What's the point of Intel Processors, when their max fsb is only 1333mhz?

Question

Hi,

Just wondering, what is the purpose of having memory speeds so high, i.e. anything more than 667mhz, if processors such as made by Intel, have a FSB of only 1333Mhz. Obviously, if you use 800mhz memory, and the processor's front side bus is only 1333mhz, the memory will only run at 667 in any case. I don't see the point in people paying so much extra for higher speed memory, when they cant utilize it anyways. wouldn't it just be better to get an amd as they dont use fsb? any info would be appreciated, as im trying to decide on weather to build a amd 6400+ system, or a q6600... thanks! :)

I understand what has been said, but as overclocking often void's any warranty of the component, should as a result, any damage be caused, why do memory manufacturers sell such high frequency memory, when the processors front side bus wont support it, and by default downclock the speed.

as for the prices of the 6400+ and the Q6600 (G0), i can get them at £149.95 for the q6600, or £138.25 for the 6400+ am2, so theres not much difference in price, but obviously im aware, most applications wont take advtantage of the extra cores, so is it worth the extra £11?

Answer 1

Well I think the point has been made by now, one reason for the high speed RAM is overclocking, so I will leave that alone.

Almost all motherboards, and certainly any halfway decent motherboard, now are capable of running RAM asynchronous to the FSB, so if you put in 800Mhz RAM with a FSB of 1333Mhz, the RAM will still run at 800Mhz, it will not downclock to 667Mhz. Now quite obviously, it will not run to its full potential at 800Mhz, but it will still perform a little faster than if it were running at 667Mhz. Keep in mind that the Mhz speed of the RAM has an effect on overall latency, so even though the FSB will not be able to fully keep up with the RAM speed, the overall latency will be less with the higher speed.

However, the performance increase is rather small when going to higher speed RAM, which is why it actually isn't that great an idea to spend a ton of money on high speed RAM.

As for which to get, well it depends, you are comparing a quad core Intel to a dual core AMD. If you are using multithreaded taks that will take full advantage of the quad, then of course go with it. Else, get the 6400+, or the C2D E6850, which is presently the fastest dual core available.

Answer 2

I see you know a thing or two so I don't have to talk down.

The FSB of 1333 is stock. This can be increased in the BIOS in order to overclock the processor. Also, since modern Intel motherboards' northbridge chipset handles the processor and RAM independently, the RAM speed can be changed without having to change the FSB.

I am using an E6300, which has a stock FSB of 1066. I turn this up to 1800 in the BIOS to get 3.15 GHZ (450 x 7, the CPU multiplier). In doing so, if I want to maintain a 1:1 ratio, I need to turn my RAM up to 900 when using DDR2 800.

The FSB at 450, quad-pumped, so it's 1800 and 450 times the CPU multiplier (which varies from model to model), in this case it's x7, makes the CPU frequency 3150, or 3.15 GHz. With 1333, it is only at 333. Since we use DDR2, you multiply that by 2 to decide the RAM speed get a 1:1 ratio, which is 666 (or 667). These days, overclocking is easy since the CPUs can handle it better these days. Being at stock 1333 doesn't mean that it's going to stay there haha no way. Sure, if you want to buy a Dell then you are likely not going to overclock, but if you build your own rigs, overclocking is part of the game.

RAM that yields faster speeds means that you can overclock high and maintain a 1:1 ratio, depending on the CPU. I have to turn my GEIL Ultra series DDR2 800 to 900 to get a 1:1 ratio, but my RAM maxes out at 1000 and my CPU only has a 7x multiplier. If you by an E6600, it has a 9x multiplier, and with the right motherboard, you could bring it to 3.6 or even 3.8 GHz (400 or 422), which is 1400 FSB, and your RAM should be at 800 MHz or 844 MHz.

In reality it's not so much a matter of it being pointless in having "only" a FSB of 1333, it's about marketing. 1333 isn't going to be much faster than 1066, but bigger numbers means more attention to the product. It does help, but marginally.

If none of this made any sense, I apologize for rambling. It's 3 am and I'm dead tired lol

Answer 3

To summerize stuff, in reality, computers still run by FSB. If there's no FSB, how can you overclock?

As for RAM, RAM speed is defined by the motherboards memory settings. If your motherboard's memory timings can be adjusted, then you can set any running speed for the RAM.

As for your processor choice, the Q6600 is MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE compared to the 6400. If you really have the money, then it's not a problem buying the Q6600 as it's more overclockable than the 6400. Not to mention the Q6600 is a Quad Core processor while the 6400 is just a Dual Core processor.

Anyway, mostly programs don't even support dual core so my suggestion is still dual core.

If you overclock, I suggest the Q6600, if not, then, it's not a huge problem choosing any of the two.

Answer 4

Here's one point why there's a need for faster RAM.
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=217129
Intel Core2 Duo processors are actually capable of higher than 1333mhz fsb. Just look at that 1066fsb E6600 courtesy of my idol.

Answer 5

Go with the AMD. Intel are crooked bunch like there celerons fooling the inexperienced because they see the high GHz.