If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
I still don't completly understand FSB....
Ok so this is what I thought;
as long as you had - mobo, cpu, and ram that had the same fsb speed they would all run that speed now I am hearing that it is an issue of overclocking and modifing ratios and multipliers my question is; I now have an ABIT NF7-S (unsure which version, although the seller advertised a 400mhz fsb board speed I would like to utilize this speed, and have not yet selected any ram or a CPU. There does seem to be a price difference between the 333mhz fsb cpu/ram and the 400mhz equilivents. How much of a performance boost would I really get in a non-hardcore enviroment. (I do tend to have many, many operations going at once however, even if I am not playing doom iii) -- We are Many Mark 5:9 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"legion" wrote in message ink.net... Ok so this is what I thought; as long as you had - mobo, cpu, and ram that had the same fsb speed they would all run that speed now I am hearing that it is an issue of overclocking and modifing ratios and multipliers my question is; I now have an ABIT NF7-S (unsure which version, although the seller advertised a 400mhz fsb board speed I would like to utilize this speed, and have not yet selected any ram or a CPU. There does seem to be a price difference between the 333mhz fsb cpu/ram and the 400mhz equilivents. How much of a performance boost would I really get in a non-hardcore enviroment. (I do tend to have many, many operations going at once however, even if I am not playing doom iii) There won't be much of a performance difference at all. If you have to make a compromise, try a 333FSB processor with 400FSB RAM. The reasoning is that it is somewhat more likely that you can use DDR400 RAM on your next upgrade, and you won't pay that much more for DDR400 RAM, which will run just fine with a 333FSB processor. -Dave |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Does this mean that DDR ram "clocks down" to whatever the
memory bus speed is, or only that DDR400 will run at 333? There won't be much of a performance difference at all. If you have to make a compromise, try a 333FSB processor with 400FSB RAM. The reasoning is that it is somewhat more likely that you can use DDR400 RAM on your next upgrade, and you won't pay that much more for DDR400 RAM, which will run just fine with a 333FSB processor. -Dave |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"-Alby Hewlet" wrote in message ... Does this mean that DDR ram "clocks down" to whatever the memory bus speed is, or only that DDR400 will run at 333? It depends on the chipset. If the chipset only supports DDR333, then that's what it will run at. DDR400 at DDR333 will be as fast as DDR333, so there's really no compromise, if that's what happens. Many chipsets can run CPU and RAM asynchronously, though. That is, your CPU can be 333 AND your RAM can be DDR400, it doesn't necessarily have to be one or the other. -Dave |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
thanks Dave, another riddle solved.
Can I assume that any DDR memory will run in any board that has DDR capability regardless of fsb settings and memory settings? I mean, just using defaults, can you pretty much grab any old DDR stick and put it in any old DDR slot and it will work? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
-Alby Hewlet wrote:
thanks Dave, another riddle solved. Can I assume that any DDR memory will run in any board that has DDR capability regardless of fsb settings and memory settings? No. Or else there wouldn't be much purpose to having the settings. I mean, just using defaults, can you pretty much grab any old DDR stick and put it in any old DDR slot and it will work? No. Or else there wouldn't be much use in speed rating the things. Ignoring the Athlon64 since it doesn't have an 'FSB' (memory controller integrated and 'hypertransport' bus), the 'simple' answer is you (usually) want DDR rated at the same speed as your processor's FSB because that is the speed your processor can communicate to it at. To explain... You have a processor inside an I.C. package that needs to get data in/out to accomplish anything and it's 'window to the world' is through a 'bus' that we generally call the (Front Side Bus) "FSB" (that's technically Intel terminology but most folks use it in the generic sense). That 'window', or communication path, has a speed at which it can transfer data. Slower than that and you're starving the CPU but it obviously can't accept data faster than the FSB will operate. The secret to all this is that the busses are synchronous so things on them *DO* operate at the speed of the bus, or else they don't operate. The bus clock, not the device(s) on it, SETS the speed of operation and is what saying something like "100 Mhz FSB" means. The point here is that a memory speed rating is telling you how fast it 'can' run; not the speed it *will* be running. The *bus clock* sets the actual speed. Now, that communication path has to do more than just talk to memory (PCI bus, AGP, etc.) so it connects to the 'northbridge' I.C. to sort things out. Without getting into too many details, the point here is that the memory is connected to the northbridge, which then connects it into the processor through the FSB. Originally, the memory clock speed was the same as the FSB clock, so the two were the same, because that simplifies a lot of things for the northbridge. E.g. An Intel 450MHz P-II had a 100 MHz FSB so the memory clock was also 100 Mhz and you needed PC100, or better, SDRAM. I.E. Clock--------------- | | | | FSB Mem Bus CPU ----- Northbridge -------Memory | | | | PCI AGP (note: the CPU has an internal multiplier to create it's own 'internal clock' from the external one provided. E.g. a 450 MHz P-II has an internal multiplier of 4.5 and 100 x 4.5 = 450) The second point to our northbridge is, since we have this 'smart' interface in-between the processor and memory we can, with extra complexity, do some special things (if we can squeeze it onto the chip); like operate the memory at different speeds than the FSB. And modern motherboards usually allow this (older ones didn't because they couldn't squeeze it onto the chip). The reason for operating the memory at different speeds is two fold. First, we could use 'slow', meaning less expensive, memory (remember, if the memory were on the FSB it would *have* to run at the FSB speed, as it must with older chipsets, and you'd have to slow the processor too since it's internal clock comes from the external bus clock). This, however, will negatively impact performance for the reason stated above: you can't send memory data to the CPU as fast as the FSB could accept it (FSB starved) so the CPU will have to 'wait' for data more often (the effect is partly offset by the on-die L2 cache). But... it's cheap (read: low end desktops). The second reason would be to use memory that's *faster* than the FSB. Now, at first blush this seems useless since it can't get to the processor any faster than the FSB but it allows the memory to service the FSB at full speed PLUS data streams from the PCI and AGP busses simultaneously. This is particularly useful with 'on-board' video that's sharing system RAM. I.E. the on-board video consumes a large number of memory cycles and those cycles can't be used for CPU access, so if the memory isn't 'faster', to handle both the FSB AND the video, the CPU would end up waiting again like it has to with slow memory (often worse). As another Intel example, the 810 chipset was designed for the Celeron, which operates with a 66.6 Mhz FSB, but *requires* PC100 SDRAM to operate because the memory bus is run at 100 Mhz. And the primary reason for that was the shared memory video built into the 810 chipset. So one could say 66.6% of the memory speed is for the FSB and the remaining 33.3% for the display (and I/O). It should be noted that running the memory faster than the FSB speed usually causes a performance loss, compared to the 'theoretical' memory speed, simply from the problems involved with connecting different speed busses together. I.E. Memory run 20% faster than the FSB won't operate fully 20% faster; there are losses due to the mismatched busses. A semi-third reason, partially a subset of 'faster', is dual channel RAM. Of course, dual channel can't talk to the processor any faster than the FSB either; which is why dual channel DDR on an Athlon XP board doesn't make a lot of difference (except with memory shared video) to the overall performance (an interesting side effect is that two slower, potentially cheaper, DDR sticks can perform as well as the faster DDR but, then, dual channel motherboards cost more). On a P4 board, however, it takes dual channel to keep up with the twice as high FSB (e.g. 800 Mhz FSB with DDR400). So, asking if one can plug just any old DDR into just any old DDR RAM slot, and 'have it work', it isn't that simple to answer because it depends on the motherboard, how it implements the DDR slots, how the video is done, what performance you want to achieve and, of course, what you're willing to spend. If the board doesn't allow memory speed to be different than the FSB then the memory better be rated at least as fast as the FSB clock, or else it isn't going to work (or you'll have to underclock the CPU since it's clock is derived from the FSB clock that you'd have to turn down to use the slower DDR). And 'faster' RAM on a 1:1 FSB/Memory locked board is a waste because it will still only run at the FSB clock speed regardless of it's 'rating' (*clock* sets the speed; not the RAM). On a board that *does* allow different memory bus speeds then you can use slower DDR, but with a loss in performance (FSB starved). You can also use faster DDR AT the FSB speed, the '1:1' ratio, and it'll be like the FSB/memory locked board: a waste of the memory 'rating' (*clock* sets the speed; not the DDR). Or you can operate it faster than the FSB speed. Whether running it faster provides any significant benefit depends on the overall system configuration and what the purpose of the computer is. I.E. 'faster than FSB' RAM might make a significant difference in a system with shared RAM video but have an unnoticeable effect in an AGP plain 'office' type system. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"David Maynard" wrote in message ... -Alby Hewlet wrote: thanks Dave, another riddle solved. Can I assume that any DDR memory will run in any board that has DDR capability regardless of fsb settings and memory settings? No. Or else there wouldn't be much purpose to having the settings. I mean, just using defaults, can you pretty much grab any old DDR stick and put it in any old DDR slot and it will work? No. Or else there wouldn't be much use in speed rating the things. Ignoring the Athlon64 since it doesn't have an 'FSB' (memory controller integrated and 'hypertransport' bus), the 'simple' answer is you (usually) want DDR rated at the same speed as your processor's FSB because that is the speed your processor can communicate to it at. To explain... (snip a book) Holy crap, that's the best explanation I've ever seen. Good job. -Dave |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Dave C. wrote:
"David Maynard" wrote in message ... -Alby Hewlet wrote: thanks Dave, another riddle solved. Can I assume that any DDR memory will run in any board that has DDR capability regardless of fsb settings and memory settings? No. Or else there wouldn't be much purpose to having the settings. I mean, just using defaults, can you pretty much grab any old DDR stick and put it in any old DDR slot and it will work? No. Or else there wouldn't be much use in speed rating the things. Ignoring the Athlon64 since it doesn't have an 'FSB' (memory controller integrated and 'hypertransport' bus), the 'simple' answer is you (usually) want DDR rated at the same speed as your processor's FSB because that is the speed your processor can communicate to it at. To explain... (snip a book) Holy crap, that's the best explanation I've ever seen. Good job. -Dave Thank you, kind Sir. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
My compuler locks up completly | Radox | Homebuilt PC's | 15 | July 26th 04 04:16 PM |