Some_Big_Spoon said:
What's the point in having DDR 333 or 400MHz RAM for that matter (which they currently have). No one wants to talk about what a major embarrasement the powerbooks are. Celeron's have a faster bus for god's sake.
What i'll find amusing is if they actually do get the (OH BOY!) 200MHz bus, people will be freaking out over the performance gains since we've been stuck at 167 for a few years.
But this one goes to 11!
a 200mhz bus won't do you **** over a 166 with the same cpu. remember, with a "wider" bus you only enable more lanes of information. with more lanes and the brain can only handle so many cars/ so much info at the time... it's no point whining about bus speeds...
I swear to GOD that I know this for fact! I've spent YEARS overclocking both AMD and Intel computers. And the REAL difference in those two was when AMD went 64. even tho the 64 bit part of the cpu isn't as fast as dedicated 64 bit processors. it's still faster at 32 bit than any other pc based 32 cpu.
And up til Athlon 64 came out, the real pain in AMD processors wasn't the Bus speed. I could overclock a pally 1800+ or a Barton 2500+ to frickn 2.8 ghz. (last I checked they maxed out at 3.1) and that's super unstable and a clock with almost 70% increase) that son of a bitch would STILL fly!!
but the increase came when AMD got Dual Memory Controllers on the DIE!
so it's more to it than just FSB and Speed. Nowdays an A64 is running 200FSB with, cpu's at aprox 2-2.5 ghz.
I'd say a dualcore freescale still at 166mhz FSB would scare the living **** out of any INTEL based laptop. And regardless, I do believe that MOST PC laptops are running 333mhz busses and not 400. atleast no AMD. And it's not really a problem. it's more architecture, tweaks, how the cpu performs and the setup of the rig.
we also discovered that every processor has its "gold spot". a 1.8ghz cpu might not run any better at 230fsb vs. 200fsb (stock) when run at native clock speeds. This was quite fun 'cus I remember how the Athlon64 when it first came out, I had a motherboard that would do 300FSB and i got the best results fiddling around 250 FSB. and the next cpu I got was 200mhz slower and the sweespot was 245 at the same cpuclock speed as the 3200+. yeah ofcourse you get top results running 320FSB x 2000 on the multiplier if you got a cpu that can handle it... but I'm talking everyday use in a crashfree enviroment.
