Fsb Face Off

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by dubstar, Apr 9, 2003.

  1. dubstar

    dubstar format c:

    Messages:
    1,357
    Location:
    Southern California
    is the FSB on Athlons(tm) whats holding it back from killing off a P4(tm) ?
     
  2. Sazar

    Sazar F@H - Is it in you? Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    14,905
    Location:
    Between Austin and Tampa
    not really..

    in terms of TRUE fsb athlons are ahead of intels @ this point in time...

    ie... 166mhz v/s 133 for intel...

    therefore the rationale for fsb is a bit flawed..

    currently the ability of the northwood processors to ramp up has basically allowed them to make up for the difference in work done per clock cycle... where they lag behind amd processors..

    the new amd and intel cpu's will both sport 200mhz fsb (in market speak this translates to 400mhz DDR for amd and 800mhz QDR for intel)

    the real question posed should be why is intel not walking off into the sunset with the performance crown... it is basically because of its architecture... both amd and intel chose different paths to get to basically the same point... which is worse or better can be debated on and off for ages... but the winners have been the consumers :D

    there is no doubt that a higher fsb will allow for better performance... but then so will a more efficient architecture.. a la.. clawhammer and sledgehammer... as well as canterwood et al from intel...
     
  3. jumpy

    jumpy Guest

    Good post sazar, told it exactly how it is.
    Can't wait to see how the 800mhz P4's perform, although it will be the RAM holding back the overclocks on these chips. For now i'll just be content with my 580mhz fsb :)

    Maybe you should just close this thread now before it gets out of hand ;)
     
  4. dubstar

    dubstar format c:

    Messages:
    1,357
    Location:
    Southern California

    i didnt even think about that, but yeah, this could get crazy.

    bring it on p4 wh0res!
     
  5. Sazar

    Sazar F@H - Is it in you? Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    14,905
    Location:
    Between Austin and Tampa
    lol... nah... we don't close threads for the heck of it lads lol...

    thread is valid.. if too many trolls come and poop all over it... it will be edited but its fine as is :)
     
  6. jumpy

    jumpy Guest

    Notice the smiley after my statement, ie joking. Although a lot of threads like this do start to turn into a flame war rapidly but no reason to close it now..:)
     
  7. j79zlr

    j79zlr Glaanies script monkey Political User

    Messages:
    2,725
    Location:
    Chicago
    I just hope you are not making that statement sporting the PC in your sig.
     
  8. dubstar

    dubstar format c:

    Messages:
    1,357
    Location:
    Southern California
    lol:D im like a stock 1932 Willy VS 2003 Alcohol Dragster
     
  9. Zedric

    Zedric NTFS Guru Folding Team

    Messages:
    4,006
    Location:
    Sweden
    That was unnecessary. Talk about flame bait. :)

    Anyway, thinking of this DDR and QDR. Is it actually two and four buses at 133/166/200MHz or how does it work?

    If it is the given rating (533, 800, 333 MHz) shows more than the "real" frequency, right? So the "533" MHz bus of the Intel is in reality a faster bus than the "400" MHz of the AMD, even though it's run at a lower "real" frequency.

    If not, wtf is the DDR and QDR coming from? How is it done?

    Seing some AMD fanboys (not in this thread though) saying "Intel is bullsh*t, 533 is just 133, AMD's 166 is MUCH better" and so on, I begin to wonder. I know they usually are <15 yrs old and have AMD stamps on their forheads (= their not a great source of info), but it would be nice to know if they are (sorta) right.

    [NOTE] I'm not a fanboy of either side. I just happen to run on Intel at the moment, for various reasons.