I was wondering what is the difference on overclocking..like which way would you notice more of a difference , overclocking the FSB or overclocking the CPU? Ex: 66FSB x 5 CPU = 330 or 75FSB x 4.5 CPU = 337 Would there be any noticeable differences? if so what are they? and which way is safer FSB or CPU? Thanks.

FSB is where true performance gains will be found ASUS A7N8X-X Athlon XP 1800+ 8.5 x 200MHz 1024MB PC3200 2.5-3-3-7 Asus A9550GE/TD 128MB WinME/WinXP Pro SP1

Overclocking by changing multiplier is more stable than changing FSB. But FSB give more performance. MSI KT3 Ultra 2MS-6380E Athlon XP 1800+ 12x133MHz DDR512 PC2700 2-2-2-6 Asus ATi Radeon 9200SE 128MB Windows XP SP2

The reason why OCing by FSB is better is that with the FSB the whole system will run fast. The problem with it is that the PCI (AGP is twice the PCI) clock will raise with the FSB and above 37,5MHz (33MHz is standard) most PCI devices (cards and onboard) will become unstable. Because of that modern boards with OCing features have adjustable PCI divider or a PCI lock which will always keep the PCI at 33MHz all the time. As long as it runs stable the 75MHz FSB settiong should be the faster one!

Guy, if you're hoping to get that old Intel P-2 System to run games better, forget it. Even with overclocking, you'll never achieve the performance incease you need to meet the requirements of most newer games. And the only reason to overclock in the first place is for gamers. Other programs such as Word Processing, well, you won't notice anything. Back when I started to build my own computers (in '92), we would buy hardware which was 1 step behind the latest; last years hardware. That way, we'd get great deals, and have a computer that was good enough to run most late release games. Hope this gets your mind thinking on the next logical step for a computer performance increase. Sincerely, J.T.