David Maynard wrote in message ...
James Hanley wrote:

David Maynard wrote in message ...

James Hanley wrote:


it seems to me that nobody needs a high fsb. since they could just
push the multiplier really high.

I can see the greatness of ddr since the same speed processor can
read/write twice as much per cycle. (i assume that the cpu has to be
ddr to receive or write double)

How is it you can see the benefit to 'read/write twice as much per cycle'
yet not see any benefit to more of the cycles?


Obviously I see the benefit of more cycles. What do you think I meant
when I said "push the multiplier really high". That increases the
cycles per second.

No, increasing the multiplier does NOT increase the FSB cycles.

I knew that, it increases cycles per second, but just CPU cycles.
So yeah. I just realised that:
Increasing the multiplier increases CPU cycles (not FSB cycles of
course).
Increasing the FSB increases both - that is what hadn't occurred to me
:P

So if the system supported it(processor was unlocked and very
underclocked) doubling the FSB is better than doubling the current
value of the multiplier. It's better to have a faster FSB(thus
increasing CPU cycles and FSB cycles) than to have a slower FSB and a
larger multiplier, which would only increase CPU cycles.

More CPU cycles -- more CPU bandwidth
More FSB cycles -- more FSB bandwidth

I suppose bandwidth and throughput are the same thing



thanks for your response