HT frequency

[Nashsafc]

Should the HT frequency be half of that of the CPU frequency? So if my CPU is overclocked to 3.6ghz with an fsb of 234 and the multiplier 15. Should i give the HT a 8x multiplier so that it becomes 1920 mhz? Is it better to have the HT frequency as high as possible all the time? So give it a 9x multiplier? Or am i right to have it half the size of the cpu frequency more or less?

 

[xaira]

ht can be anything that allows it to run stably, it has been proven that decreasing the ht multiplier allows higher cpu overclocking , but anything in the vicinity of 2000mhz is good

 

[Nashsafc]

i don't get it. Should the HT frequency be into some sort of proportion to the frequency of the cpu when it is overclocked . So would having the HT frequency being near to a half of the cpu frequency be a stable overclocking method? My current cpu frequency is 3ghz and the HT is 2ghz, should i leave that how it is then, when i overclock let it rise slightly above?

 

[Nashsafc]

Does that mean that i can decrease the multiplier al the way down to 6x? I can get stable overclocks? If the HT frequency is 1400mhz for example?

 

[xaira]

the lower the ht goes, the higher ull be able to push core freq and maintain stabi did it with my 4400+, 2.3 stock, 2.85 with x5 multi, 3.0 at x4

 

[Nashsafc]

so ht has nothing to do with literal performance of the computer? A higher HT frequency won't effect the performance of the CPU? in that case i might as well stick the HT frequency as low as possible even for stock frequency cpu?

 

[xaira]

there was a test done, i dont have a link, but they levied the ht freq from 200mhz to 1000mhz, there was no difference in performance, i was skeptical, still am, so dont drop ur htt to 200mhz, just decrease the multi by however much is necessary to keep it as near to 2000mhz as possible

 

[Nashsafc]

ok i'm understanding now.