higher fsb always out perform the faster cpu clock or is there more to it than that.
 

M00CH

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2001
Location
newfoundland
thats hard to say.

thake your example of the 1.3 and the 1.1.

and say a overclock of 1.4gig

to get the 1.1 to a higher speed the fsb will have to go higher, this will start to stress the other componets. ( ram, pci ,agp, HDD etc.)

but if you can get the 1.3 to 1.4 there will be less stress and in turn less heat. the performance will or should be more stable with the 1.3 oc to 1.4.

but then again 1.4 g with the same type cpu is still 1.4gig.

i would try to cool and overclock the the 1.3. in the long run it will be or should be less of a pain and more stable

hope this makes cents. heheh
 

takiwa

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2001
Welcome to the forums!

I would tend to go for the highest FSB as opposed to raw clock speed...I have my system set at 142FSB right now, at almost 1.6GB (1.57), and I have no doubt that my system would out-perform a 1.6Gb processor at stock FSB speeds (100 or 133 - it does in most benchmarks); we're at the same clock speed, but my entire system has been overclocked (memory, sound, video, HDD, etc.), so I'll see more of a performance gain. There is a point you would get to, however, when clock speed would outright win the race...but I don't know how high that clock speed would be...
 

Yodums

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2001
Location
Ottawa, Canada
davefred99 said:
This is my first post and I would like to ask all you experienced oc'ers wich is the most important? FSB or Cpu clock. The threads I have read always recomend the highest fsb you can get for the best overall system performance. The problem is that sometimes you can not get a high fsb but you can use a cpu that has a very high clock speed. At what point is the slower fsb preventing your faster cpu from increasing overall system performance. My concern is primarily the new Celeron tualtins rated at 1.3 but seem to have a hard time reaching higher fsb speeds of say 133mhz. Will a slower cpu say a 1.1a with a higher fsb always out perform the faster cpu clock or is there more to it than that.

FSB is my opinion, it clocks everything, clock speed is just clocking the CPU basically. There's an example with a Celeron Tualatin:

1.3 vs 1.0a - 1.3 will probably hit 124fsb max on average (1.6gig), 1.0a will hit some what 1.45gig max. The FSB is a huge gap, where the 1.0a will crunch Seti faster, run games faster, have better ram timings although lose by not awhole lot in CPU Benchmarking.

Just my opinion, I don't think clock speed is anything fancy, I find FSB more cool looking..

Yodums
 

funnyperson1

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2001
Re: Re: Celeron Tuly Fsb Vs cpu Speed

Yodums said:


FSB is my opinion, it clocks everything, clock speed is just clocking the CPU basically. There's an example with a Celeron Tualatin:

1.3 vs 1.0a - 1.3 will probably hit 124fsb max on average (1.6gig), 1.0a will hit some what 1.45gig max. The FSB is a huge gap, where the 1.0a will crunch Seti faster, run games faster, have better ram timings although lose by not awhole lot in CPU Benchmarking.

Just my opinion, I don't think clock speed is anything fancy, I find FSB more cool looking..

Yodums

this coming from the man w2ith 171fsb :);....i ould have to agree fsb is the best way to go...i think a good compromise between pure clock speed and fsb is the celly 1.1A its a pretty good deal for the price...
 
OP
D

davefred99

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2002
Location
Southern Californis
fsb vs cpu clock

Thanks for all of the input so far, but I realy want to know where the cross over point between Fsb and cpu clock is. For instance will a system running at 1050 @ 150fsb ( 7X150 wich has a 50mhz faster bus outperform a system @ 1456 @112fsb (13X112) and has a 400mhz faster overall cpu speed. At what point does the faster cpu just get choked by the slower bus speed and not have any benifit?? How do you measure that since no system is ever running at full load all of the time. It would seem that the bus speed would only slow things down under extreme loads.
By the way I have two processors a p3 copper 700 (7X100) that easily clocks to 133 fsb and maybe 150 fsb. the other processor is a 1.3a celeron tuly (13X100) curently clocked @ 112fsb or 1456mhz in an Msi 6368 mobo. I have just orderd an abit vh6t to do some more serious overclocking on.
 

TUK101

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2001
Location
Wash. State
In my opinion the best example of this was with the older PII's and the CeleronII's same basic cpu, except one ran at a 66, the other at 100fsb. Higher fsb = more work done per clock cycle. It opens up the path for data to flow. Makes almost no sense at all to have this huge mega supercomputer with a 2 gig processor if it doesnt have a large enough fsb to move the data through.