In the graph above the 260FSB benchmark was run using the 14x multiplier option. Unfortunately without the ability to lock graphics bus, or change the FSB:DRAM divider there still exists a restriction on performance. Regardless, Intel's decision to leave the 14x multiplier available compliments DDR2's higher speeds. 3DMark2001SE:
In graphics performance there was at least a 4K improvement between the default speeds of 3.4GHz (200FSB) to 4.2GHz (250FSB) in 3DMark2001 scores. I was able to run all 3D benchmarks up to 250FSB, and using the 14x multiplier to 260FSB, while I've tried and test all Futuremark benchmarks, it was 3DMark2001 which reflected memory performance increases best.
And at the other end of the spectrum, at 250FSB
And not to exclude performance using the 14x multiplier at 260FSBAIDA 32:
As is painfully obvious from the PiFast results, DDR2’s Achilles heel is its high latencies. Making matters worse P4 Prescott core architecture pipelines are deep enough to warrant knowledge of Speleology. DDR2 will not begin to come into its own until FSB increases are implemented, such as in Intel's 1066 925EX. Until that time, appropriate implementation of FSB:DRAM multipliers will be critical.
Onto our conclusion ->