Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: 1 gHz FSB or integrated?




  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    DE
    Posts
    256

    Default 1 gHz FSB or integrated?

    What's the difference? I'm checking out some of the AMD's and want one that will use the 1gHz fsb on a new mobo that I want and I'm not sure what the "integrated" means on some of the processors.

    also, which is better: Venice 64 3000+ integrated fsb or WC 64 3000+ 1gHz fsb. Obviously I'm not going for super fast speeds. I'm just getting something to replace my old 32 bit. I just use it for network purposes, some gaming and storage.
    Last edited by eat@joes; 05-25-2005 at 12:37 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    4,825

    Default Re: 1 gHz FSB or integrated?

    I'm not sure if I'm on the mark with your question so I'll give you a couple of pieces of information and hopefully it will help you with the answer you're looking for.

    1- FSB is a misleading term with regards to the Athlon64 line of processors. As far as I am aware, all of the mainstream nVidia and VIA chipsets use a setting that folks commonly refer to as a 1000MHz FSB setting, but it is basically similat to what Intel has been doing for years. The actual FSB speed (again, I'm just using the term for the sake of what you;re probably accustomed to) is 200MHz, but the system uses a multiplier of x5 giving a 1000MHz speed. Your Socket 939 systems claim a 2000MHz speed since their chipsets allow for bi-directional data flow, so it in essence doubles the number.

    2- "Integrated"... This could mean a couple of things. Firstly, the memory controller for the Socket 939 processor family is embedded in the processor itself, which is why you get dual channel capabilities on the Socket 939 processor but not the Socket 754 ones. Secondly, some of the high-end processors have a full 1MB of level 2 cache on die, so this can give you better performance.

    Like I said, I'm not really sure where exactly your question was going, but hopefully this information helps you out a little.
    Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill
    My Toys

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default Re: 1 gHz FSB or integrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darthtanion
    2- "Integrated"... This could mean a couple of things. Firstly, the memory controller for the Socket 939 processor family is embedded in the processor itself, which is why you get dual channel capabilities on the Socket 939 processor but not the Socket 754 ones. Secondly, some of the high-end processors have a full 1MB of level 2 cache on die, so this can give you better performance.
    All AMD K8 processors have integrated memory controllers, which is why they have no front side bus. The socket 754 memory controller was never designed to use dual-channel, but it is still on the processor. The difference in pins is most likely caused by and/or the cause of the lack of dual-channel capabilities on socket 754. As for the cache, all L2 cache since the later K7s has been integrated into the chip, regardless of size.

    What this specific question is referring to is the inconsistence (and ignorant) labeling used by Newegg and some other online retailers. Sometimes they will list a processor as having a 1GHz or 800Mhz (depending on socket) FSB, and sometimes it will be listed as being "integrated into chip." Bascially, just ignore anything about FSB or any use of the word "integrated" when looking at AMD K8 (Opterons and Athlon 64) processors online. If it's a socket 939 or socket 940, it has a 1000MHz (5x200) Hypertransport link to its memory controller, which is essentially its equivelent of FSB. If it's socket 754, it has an 800MHz (4x200) Hypertransport link to its memory controller. Any use of the ter, FSB is just for less knowledgable users more experienced with the term "FSB," since it was (and still is with Intel) used for a long time.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,525

    Default Re: 1 gHz FSB or integrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by eat@joes
    also, which is better: Venice 64 3000+ integrated fsb or WC 64 3000+ 1gHz fsb. Obviously I'm not going for super fast speeds. I'm just getting something to replace my old 32 bit. I just use it for network purposes, some gaming and storage.
    Get the Venice core as its the latest available with more enhancements and its a better overclocker.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    DE
    Posts
    256

    Default Re: 1 gHz FSB or integrated?

    Thanks a lot everyone. That was very helpful. I've notice a lot of marketing techniques (errors?) used by many retailers. Such as putting 2000MT/s instead of 1000MHz on mobos etc... I'll probably end up with an Asus A8N-E (939), Epox EP-9NPA+ SLi (939), or an MSI K8N Neo4 SLi (939). Using an AMD 64 3000+ Venice (probably overclocked) and not worried about cache since the 512 on it will be running as fast as the processor and doesn't bottleneck on the fsb. Any suggestions on the mobo choices? Feel free to add one in those price ranges for me :) Oh yeah, SLi isn't necessary. One last thing; You know if ATI makes good mobo chipsets? I was thinking about sticking with the Nforce4.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default Re: 1 gHz FSB or integrated?

    ATI is okay, but ATM nVidia is much better overall in its AMD chipsets. And go with DFI for the motherboard if you're going to overclock.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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