1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Does decreasing the multi for higher FSB improve or decrease frame rates in games?

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by EastCoasthandle, May 19, 2008.

?

Lower multi + higher FSB + Higher ram freq. = better frame rates in games?

Poll closed May 26, 2008.
  1. Yes, I've noticed higher frame rates in games

    2 vote(s)
    5.4%
  2. Yes, higher in game frame rates and higher memory benchmark scores

    9 vote(s)
    24.3%
  3. No difference for me in games

    10 vote(s)
    27.0%
  4. Improvements only found in memory benchmark programs

    11 vote(s)
    29.7%
  5. Lower in game frame rates for me

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Lower in game frame rates but higher memory benchmark scores

    2 vote(s)
    5.4%
  7. Other, I will post why

    3 vote(s)
    8.1%
  1. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (1.97/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,506
    For any who lowered you the multi of your CPU to increase the FSB to increase dram frequency /performance have you noticed an increase or decrease in the frame rate of games:
    -COD4
    -BF2
    -Grid
    -Assassins Creed
    -Company of Heroes: Opposing Forces
    -Medal of Honor:Airborne
    -and other games


    [​IMG]
    400x9 PL6 = 1793



    [​IMG]
    400x9 PL7 = 1755


    [​IMG]
    450x8 @ 1080 = 1812 using



    [​IMG]
    450x8 @ 1128 = 1857



    [​IMG]
    400x9 @ 1066
    Min 26.33 FPS
    Max 46.65 FPS
    Avg 38.735 FPS


    [​IMG]
    450x8 @ 1080
    Min 26.87 FPS
    Max 46.68 FPS
    Avg 38.775


    [​IMG]
    450x8 @ 1128
    Min 27.79 FPS
    Max 46.16 FPS
    Avg 38.785
    Sorry, I forgot to scroll the doc up but the score is found on the benchmark tool itself.

    [​IMG]
    PL7
    9x multi
    1093 Dram Frequency

    All settings are the same as before.
    (summary from other posts in this thread)
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2008
  2. CrackerJack

    CrackerJack

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Messages:
    2,708 (1.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    450
    Location:
    East TN
    i got lower scores with benchmarks, when multi higher and fsb lower (stock)16x200

    I'll test FEAR and COD4. (There my Favs) I'll post screenshots of FEAR, since it has in game benchmark.

    16x200
    [​IMG]

    I keep crashing, when try 13x240 and14x220 :banghead:
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2008
  3. DrPepper

    DrPepper The Doctor is in the house

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    7,483 (2.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    813
    Location:
    Scotland (It rains alot)
    I've only saw improvements in memory benchmarks, I was doing this last night coincidentally and didn't see a change in games although I'm open to benchies :)
     
  4. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,893 (13.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,297
    For games having a higher FSB does yield in higher FPS but it's negligible. It seems to improve memory benchmarks quite a bit however memory benchmark numbers don't translate to FPS in games very much. It is known that the FSB is the bottleneck of Intel systems. I suppose by how much all depends on the hardware.

    * I read an article (no idea where) where increasing the FSB gave memory benchmarks around a 20% gain while FPS in games went up 1-3%.
     
  5. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,483 (11.48/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,763
    if you have the same CPU and ram clocks in the end, the scores will be the same.

    You should only raise the FSB more if something will end up faster - such as 1:1 overclocking, 400x9 gets you 800MHz, while 450x8 gets you 900MHz for ram. In that case your ram would be faster and have an impact on speed.

    If you want FPS increased, OC the video card. thats where the gain is.
     
  6. PVTCaboose1337

    PVTCaboose1337 Graphical Hacker

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    9,512 (2.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,143
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    I find that I like the multi semi-high, but also a little low, so my ram can fly as well (after all, my D9's need a workout!). I can run a very nice 2.65ghz with a 10x multi and get much better results than a 2.69ghz with multi of 11x.
     
  7. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (1.97/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,506
    Using a 9x multi for a 400 FSB clocked at 3.60GHz, ram at 1066MHz


    Using a 8x multi for a 450 FSB clocked at 3.60GHz, ram at 1080MHz

    Photos were consolidated
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2008
    Mussels says thanks.
  8. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,483 (11.48/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,763
    thanks for the benches east coast, it backs up what i was saying that overall clocks matter more than FSB clocks.
     
  9. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (1.97/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,506
    no problem
     
  10. Silverel

    Silverel New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,769 (0.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    233
    Location:
    Detroit, MI
    I've got Bioshock, CoD4 and Oblivion I'll be testing out.
     
  11. CrackerJack

    CrackerJack

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Messages:
    2,708 (1.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    450
    Location:
    East TN
    i'll back that up too, i see little to no performance increase either way. I mostly see a slight decrease.
     
  12. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    I've never noticed a difference while gaming, but it seems to help with encoding.
     
    yogurt_21 says thanks.
  13. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (1.97/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,506
    I have to wonder the point in it all? Dropping the multi does put you at a disadvantage. In the example I provided it takes a FSB Frequency of 50MHz to regain the 1x multi. That's pretty significant even if your MB can handle it.

    What I like to know is it only really worth dropping the multi and doing 450FSB instead of 400FSB if you have DDR2 1200 ram (if your MB can handle it). Then and only then I wonder if there is any substantial gains found?
     
  14. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,483 (11.48/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,763
    the reason its worth it sometimes comes down to the mobo in question.

    For example, at 400x9 i get the choices of 800 and 960MHz for ram - i have 1110MHz ram. i'm 'wasting' some speed there.

    450x9 gets me 900 and 1200. if i had 1.2GHz ram, that would be the best option - i chose 960MHz with tighter timings since it performed best.

    On some systems, you are FSB limited (older chips with really high multipliers, old chipsets) because you need more FSB to use all the bandwidth. Basically, there ARE situations when it helps, but its a minority - you're better off tweaking a lower FSB than aiming for a higher one.

    (For the record, many mobos have an FSB strap option, hidden or visible - as you raise the FSB this option changes, and often increases latencies to help you OC, at the cost of memory bandwidth. you have to try and test for yourself what settings are fastest)
     
  15. hat

    hat Maximum Overclocker

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    16,949 (5.79/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,074
    Location:
    Ohio
    I noticed a difference in Oblivion when I cranked up my DDR2 533... but then I had an 8500gt.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  16. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,483 (11.48/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,763
    oh as a useful bit of advice i forgot: i use superpi to test my changes in this regard. Yes its purely CPU power, but if you notice say, a 5% performance gain, its worth it - if you're OCing a lot higher, needing more volts (and heat) to various components, you can judge if its even worth it or not.
     
  17. FR@NK

    FR@NK

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    576 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    94

    First of all your tRD is set slower at 450FSB. As you should know this will directly effect your ram efficiency. tRD = 6 @ 400FSB would be 15ns and tRD = 7 @ 450FSB is 15.5ns delay. So yea your FSB is higher and your RAM is faster but your MCH is running slower. I think thats why you arnt seeing much of a difference.

    Relax your performance level to 7 @ 400FSB and you might see more of a spread on your scores.

    Also in CoH it looks like you have vert sync on since your min and max are standard values with a LCD of 60Hz. Although this might just be a coincidence :/
     
  18. philbrown23

    philbrown23 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,231 (0.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    147
    Location:
    vermont
    I've noticed that with my ati cards the higher the fsb the higher the fps but with nvidia I do not notice that.
     
  19. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (1.97/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,506
    The performance is actually better at PL6 not worst. Using a PL6 at 400 does perform slightly better then PL7 based on my setup. There is no reason for me to lower PL from 6 to 7 just to "show" a difference. It's better to use the best setup at 400FSB then the best at 450FSB and review the results. By the same token if I want to decrease delay in the MCH I would need to use PL8 at 450 and so on and so on. It's just not feasible. The MCH is not running slower to a point were performance is hindered. And, I am not using vert sync.


    Not necessarily true from a stand point of what your ram and northbridge chip is capable of. If you are limited by either then performance increase hindrance becomes forfeit do to the design of the ram or chipset not by the overclocker's decision.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2008
  20. yogurt_21

    yogurt_21

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,436 (1.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    587
    Location:
    AZ
    2900 is the bottleneck at the settings I run at, not the q6700. so no matter if I run at 4GHZ or 2.66GHZ, my frames don't change. now load times, benchmarks, and overall desktop speed, thats a different story.
     
  21. FR@NK

    FR@NK

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    576 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    94
    Well you could use tRD of 6 for both 400 and 450FSB but you will need ram that can do tCL = 4 @ DDR2-1080. Yea you're right, theres no point in using 450FSB if you have to relax the MCH timings to do so.

    The MCH is running slower to a point where performance increase is hindered. Based on your bench scores anyways.

    The x38 chipset can run at tRD 6 at either 400 or 450MHz, Its the "overclocker's decision" to relax the timing to 7 when running at 450MHz. If you think about it, why are you raising the FSB? If you are keeping the ram speed nearly the same and the CPU speed the same then whats the point in raising the FSB? The overclocker needs to keep all settings and timings the same to see a linear performance increase in the memory subsystem when comparing 9x400 and 8x450. Otherwise yeah you are right, 400MHz FSB with tighter MCH timings and a lower multi is faster then 450MHz with relaxed MCH timings.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2008
  22. amd64skater

    amd64skater

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Messages:
    609 (0.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Location:
    Jacksonville ,Florida
    i know its a bit off topic but what program is that you are using on right with the blue background that tells you all ur info
     
  23. OzzmanFloyd120

    OzzmanFloyd120

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    3,047 (1.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    297
    Location:
    Pontaic Michigan
    Everest, you can get it at TPU's download section.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2008
  24. marsey99

    marsey99

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,644 (0.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    317
    it could be down to the chipsets as i found it to be the other way on my nf650 board, 8x400 was slightly faster in all things than 9x355, but this was with my 4300 when i was tryinng to find the best setup for my 24/7clocks.

    not played with this setup that much tbh.
     
  25. DanTheBanjoman SeƱor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    If the final clock is the same the higher FSB will be faster, simply because all other subsystems are faster. If you actually notice this is different per case.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page