PDA

View Full Version : FSB vs External CPU clock


luk chiu ming
August 22nd 03, 05:13 AM
I saw lots motherboard BOIS has a line called External CPU clock

what's it's difference between FSB and external CPU clock?

in BOIS i usually saw people set FSB=166MHz for AMD motherboard.

but i also heard P4 CPU has 400 / 533 / 800 MHz FSB.

would that means AMD CPU is much slower than P4's? since AMD only has
166MHz FSB and P4 has aleast 400 FSB.

thx

NuT CrAcKeR
August 22nd 03, 06:12 AM
actually, no.

the P4 systems that have the 400Mhz.. actually have a 100Mhz FSB. The
processor is "quad pumped" so 4 x 100 = 400. 533 is a quad pumped 133, and
800 is a quad pumped 200.

with the exception of the 800 Mhz chips.. the 166FSB XP processors (333 FSB,
since the AMD chips double the FSB because of the cache's DDR-like
characteristics) and even the 133 (266FSB chips) smoke most of the 400 and
533 FSB offerings from intel.

But thats just my opinion... at a point, how fast is fast enough? I havent
been able to discern significant performance difference in everyday use
since the PIII, 133FSB chips came out. If you do some wack stuff with your
comp, then you will feel it.

NuTs

"luk chiu ming" > wrote in message
...
> I saw lots motherboard BOIS has a line called External CPU clock
>
> what's it's difference between FSB and external CPU clock?
>
> in BOIS i usually saw people set FSB=166MHz for AMD motherboard.
>
> but i also heard P4 CPU has 400 / 533 / 800 MHz FSB.
>
> would that means AMD CPU is much slower than P4's? since AMD only has
> 166MHz FSB and P4 has aleast 400 FSB.
>
> thx
>
>

Darmok
August 22nd 03, 11:37 AM
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:12:19 -0500, "NuT CrAcKeR"
> wrote:


>with the exception of the 800 Mhz chips.. the 166FSB XP processors (333 FSB,
>since the AMD chips double the FSB because of the cache's DDR-like
>characteristics) and even the 133 (266FSB chips) smoke most of the 400 and
>533 FSB offerings from intel.

The AMD chips also 'smoke' (litterally) better than the Intel
offerings! They run hotter, draw more current and produce more heat
than the Intel offerings. Ever watch "TechTV"? Patrick Norton, Yoshi
and the gang have probably burned up more AMD chips than the normal
person would in a lifetime ... all in doing O'Clocking tests, etc.
Sometimes the AMD chips met their death merely because the heat sink
was improperly seated. (Intel chips generally just "shut down", and
save themselves).

Finally, IMHO, Intel chipset based MBs are FAR more stable than those
with VIA, SIS, Apollo (or whatever) chipsets. After browsing various
MB newsgroups for years, reading the complaints about one thing or
another, most of the "problems" are with MBs running AMD processors
with VIA, SIS, etc chipsets.

Yeah, they are cheaper, and if you are lucky, you may even get one to
run stable and not crash (giving you reasons to 'blame' Microsoft or
whoever for producing crappy software). It all comes down to
"you get what you pay for". I built plenty of AMD systems back in the
386/486 days, even with their K5 / K6 series. But, they've just not
kept up with Intel, IMHO.

As always, YMMV.

"Mirab, with sails unfurled ..."
(ps ... I do not own any Intel stock, nor do I work for them. I'm an
independent computer analyst.)

Fred
August 22nd 03, 10:49 PM
"Darmok" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:12:19 -0500, "NuT CrAcKeR"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >with the exception of the 800 Mhz chips.. the 166FSB XP processors
(333 FSB,
> >since the AMD chips double the FSB because of the cache's DDR-like
> >characteristics) and even the 133 (266FSB chips) smoke most of the
400 and
> >533 FSB offerings from intel.
>
> The AMD chips also 'smoke' (litterally) better than the Intel
> offerings! They run hotter, draw more current and produce more heat
> than the Intel offerings. Ever watch "TechTV"? Patrick Norton, Yoshi
> and the gang have probably burned up more AMD chips than the normal
> person would in a lifetime ... all in doing O'Clocking tests, etc.
> Sometimes the AMD chips met their death merely because the heat sink
> was improperly seated. (Intel chips generally just "shut down", and
> save themselves).
>
> Finally, IMHO, Intel chipset based MBs are FAR more stable than those
> with VIA, SIS, Apollo (or whatever) chipsets. After browsing various
> MB newsgroups for years, reading the complaints about one thing or
> another, most of the "problems" are with MBs running AMD processors
> with VIA, SIS, etc chipsets.
>
> Yeah, they are cheaper, and if you are lucky, you may even get one to
> run stable and not crash (giving you reasons to 'blame' Microsoft or
> whoever for producing crappy software). It all comes down to
> "you get what you pay for". I built plenty of AMD systems back in the
> 386/486 days, even with their K5 / K6 series. But, they've just not
> kept up with Intel, IMHO.
>
> As always, YMMV.
>
> "Mirab, with sails unfurled ..."
> (ps ... I do not own any Intel stock, nor do I work for them. I'm an
> independent computer analyst.)

Although you make some valid observations, your post smacks of bias
against AMD. The fact is that typical AMD users are far more likely to
be enthuiasists whereas the typical Intel user knows nothing about
computers, doesn't care and just wants a box that works. Obviously you
will see more problem related posts from AMD users as they're all trying
to extract the most from their PC and cause themselves grief in the
process through overclocking their CPUs, PCI buses and RAM.

I've built many Intel and AMD based systems over the last few years and
they've both had their share of problems.