FSB: What's too slow?

[pyromaster114]

Okay so I was wondering, I'm seeing a large range of FSB speeds in laptops these days... Anywhere from 533MHz to 800MHz... My question is, what's too slow?

I notice that if you want a higher FSB speed, especially on laptops, you have to go up quite a few hundred in price. (From 533MHz to 800MHz is almost double the price in some cases... because models with a higher FSB tend to be more top of the line in all respects...)

I know that "too slow" is defined by what you're doing with the computer, but for moderate gaming and lots of 720p HD video playing (I like my anime fansubs... ^_^), what is "too slow"?
I have my own ideas about this but I wanted to hear everyone else's.

 

[grimesy69]

but for moderate gaming and lots of 720p HD video playing

For high quality videos, your system would be relying on the video card and RAM more than the CPU. So pretty much any FSB on the market today would be ok with that.

For gaming obviously the higher FSB you have the increase in performance you will experience. However this also depends on the CPU and RAM itself.

If i were you i would go with 533mhz but with the best CPU, RAM and Vid Chip money will capacitate.

Hope this has helped.

Regards

 

[raybay]

333 or 400 MHz, but with matched CL 2.5 memory modules, and a top video graphics card. Memory is more important. Video graphics is more important still.
The higher prices also reflect the fact that the higher priced models have more and better cooling channels and fans, better screens and inverters, better video graphics, and much better motherboards... not to mention quality.

 

[DelJo63]

see this comment

Gaming systems (laptops are ususally quiet poor here) stress

1. Graphics
2. memory

HD is required to store games and saved states.

You can never have too much HD, Memory for any given CPU/FSB combination.

 

[pyromaster114]

For high quality videos, your system would be relying on the video card and RAM more than the CPU. So pretty much any FSB on the market today would be ok with that.

Wouldn't the CPU though be used quite heavily if the system were to have an integrated graphics chipset?
From what I've seen, systems with integrated video chipsets such as the Intel GMA X3100, do well with a lot of things surprisingly, provided the machine has a Core 2 Duo processor in it, because the processor takes care of what the video card is lacking by dedicating one entire core if necessary to the video processing.

I ran a rather interesting test on my sister's notebook last night, and it's a cheap Sony NR series with a 533MHz FSB.
I opened itunes, Firefox, and then proceeded to plug in a flash drive with a video file on it. The video file was a 720p compressed .mkv file, about 30 minutes long, 300MB in file size. The video played without a single skip or lag.

 

[grimesy69]

Wouldn't the CPU though be used quite heavily if the system were to have an integrated graphics chipset?
From what I've seen, systems with integrated video chipsets such as the Intel GMA X3100, do well with a lot of things surprisingly, provided the machine has a Core 2 Duo processor in it, because the processor takes care of what the video card is lacking by dedicating one entire core if necessary to the video processing.

I ran a rather interesting test on my sister's notebook last night, and it's a cheap Sony NR series with a 533MHz FSB.
I opened itunes, Firefox, and then proceeded to plug in a flash drive with a video file on it. The video file was a 720p compressed .mkv file, about 30 minutes long, 300MB in file size. The video played without a single skip or lag.

Yes so you have just proven that what i suggested with going for a 533FSB is the best option for you.