Question: Rendering and CPU FSB speed...

kentwolf wrote on 4/6/2004, 10:56 AM
I am considering upgrading my CPU. I am running an AMD Athlon XP 2600 with a FSB speed of 233 Mhz. I have been very pleased with its' performance. I am looking to go to, I believe, an AMD Athlon XP 2800 with a FSB speed of 333 Mhz.

Question: I know rendering is very CPU intensive. Does the *FSB speed increase* from 233 to 333 Mhz really make a difference with regard to CPU/rendering horsepower?

Thanks for any input you have.

Comments

jboy wrote on 4/6/2004, 11:19 AM
Rendering is all processor, so increasing FSB will make a difference, although how much I'm not sure. If you're in luck, you may have a motherboard that'll increase FSB in the bios, then you can check out the difference w/o a big cash outlay. Overclocking is generally safe, as long as you do it sensibly. If your overclock works, you might consider a better cpu cooler and fan, + some faster RAM. Check out ;

www.overclockers.com

for more info on overclocking, and check out their forums. All your questions can be answered there.
Bill Ravens wrote on 4/6/2004, 1:13 PM
not true...rendering also places data in RAM for buffering to the processor. As such, the FSB speed is the comm speed between the memory and the CPU. It, most definitely affects render time. FSB speed can also affect the comm speed with the PCI bus and the HD's, up to a point.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 4/6/2004, 1:18 PM
With the price difference between the 2600 & 2800, it would be worth it to get the 2800 anyway.

Just an FYI, I setup an AMD XP 2500 333 last year. I could render a source file (mpeg-2 640x480, 10mbs, 1 hour long) to a mpeg-2 (yes, mpeg to mpeg) as a 320x240 @ 3mbs in REAL TIME.

I also could render most mpeg to mpeg conversion in Vegas in real time if there wasn't excessive fx on it.