- Joined
- Feb 18, 2002
... I thought it was the RAM and mobo.
Palominos: even when unlocked may not do higher than 150 FSB.
Thoroughbred A's: Can't do 200 FSB even with PC3200 RAM and new nForce2 mobo.
Palominos: even when unlocked may not do higher than 150 FSB.
Thoroughbred A's: Can't do 200 FSB even with PC3200 RAM and new nForce2 mobo.
Graphic67 wrote on 12-24-03:
Just look at the track record of AMD cpu's (and roadmaps) over the last two years. The chip has, until the release of the Thoroughbred B core, been the limiting factor. The Palomino cores were clocked by AMD at 133MHz fsb and most overclockers were able to reach close to 150
(AMD was denying that 166MHz cpus would be out any time soon). The Thoroughbred A which was a 130nm shrink of the Palomino did better, reaching 170 to 180MHz. (AMD was saying nothing about 166MHz parts).
Then the modified design of the Thoroughbred B (and extended cache Barton) hit the streets... And over the space of a few months AMD was able to produce 166MHz and even 200MHz fsb parts.
I have not done this, but I suspect that if you have an unlocked Palomino and drop it into a newer nForce2 board, you will still find a fsb limit around 150 even at a lower multiplier.
Gautam wrote on 12-24-03:
It's a phenomena that no one can really explain. Some sort of intrinsic properties allow some processors to "handle" higher fsb's. But this is only an issue for hardcore overclockers. Some DLT3C 1700+'s seem to hit a wall at 230 regardless of multiplier in the same systems that, with a different processor, could go farther. But for most people, the fsb wall of a processor is irrelevant.
c627627 wrote on 12-24-03
How come?
If the mobo and RAM can hit high FSBs, why do people say a CPU can limit how high FSB can OC, I mean if you can lower the multiplier, how's the CPU a limiting factor?