Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: CPU Multiplier..

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003

    CPU Multiplier..

    Hi all, I want know about CPU multiplier. Which one is the best in term of performance.

    CPU AMD Athlon XP 2600+ type B 333Mhz

    Default is 166*12.5 = 2075Mhz

    And After overclocked

    1. 166*13 = 2158Mhz

    2. 200*10.5 = 2100Mhz

    Which one is better, no 1 or no 2?
    My friend said that no 2 is better, but when see the speed, should be no 1 is better.

    Could someone explain it to me?


  2. #2


    It does not depend on the speed of the computer always. It depends on the computers RAM (Random Access Memory) and hard drive size. If #2 has more RAM and a larger hard drive then yes it is better, and if it does not then #1 is better. But if they are exactly the same then #1 has to be better because I do not know why #2 would be.
    Everything that has a beginning has an end.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Hey Hey,

    First of all, this should most definately not be in Computer Forensics, this should be in Hardware.

    Now on to the question at hand.

    First of all let me say that I am by no means a hardware guru. I actually hate hardware, but I build my own systems, repair my own stuff and do one rather shitty soldering job when it's needed This information is only how I understand it to work... I'm sure someone will post and tell me what an idiot I am.

    Anyways, ignore what MatrixArchitect said. A larger harddrive isn't going to affect anything unless you have your drive right full, and then it's going to halt your system. As long as you've got some free space, the actuall drive size means ****. As far as your ram goes, don't take into account the amount of RAM you have (although the more RAM, the better the performance), but take into account the speed your ram runs at.

    Right now your FSB is 333Mhz, so I'm guessing you've got 333Mhz DDR to go with it. If you were to go with the second scenerio, you are going to have your FSB running at 400Mhz. If you are sending data to your memory at 400Mhz, however your RAM is only running at 333Mhz, you can see how problems would start to arise.

    Next you are going to run into problems with your PCI/AGP cards. Let's take the PCI bus. It's designed to run at 33Mhz. This means it's running at 1/5 of your clock speed (which is 166). If your one of the lucky few who has a board that supports PCI Bus Locking, or PCI BUS Clock changes, then you are fine, however if your board doesn't (like most of us who don't think about this when we buy the board) then you will run into problems. PCI can usually run stable to around 37-38Mhz. However some cards don't even like that much of a change. If you are unable to change your PCI clock multiplier and you go with the 200Mhz setting, you'll be running your PCI bus at 1/5 of that or 40Mhz, you'll run into some cards that aren't going to like that, they may not run, they may burn out, but if yer lucky they'll work fine.

    Now you can look at the actual processor. Everyone's goal is ultimately the most bang for their buck which makes the 1st scenerio the most appealing. The first setting will also be more likely to cause overheating. If you have more than adequate cooling, the first one is the logical choice, if you are worried about heat, than the second one, where you aren't mulitplying the data as much, and you are running slightly slow is your better choice. If you have 400Mhz DDR than the second one may also be more appropriate for you. It depends on several circumstances. You have to look at the hardware you have, the buses and their speeds. Their clock settings and how much changing the system clock will throw them off and if you have bios/jumper control over the various buses and their multiplers.


  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Good Explaination, and sorry about thread, bcoz im sure where to post it.

  5. #5
    The Doctor Und3ertak3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    ARRRRRG.. 149 posts and you don't know your way around?.. BS..
    oops i had too many threads open and I accidently posted here.. now that is an excuse..
    not sure where to post.. nah ..

    At least the others were in a good enough mood and replied..

    Smelly Undies
    [edit] I do my top and a mod moves it.. probably MsM.. thank you.. you have made a C type personality very happy[/edit]
    "Consumer technology now exceeds the average persons ability to comprehend how to use it..give up hope of them being able to understand how it works." - Me

  6. #6
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    United Kingdom: Bridlington

    Which one is better, no 1 or no 2?
    IMHO neither. An AMD 2600+ is a pretty fast processor anyway?

    HTRegz has thouroughly explained the differences and reasoning. #2 is a non-starter

    What I cannot understand is your desire to overclock this processor anyway, you will shorten its life and run the risk of frying it if you do not do a thorough job. Remember that the Athlon XP is not the best processor for overclocking, and you are only looking at a 4% improvement in your processor won't notice it

    If you intend to proceed, make sure that you check the fan supports your settings (look around some overclocking sites). Install an exhaust need to get the hot air OUT of the case. Replace the white gunk with silver thermal compound.

    Also remember that RAM, video card, hard drive and operating system have a considerable impact on performance...........potentially a lot more than 4%...........for example going from Win 9x to XP would give you 20-25%.........................

    It is all a question of balance, unfortunately I do not have enough information on the rest of the system, to give you any more detailed advice.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts