Categories:

FSB1066 vs. FSB1333

10:28 - Tuesday 21 August 2007 by Bert Töpelt
Source: Tom's hardware UK – Keywords: overclocking, intel
Categories: Hardware

Table of content:
11 – FSB1066 vs. FSB1333
  1. 1 – Four Cores at 3 GHz: Intel’s Core 2 Extreme QX6850
  2. 2 – The New Core 2 Models with FSB 1333
  3. 3 – An Overview of the Core 2 Steppings
  4. 4 – An Overclocking Powerhouse: The new G0-Stepping
  5. 5 – Lower Core Voltage
  6. 6 – Core 2 Extreme QX6850 Rock Solid at 3.66 GHz
  7. 7 – Core 2 Extreme QX6850 Rock Solid at 3.66 GHz (Cont’d)
  8. 8 – Core 2 Duo: Going Strong at 3.60 GHz
  9. 9 – Core 2 Duo: Going Strong at 3.60 GHz (Cont’d)
  10. 10 – Power Consumption
  11. 11 – FSB1066 vs. FSB1333
  12. 12 – Which Board will run an FSB 1333 CPU?
  13. 13 – Pricing: Cheaper than the FSB1066 CPUs
  14. 14 – New Hard- and Software for our Benchmark Suite
  15. 15 – Benchmarks and Settings
  16. 16 – Benchmarks and Settings (Continued)
  17. 17 – Benchmarks - Video CloneDVD, DivX
  18. 18 – Benchmarks - Video Xvid, Premiere
  19. 19 – Benchmarks - Video Studio 11, Mainconcept
  20. 20 – Benchmarks - Audio iTunes, Lame
  21. 21 – Benchmarks – Applications HD-Video, AVG Antivirus
  22. 22 – Benchmarks – Applications Photoshop, PDF
  23. 23 – Benchmarks - Applications Cinema 4D, 3D-Studio Max
  24. 24 – Benchmarks – Applications Fritz, WinRAR
  25. 25 – Benchmarks - 3D Games Quake 4, Prey
  26. 26 – Benchmarks - 3D Games Serious Sam 2, Unreal Tournament 2004
  27. 27 – Benchmarks - 3D Games Warhammer, Supreme Commander
  28. 28 – Benchmarks – Synthetic Sandra CPU
  29. 29 – Benchmarks - Synthetic Sandra Multimedia
  30. 30 – Benchmarks - Synthetic Sandra Memory
  31. 31 – Benchmarks - Synthetic 3D-Mark
  32. 32 – Benchmarks - Synthetic PC-Mark
  33. 33 – Conclusion: New Overclocking Potential with the G0-Stepping

FSB1066 vs. FSB1333

Ad

To analyse the performance differences between the processors with an FSB of 266MHz and those on a 333MHz bus, we compared the Core 2 Duo E6750 and the E6700, which are both clocked at 3.66 GHz. fsb chart

Our observations from previous articles hold true here as well. The 66 MHz bump to the FSB-speed translates into a slim 1.3% performance advantage under Windows Vista. Since benchmarks always have a certain margin of error, Unreal Tournament and WinRAR actually exhibit slightly lower performance.

In conclusion, we can safely say that the new FSB1333 offers a measurable, though not a tangible performance increase.

We asked ourselves whether processors with different FSB-speeds would also have different power requirements. When they are idle, i.e. when the processors run at lower clockspeeds, there are minor differences. These can be explained by the north bridge’s higher operating frequency on the one hand and the higher CPU frequency on the other hand. Since both use the same minimum multiplier of 6x, an FSB1066 CPU runs at 1.6 GHz, while the FSB1333 CPU runs at 2 GHz when the SpeedStep power-saving feature downclocks the processors.

fs chart

Under full load, the picture is much the same. After all, both processors are running at the same clock speed.

chart fsb


Ad
Talkback
spuddyt 22/08/2007 03:46
Hide
-0+
spuddyt

I hope Intel doesn't start 2 get a monopoly...

Cabelo 28/08/2007 04:19
Hide
-0+
Cabelo

You're probably right to worry, but I read that AMD has taken a big upswing this month... hopefully it'll sort itself out.

I even fear the game monopoly :(

Google Ads
Ad
The CPU Articles and reviews
News
Reviews
Forum
See all Topics
Videos