Which one's faster, 100x7 or 133x5?

[theplanb]

Now that mobo with 133MHz FSB coming out..I'm curious..
Which one would be faster? (by overall perormance)
Duron 700 CPU at 700=100 x7 or 665=133 x5?
Sorry if the question sounds dumb..

 

[TheOverlord]

if your memory is up to running at 133 then youd get a performance increase by using that 133 bus...also VIA chipsets tend to have low memory benchmarks anyway so this would be a positive boost...

 

[Viperoni]

<< also VIA chipsets tend to have low memory benchmarks >>



What kind stuff ARE you smoking?
The kt133 chipset pushes roughly 430mb/s @ 100mhz FSB/Ram clock....a fair bit more than an Intel (BX/815) does @ 100mhz FSB.

Answering your question:
You would probably be better off @ 133x5, because even thoguh you have 35mhz less CPU speed, you'll have a faster memory bandwidth, so that would pretty much well compensate for the difference.

 

[NOX]

<< also VIA chipsets tend to have low memory benchmarks anyway >>



There is some legitimacy to that statement, only and only if you?re comparing it to a P4 (RIMMS) system. Other then that the norm seems to be anywhere between 500/600 MB/s.

When you get your system you should try using both speeds/settings and benchmarking them both. Use Sandra Sisoft it?s a synthetic benchmark good for comparing performance.

 

[Pyro]

why not run a 133x5.5=733. Even if you dont want to OC, i think EVERY duron could take an extra 30mhz.

 

[John]

NOX is absolutely correct.

 

[Ulysses]

While it really isn't very important today, with all the new RAM technologies on the horizon, TheOverlord makes a good point. The Intel 440BX chipset has a much more efficient memory controller function than the competing VIA chipsets, Viperoni's data notwithstanding. A BX board @ 133 MHz is a much more robust platform than any VIA, and the BX has been around for more than two and one-half years. I'm not sure that the i815 is in the same league, but it is no slouch. Then again there is Camino.

Generally speaking, the reason many VIA-based systems outperform some of the Intel systems is that the AMD CPU's are superior, not necessarily the chipsets. This is something for enthusiasts to ponder as we move away from PC133 SDRAM to newer memory types - Intel is not the weakling a lot of folks in these forums think. It wouldn't surprise me if a year from now Intel is back on top with the new P4's, king of the hill chipsets, and DDR SDRAM or, dare I say it, RDRAM. On the other hand they may not.

I've often wondered how much better the Athlon/Duron's would perform if they had the quality chipsets that Intel traditionally put forth for their CPU's. (And, yes, I know there have been some glaring exceptions.)

---------
P.S.
Oh yes, and as far as your original question goes, I think you would have to benchmark the two systems to know which is superior in various apps.

 

[Eug]

<< A BX board @ 133 MHz is a much more robust platform than any VIA >>

Not true, since as everyone knows, the BX platform is not meant to run at 133 MHz. Any setup that REQUIRES overclocking of one of the components (AGP) cannot be defined as a robust platform.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

My ASUS K7V allows you to run the Athlon on a 100MHz DDR bus, while running the memory at 133MHz
That would give you the best of both worlds, no?

 

[Deeko]

I'd say the 133x5 will easily be faster.

 

[Nih]

Ulysses,... Even with the P4's 8KB L1 cache, do you think they will be on top in a year?? Or only after they Juice the chip up to its original design?

 

[trmiv]

I would think 133*5, but the benchmarks will tell. I just tried 100x9.5 on my computer and in Sandra got ALU-463 FPU-587 for memory scores. Then I tried 105*9 and got ALU-496 FPU-560

So I gained over 30 for ALU, but dropped 20 for FPU with it set at 105*9. Anyone know why that is?

 

[rbV5]

trmiv, probably because your a Laker Fan

________

Portland Trailblazers 2001 NBA World Champions