E6750 Just a lowered E6600?

[Rudster8161]

Exactly, that's what I've been trying to point out. Higher multiplier is better because it takes load off the FSB, which is more of a bottleneck than the CPU in most cases.

you kind of got me backwards, the higher the FSB the better, for example a 1333 bus is faster because the cpu communicates with the ram\chipset faster, which gives it more stuff to process faster, right now cpu's are struggling to get enough data that can challenge there speeds right now, when the task manager says "100% cpu usage" your cpu might now be 100%, because it might not be getting data fast enough. thats why programs like Prime95 stress the cpu much more than games, prime95's algorithm the cpu solves can fit in the L2 and most of the time L1 cache so getting the data isnt a problem, when you need a 100mb file rendered, it probably would take more time to send the data to the cpu then it would for a cpu to actually render it, so in reality it make take lets say 600ms but it only took the cpu 400ms to render it but it took 600ms for the data to actually get there so the cpu outran the data.

its like in war when the main force outruns its supplies, you cant do crap unless you got ammo and fuel, but your battle forces move faster than your supplies, so your battle force cant move as fast as it can.

 

[Äߧý∩†H♠H䎀]

you kind of got me backwards, the higher the FSB the better, for example a 1333 bus is faster because the cpu communicates with the ram\chipset faster, which gives it more stuff to process faster, right now cpu's are struggling to get enough data that can challenge there speeds right now, when the task manager says "100% cpu usage" your cpu might now be 100%, because it might not be getting data fast enough. thats why programs like Prime95 stress the cpu much more than games, prime95's algorithm the cpu solves can fit in the L2 and most of the time L1 cache so getting the data isnt a problem, when you need a 100mb file rendered, it probably would take more time to send the data to the cpu then it would for a cpu to actually render it, so in reality it make take lets say 600ms but it only took the cpu 400ms to render it but it took 600ms for the data to actually get there so the cpu outran the data.

its like in war when the main force outruns its supplies, you cant do crap unless you got ammo and fuel, but your battle forces move faster than your supplies, so your battle force cant move as fast as it can.

Nice analogy. I did find running synthetic benchmarks the differences were not very much regarding cpu tests. For some reason certain cpu tests it out did the lower fsb and other tests it was slightly slower. But all memory tests were quite a bit faster in read/write/copy/latency.