Which? 933Mhz 133 FSB or 1000Mhz 100FSB

[hotfusion]

Just a small dilemma for discussion:
I currently use a pentium 3 600Mhz processor and am starting to get the upgrade bug. Now, this being a slot 1 device, I am limited to either a 933Mhz chip running on a 133Mhz FSB, or a 1Ghz chip on a 100Mhz FSB. O.K., the speed increase would not be great, but.......well, you know.....

Anyhow, ignoring the small difference in the speed of these two chips, which would be the best to go for - the 100fsb or the 133fsb? Is there an advantage in running a 133fsb?

Your comments are very welcome.
Cheers. My suggestions are what I would try myself. If incorrect, I welcome corrections to my rather limited knowledge. Andy.

 

[paparazi]

I take it that you are using your existing motherboard?
Are you sure it has support for 133fsb?
If so the 933 processor has my vote. Martin Just trying to help, sometimes falling short, I am only human after all.

 

[chaps]

What type of memory chips do you have PC100, or PC133? If you have the PC100 sdram chips I would recommend that you use the 1000 processor with the 100fsb. Technically the 133 buss is suppose to move data faster, however I am of the mind set that data will move only as fast as the slowest component will allow.

 

[topscribe]

Just curious:

Any particular reason you have the "upgrade bug"? Far as I can see, the only appreciable difference you will see, with either upgrade, over your present 600MHz is if you are a serious gamer and you are playing these new-fangled, sophisticated, state-of-the-art 3D games. I am presently working with a 233 MMX (256 MB PC100 SDRAM across 100 Mz FSB and 512 Kb L2 cache). I use it primarily for word processing, bookkeeping, surfing, and a few games.

This computer goes through the internet just as fast as my daughter-in-law's 900 MHz. The reason is that a computer cannot go any faster than the modem will feed it. Oh yes, hers will open WordPerfect a little faster, and it will blast through Norton's WinDoctor a heck of a lot faster (big deal on both counts).

Actually, I think that these speed monsters accomplish more in making money for the manufacturers than in giving us additonal benefits Again, this is with the possible exception of the really serious gamer. For the rest of us, we will see negligible difference on anything above 700 MHz, and you are not too far from that now. This is because very little software is being written right now that accommodates anything faster, and there is still little on the horizon to that effect.

However, if you do upgrade, I like Chaps' suggestion to go with the type of memory modules you have now. As he said, if you have PC100, go with the 100 MHz FSB, or the 133 MHz if you have PC133. Generically, I don't believe you will see a whit's worth of difference in the speed of the 933 vs. the 1000, especially since the 933 has the faster FSB. So the memory modules probably should be the final determinant.


Butch

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts"

http://ld.net/?topscribe

 

[cdogg]

As chaps mentioned, you could only go with the 133fsb if you have PC133 SDRAM in the system. If you have PC100, forcing the bus to go to 133 wouldn't work. The bus and memory have to be in sync.

Are you sure your mobo supports 133fsb? I don't think you can run a 133fsb cpu on a 100fsb mobo...

 

[topscribe]

Well, cdogg, some boards do support different speeds. I just got off a page, for instance, where I was studying the Tyan Trinity 400 S1854 motherboard, which supports 66/100/133 MHz FSB. Still, your suggestion is generally correct.

Andy, if your memory modules are PC100, I would in no case install the 133 processor.
Butch

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts"

http://ld.net/?topscribe

 

[cdogg]

Butch, I did neglect to mention that there are some mobos that support multiple bus speeds. BUT, I don't think that you could use a 133fsb processor with PC100 SDRAM, even if the mobo supports the bus speed (one of the common problems often found in multiple fsb support mobos).

I realize you weren't disagreeing, but the first step here should be to check the RAM regardless if the mobo supports multiple bus speeds...


~cdogg

 

[hotfusion]

Thanks, guys, for your responses. For your info, I am running pc133 RAM, and the mobo can be adjusted for seversal FSB speeds, with the RAM clock able to be set more or less independantly.
The issue is not really whether I can physically do this, as there is no problem here, rather would it be worthwhile, and would the FSB of 133Mhz be a significant advantage.
I am looking for small improvements in processor intensive tasks, such as graphics editing and audio editing, as some of these tasks can take a noticeable time to complete.
I don't really want to change the mobo as my current system is obscenely stable, so as mentioned previously, my only real option, if I decide it is worthwhile, is to go for the fastest slot 1 pentium 3 I can get.

Any further input, anyone? My suggestions are what I would try myself. If incorrect, I welcome corrections to my rather limited knowledge. Andy.

 

[topscribe]

Well, I've been in forums with you before, Andy, and I knew that you already knew much of what has been said here. But, what the heck, I had to say it, anyway.

Regarding the processor, you have the memory and the capability on your mobo. I think I would go for the bus speed.

Have a good one.
Butch

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts"

http://ld.net/?topscribe

 

[dakota81]

I'll throw in my 2 cents because I feel like it, everyone else has, and dammit, I need to be heard!!!

If you've got PC133 memory, I would go with the 933MHz processor. I had the same predicament back when I was running a 486DX-50, one of the few processors that used a 50MHz mobo speed back then. That thing was faster that the DX2-66. But now I'm just pointlessly remembering back to forgotten times...

 

[topscribe]

Whatever . . .

Andy, now that you have received all my "wisdom" , maybe you can impart some to me. In this same forum, I started a thread, asking for advice on a motherboard I am thinking of buying. Take a look at it and see if you have any ideas. And Martin and Cdogg, too.
Butch

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts"

http://ld.net/?topscribe

 

[Pyramus]

hehe Topscribe: "New fangled 3D games" lol.

I think you're a few years behind you lot, you'd need more than 1000mhz to run the latest 3d games nicely. And 133mhz ram is ancient now!

 

[topscribe]

Thank you for your input, Pyramus. However, the 133 MHz refers to the speed of the Front Side Bus (FSB), not the RAM, and the inadequacy of 1000 MHz (1 GB) clock speed to run the latest 3D games is exactly what I was getting at.
Butch

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts"

http://ld.net/?topscribe

 

[hotfusion]

Pyramus, 1Ghz to run the latest 3D games? You're probably right actually, although I get around 90 FPS in Quake 3 arena with my setup as described, although Return To Castle Wolfenstein - a more recent game - is a little jerky......

Topscribe - I'll look at your thread and if I have any worthwhile comment, I'll make it!

Finally, thanks all for your input - if I decide I can live with the guilt, it looks like the 933Mhz chip is the one to go for, also my gut feeling. :-D My suggestions are what I would try myself. If incorrect, I welcome corrections to my rather limited knowledge. Andy.

 

[topscribe]

You know, Andy, I played Return to Castle Wolfenstein on my 400 MMX with a 32 MB TNT2 card, 256 MB PC100 memory, and 100 MHz FSB, and it did beautifully, without a hitch. It sounds like your machine is already more than that, so if it is jerky on yours, it can't be CPU power or your FSB. Just a thought.

Oh yes, I did want to amend my last posting. (I was in a hurry to catch the bus this morning--the kind with wheels.) A 1 GHz processor WILL play virtually all the latest 3D games. Unless a person just doesn't know how to configure his machine.



By the way, don't you just love the way I referred to 1000 MHz as 1 GB in my last posting (instead of 1 GHz)? It dawned on me I did that after I posted.

Anyway, bottoms up!
Butch

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts"

http://ld.net/?topscribe

 

[Pyramus]

lol butch!

I played Return to Castle Wolfenstein on my 400 MMX with a 32 MB TNT2 card, 256 MB PC100 memory, and 100 MHz FSB, and it did beautifully, without a hitch.

I'll believe that when I see it! hihihi.

 

[cdogg]

Pyramus,

On what basis leads you to believe that a 1GHz processor won't play the latest 3D games well? If you've got a link to a site that has benchmarks that prove this, please post it.

Everyone knows that it's more than the processor that determines this. Video card, RAM, FSB, etc...

My system: PIII 800 (Sock 370), 133MHz FSB, 384MB PC133 SDRAM, GeForce2 Ultra (AGP 4x), 7200RPM ATA/100 HD, Win98SE

I have yet to encounter a game that gives me any trouble at 16-bit 1028x764 resolution. Granted, I know I'm not getting the best frame rates as opposed to say an Athlon XP proc, but they're still well over 60FPS in most games.


Hotfusion,

The 933MHz 133FSB would outperform a 1GHz 100FSB in most benchmarks. The FSB is a much bigger bottleneck than the proc.

~cdogg

 

[topscribe]

Pyramus, you question my credibility, and you question my patience. And that from someone who came in on a conversation about FSB, and thought we were talking about RAM. Butch

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts"

http://ld.net/?topscribe