4.0Ghz P4 now officially cancelled

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:mtf3n0lvlf02c6mrovhiiu46qgaab0vfo1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:38:21 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:L9udndzeufmI9_LcRVn-gQ@rogers.com...
>>> AJ wrote:
>>>> Personally, if Northwoods go away and Prescott is the only Intel
>>>> choice, I'm gonna buy AMD. Secondly, if motherboards from Intel
>>>> become >$120, I'll go third party there too. Enough of the gouging
>>>> already. "Innovation" where it is not necessary is not appreciated.
>>>
>>> Not even sure why you would need to announce this, AMD and/or third-party motherboards should've always been on your
>>> radar,
>>> even before now.
>>
>>Historically, good integrated motherboards for AMD haven't been there.
>>
>>AJ
>>
> Wake up, Nforce is here since, uhmm, 2001. And even much-criticized
> VIA is not that bad, at least since KT800 came out

I forgot to add that I was shopping for a micro-ATX board. For some reason,
the 3rd party vendors don't like to make full-featured boards of the uATX
kind instead relegating uATX to the "value" category.

AJ
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:38:21 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:
>
>"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:L9udndzeufmI9_LcRVn-gQ@rogers.com...
>> AJ wrote:
>>> Personally, if Northwoods go away and Prescott is the only Intel
>>> choice, I'm gonna buy AMD. Secondly, if motherboards from Intel
>>> become >$120, I'll go third party there too. Enough of the gouging
>>> already. "Innovation" where it is not necessary is not appreciated.
>>
>> Not even sure why you would need to announce this, AMD and/or third-party motherboards should've always been on your radar,
>> even before now.
>
>Historically, good integrated motherboards for AMD haven't been there.

Just what counts as an "integrated" motherboard? Either way, that
history changed the day that nVidia first brought out their nForce
chipset, roughly 3 years ago. The integrated video and audio on that
chipset were better than anything that was available for Intel chips
until the brand-new i9xx series motherboards.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:38:11 +0000, nobody@nowhere.net wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:14:56 +0200, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org>
> wrote:
>
>>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>
>>> Will now concentrate on 2MB L2 caches instead.
>>>
>>> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19089
>>
>>I don't think one is allowed to say "officially" and "the Inquirer"
>>in the same sentence.
>
> Read the First Amendment.

Read it again. You obviously didn't understand either.

--
Keith
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:48:57 +0000, AJ wrote:

>
> "nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:mtf3n0lvlf02c6mrovhiiu46qgaab0vfo1@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:38:21 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:L9udndzeufmI9_LcRVn-gQ@rogers.com...
>>>> AJ wrote:
>>>>> Personally, if Northwoods go away and Prescott is the only Intel
>>>>> choice, I'm gonna buy AMD. Secondly, if motherboards from Intel
>>>>> become >$120, I'll go third party there too. Enough of the gouging
>>>>> already. "Innovation" where it is not necessary is not appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Not even sure why you would need to announce this, AMD and/or third-party motherboards should've always been on your
>>>> radar,
>>>> even before now.
>>>
>>>Historically, good integrated motherboards for AMD haven't been there.
>>>
>>>AJ
>>>
>> Wake up, Nforce is here since, uhmm, 2001. And even much-criticized
>> VIA is not that bad, at least since KT800 came out
>
> I forgot to add that I was shopping for a micro-ATX board. For some reason,
> the 3rd party vendors don't like to make full-featured boards of the uATX
> kind instead relegating uATX to the "value" category.

The ASUS A7V8X-MX I recently bought for a friend seems to be quite a good
board and fits all your criteria (other than your hatred for anything
that doesn't reek of Intel marketing).

I'll repeat the sentiment; *WAKE UP!*

--
Keith
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message news😛an.2004.10.18.02.31.05.291502@att.bizzzz...
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:48:57 +0000, AJ wrote:
>
>>
>> "nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:mtf3n0lvlf02c6mrovhiiu46qgaab0vfo1@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:38:21 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:L9udndzeufmI9_LcRVn-gQ@rogers.com...
>>>>> AJ wrote:
>>>>>> Personally, if Northwoods go away and Prescott is the only Intel
>>>>>> choice, I'm gonna buy AMD. Secondly, if motherboards from Intel
>>>>>> become >$120, I'll go third party there too. Enough of the gouging
>>>>>> already. "Innovation" where it is not necessary is not appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not even sure why you would need to announce this, AMD and/or third-party motherboards should've always been on your
>>>>> radar,
>>>>> even before now.
>>>>
>>>>Historically, good integrated motherboards for AMD haven't been there.
>>>>
>>>>AJ
>>>>
>>> Wake up, Nforce is here since, uhmm, 2001. And even much-criticized
>>> VIA is not that bad, at least since KT800 came out
>>
>> I forgot to add that I was shopping for a micro-ATX board. For some reason,
>> the 3rd party vendors don't like to make full-featured boards of the uATX
>> kind instead relegating uATX to the "value" category.
>
> The ASUS A7V8X-MX I recently bought for a friend seems to be quite a good
> board and fits all your criteria (other than your hatred for anything
> that doesn't reek of Intel marketing).
>
> I'll repeat the sentiment; *WAKE UP!*

The point now is though that there's no reason to move to those boards/chips unless
there's something there that's compelling. Your stance seems to be "as long as it's
not Intel". That works for you, fine. I have found Intel CPU/MB configurations to be
completely acceptable for me (and the offerings led me there initially for the reasons
I stated). Change just for change's sake is dumb. The only current issue will give me
reason to look elsewhere is lack of availability of Northwoods. Intel is like small-block
Chevy: the reliable workhorse. If you like Toyotas, that's fine. (Why are AMDers such
zealots anyway? Who cares what anyone chooses? ).

I looked (earlier this year?) at ASUS for a uATX that had the QFan feature, but quess
what? It wasn't available on a uATX board.

(aside): AMD bet on 64-bit. Intel on hyperthreading and now dual core. I'd rather have
the latter. And AMD will have that too, but again, no reason to move since they both
will have it. No compelling reason to move. Realize that moving has big
implications: retraining, new (many!) vendors (argh) for drivers, software, etc. It's just
easier with fewer vendors. What I would find compelling in the AMD camp is if AMD
offered its own motherboards (again, less complexity). I'm not a gamer needing
every whiz bang feature that comes along. I like to keep things simple. Intel is a
simpler (but adequate, and moreso) solution.

I have my new Intel PC now, so I'm good for now. I'll be skipping the Prescott generation
of processors from Intel. Hopefully the next generation of chips (dual core) will again
satisfy me so I don't have to face the dreary possibility of changing to a multitude of
vendors to build PCs instead of just one.

AJ

AJ
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:nq16n09ii27te1rbtlui3tn4okg5rv1v05@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:38:21 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:
>>
>>"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:L9udndzeufmI9_LcRVn-gQ@rogers.com...
>>> AJ wrote:
>>>> Personally, if Northwoods go away and Prescott is the only Intel
>>>> choice, I'm gonna buy AMD. Secondly, if motherboards from Intel
>>>> become >$120, I'll go third party there too. Enough of the gouging
>>>> already. "Innovation" where it is not necessary is not appreciated.
>>>
>>> Not even sure why you would need to announce this, AMD and/or third-party motherboards should've always been on your
>>> radar,
>>> even before now.
>>
>>Historically, good integrated motherboards for AMD haven't been there.
>
> Just what counts as an "integrated" motherboard?

LAN, Sound, Video.

> Either way, that
> history changed the day that nVidia first brought out their nForce
> chipset, roughly 3 years ago. The integrated video and audio on that
> chipset were better than anything that was available for Intel chips
> until the brand-new i9xx series motherboards.

Well I got started building my own PCs when the integrated board offerings
in uATX were far and few between. So now I know Intel and have no reason
to look elsewhere. If I was considering building an AMD system, I wouldn't
look at any other vendor for a motherboard than ASUS though. As far as I'm
concerned, AMD+ASUS is the platform there and there's no need to
evaluate the also-rans. Intel solution: CPU, chipset, motherboard by one
vendor. AMD solution: CPU, chipset, motherboard by two or three vendors.
The former is compelling. The latter is frightening. (It works for me!).

AJ
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Bruce Mckown" <no@email.here> wrote in message news:1e46n0lpsebal9i13stkisl5eilhg8594n@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:47:51 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On these cool fall days, (though I have the heat on in my home), my 2.4
>>Northwood idles at under 30 C. As I type this, it's at 28. I have a Zalman
>>7000 AlCu instead of the stock HSF though. Your 36 C idle temp sounds
>>high to me, but maybe your ambient is higher too.
>>
>>AJ
>>
> 36c is not high at all. Even Idle temp of 40 - 46c is fine. Maybe your
> mb is giving a false reading because sub 30c is really low.

I realize that 36 C it's well within the spec. I think it's easy to do much
"better" though. I've built a number of Northwood systems now and they
all idle around 30 C (and lower in cool environments). Again, I'm using
the Zalman 7000 AlCu HSF (and even have side vents blocked or non-
existent). The added cooling capability of the Zalman is just icing though.
I bought it to eliminate the unacceptable noise level of the stock Intel
HSF. My CPU is a 2.4C but the 2.8C boxes that I've built aren't that
much hotter (a couple of degrees maybe). Now that one Prescott 2.8E
I built runs 10C hotter and also ramps to 50C quite easily (according
to Intel Active Monitor). On that one I left the side vent unblocked and
the case thermal fan control off (it's in a noisey environment so no
one hears the PC anyway).

The 3 motherboard temp sensors on my PC as I type this are 28, 26, 26 C.
(I plan on slowing down or replacing my case fans though. They are 92 mm
Zalmans that have the resistor inline causing them to turn at 1600 rpm, but
I can still hear them so I'm going to try to find even slower fans, perhaps
PWM ones and a controller). That's why I like Northwoods over Prescotts:
I can get much closer to silent computing.

AJ
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:05:50 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:

>
>"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:nq16n09ii27te1rbtlui3tn4okg5rv1v05@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:38:21 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:L9udndzeufmI9_LcRVn-gQ@rogers.com...
>>>> AJ wrote:
>>>>> Personally, if Northwoods go away and Prescott is the only Intel
>>>>> choice, I'm gonna buy AMD. Secondly, if motherboards from Intel
>>>>> become >$120, I'll go third party there too. Enough of the gouging
>>>>> already. "Innovation" where it is not necessary is not appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Not even sure why you would need to announce this, AMD and/or third-party motherboards should've always been on your
>>>> radar,
>>>> even before now.
>>>
>>>Historically, good integrated motherboards for AMD haven't been there.
>>
>> Just what counts as an "integrated" motherboard?
>
>LAN, Sound, Video.

I don't know why you have a hard time finding this.<shrug> They're out
there.

>> Either way, that
>> history changed the day that nVidia first brought out their nForce
>> chipset, roughly 3 years ago. The integrated video and audio on that
>> chipset were better than anything that was available for Intel chips
>> until the brand-new i9xx series motherboards.
>
>Well I got started building my own PCs when the integrated board offerings
>in uATX were far and few between. So now I know Intel and have no reason
>to look elsewhere. If I was considering building an AMD system, I wouldn't
>look at any other vendor for a motherboard than ASUS though. As far as I'm
>concerned, AMD+ASUS is the platform there and there's no need to
>evaluate the also-rans.

It seems you haven't even tried it and yet you have preconceived ideas
about what's the best - doesn't make sense to me!! While I've used Asus in
the past for Intel-based and non-Intel-based systems, there are certainly
several worthy challengers... as well as signs/talk that Asus is getting
rather arrogant... unresponsive. More recently I've been using MSI mbrds
with not a single problem.

> Intel solution: CPU, chipset, motherboard by one
>vendor. AMD solution: CPU, chipset, motherboard by two or three vendors.
>The former is compelling. The latter is frightening. (It works for me!).

There is nothing about an AMD system which is frightening - maybe you
should try it. As for Intel mbrds, there's no such thing any longer on the
desktop... sub-contracted for even workstation class. From experience,
your "compelling" solution buys you nothing really: with a recent chipset
from any vendor, including Intel, you're going to have driver .INF files to
load for Windows of any flavor or vintage.

Hmm, you spout this religious dogma and then accuse people who suggest AMD
of being zealots???õ_õ

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:30:03 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:

>
>"Bruce Mckown" <no@email.here> wrote in message news:1e46n0lpsebal9i13stkisl5eilhg8594n@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:47:51 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On these cool fall days, (though I have the heat on in my home), my 2.4
>>>Northwood idles at under 30 C. As I type this, it's at 28. I have a Zalman
>>>7000 AlCu instead of the stock HSF though. Your 36 C idle temp sounds
>>>high to me, but maybe your ambient is higher too.
>>>
>>>AJ
>>>
>> 36c is not high at all. Even Idle temp of 40 - 46c is fine. Maybe your
>> mb is giving a false reading because sub 30c is really low.
>
>I realize that 36 C it's well within the spec. I think it's easy to do much
>"better" though. I've built a number of Northwood systems now and they
>all idle around 30 C (and lower in cool environments). Again, I'm using
>the Zalman 7000 AlCu HSF (and even have side vents blocked or non-
>existent). The added cooling capability of the Zalman is just icing though.
>I bought it to eliminate the unacceptable noise level of the stock Intel
>HSF. My CPU is a 2.4C but the 2.8C boxes that I've built aren't that
>much hotter (a couple of degrees maybe). Now that one Prescott 2.8E
>I built runs 10C hotter and also ramps to 50C quite easily (according
>to Intel Active Monitor). On that one I left the side vent unblocked and
>the case thermal fan control off (it's in a noisey environment so no
>one hears the PC anyway).
>
>The 3 motherboard temp sensors on my PC as I type this are 28, 26, 26 C.
>(I plan on slowing down or replacing my case fans though. They are 92 mm
>Zalmans that have the resistor inline causing them to turn at 1600 rpm, but
>I can still hear them so I'm going to try to find even slower fans, perhaps
>PWM ones and a controller). That's why I like Northwoods over Prescotts:
>I can get much closer to silent computing.

I think you're placing far too much faith in temp readings from your mbrd's
BIOS. The mbrd mfrs can calibrate them to read anything you want - there
have been several cases where they have responded to user concerns of high
reported CPU temps by lowering them, in a later BIOS, to the point they
read lower than the mbrd "system temp".

The fact is that such readings are not useful as an absolute measure of
temperature - the only use they really have is for detecting changes in
general system/CPU thermal behavior.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:05:50 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:
>
>"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:nq16n09ii27te1rbtlui3tn4okg5rv1v05@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:38:21 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:L9udndzeufmI9_LcRVn-gQ@rogers.com...
>>>> AJ wrote:
>>>>> Personally, if Northwoods go away and Prescott is the only Intel
>>>>> choice, I'm gonna buy AMD. Secondly, if motherboards from Intel
>>>>> become >$120, I'll go third party there too. Enough of the gouging
>>>>> already. "Innovation" where it is not necessary is not appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Not even sure why you would need to announce this, AMD and/or third-party motherboards should've always been on your
>>>> radar,
>>>> even before now.
>>>
>>>Historically, good integrated motherboards for AMD haven't been there.
>>
>> Just what counts as an "integrated" motherboard?
>
>LAN, Sound, Video.

As mentioned bellow, AMD got that in spades once nVidia started
offering their nForce chipset three years ago.

>> Either way, that
>> history changed the day that nVidia first brought out their nForce
>> chipset, roughly 3 years ago. The integrated video and audio on that
>> chipset were better than anything that was available for Intel chips
>> until the brand-new i9xx series motherboards.
>
>Well I got started building my own PCs when the integrated board offerings
>in uATX were far and few between.

Uhh... if you define you're time frame and feature set narrowly
enough, it's pretty easy to rule out other vendors. Personally I had
absolutely no trouble at all finding a decent uATX board with
integrated video, and ALL boards come with integrated LAN and sound
these days.

> So now I know Intel and have no reason
>to look elsewhere. If I was considering building an AMD system, I wouldn't
>look at any other vendor for a motherboard than ASUS though. As far as I'm
>concerned, AMD+ASUS is the platform there and there's no need to
>evaluate the also-rans. Intel solution: CPU, chipset, motherboard by one
>vendor. AMD solution: CPU, chipset, motherboard by two or three vendors.
>The former is compelling. The latter is frightening. (It works for me!).

I've used both, and honestly the difference is pretty much nil. About
the only bet is that you've got one number to call if a part dies
instead of two, but I've never actually had a CPU die on me, and I
know from my work that CPUs only die at a rate of about 1 for every
100 motherboards that blow (interesting bit of trivia, roughly 95% of
all CPUs that are returned as defective are 100% functional), so this
isn't really a big worry. Otherwise you've got one set of drivers to
load and that's about it.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote in message
news:_QUcd.15432$Hz7.7933@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Bruce Mckown" <no@email.here> wrote in message
news:1e46n0lpsebal9i13stkisl5eilhg8594n@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:47:51 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On these cool fall days, (though I have the heat on in my home), my 2.4
> >>Northwood idles at under 30 C. As I type this, it's at 28. I have a
Zalman
> >>7000 AlCu instead of the stock HSF though. Your 36 C idle temp sounds
> >>high to me, but maybe your ambient is higher too.
> >>
> >>AJ
> >>
> > 36c is not high at all. Even Idle temp of 40 - 46c is fine. Maybe your
> > mb is giving a false reading because sub 30c is really low.
>
> I realize that 36 C it's well within the spec. I think it's easy to do
much
> "better" though. I've built a number of Northwood systems now and they
> all idle around 30 C (and lower in cool environments). Again, I'm using
> the Zalman 7000 AlCu HSF (and even have side vents blocked or non-
> existent). The added cooling capability of the Zalman is just icing
though.
> I bought it to eliminate the unacceptable noise level of the stock Intel
> HSF. My CPU is a 2.4C but the 2.8C boxes that I've built aren't that
> much hotter (a couple of degrees maybe). Now that one Prescott 2.8E
> I built runs 10C hotter and also ramps to 50C quite easily (according
> to Intel Active Monitor). On that one I left the side vent unblocked and
> the case thermal fan control off (it's in a noisey environment so no
> one hears the PC anyway).
>
> The 3 motherboard temp sensors on my PC as I type this are 28, 26, 26 C.
> (I plan on slowing down or replacing my case fans though. They are 92 mm
> Zalmans that have the resistor inline causing them to turn at 1600 rpm,
but
> I can still hear them so I'm going to try to find even slower fans,
perhaps
> PWM ones and a controller). That's why I like Northwoods over Prescotts:
> I can get much closer to silent computing.

FWIW, I idled down my Northwood 3.0GHz that has a Zalman Cu + a "thermally
advantaged" case and checked the temps (room temp ~75F). Bottom end was
29-30C. The fan setting in the BIOS is ratcheted down from Slow to Off as a
minimum speed. One of my fans (#3) was at a complete stop while idled
(presumably the rear 120mm fan), one fan (#2) was at 825 and the processor
fan and the CPU fan wouldn't drop below 2,600. On my other Northwood 3.0GHz
w/ a stock HSF and an old tower chassis from many years ago, the bottom end
was 38C with the processor fan at 2,800 the rear fans (2x5mm) at 1,900 and
the front fan (80mm) at 1,600. I'm half tempted to upgrade the stock HSF to
another Zalman Cu just for grins to see if the case and the front/back fans
make that much difference. (I'm already convinced the Zalman is well worth
the bucks.)

<query>Shouldn't the VREG fan show up in Intel's Active Monitor? I have the
PSU's fan connector plugged in that head (not too sure if that is the
intended use since Intel's docs describe it as a TACH fan or a Voltage
Regulated fan and the PSU manufacturers don't seem to define their fan
connector in any detail). The PSU is a SilverStone SST-ST40F-G02 (Strider
001 Series)</query>
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:blm8n0l8btntcrdtum1sc50bqkgov7ejb6@4ax.com...
>
> Call me a caveman, but my ATI video card causes it's fair share of
> problems, more than I've had with either of my two previous nVidia
> cards. The newest version of the drivers just won't work properly
> (they cause 100% CPU usage if I move the mouse quickly, and heaven
> forbid I want to resize a window!) while the older version causes
> crashes in a couple of games. For one game in particular (Star Wars:
> Knights of the old Republic) I had to copy over an old version (3.7 I
> think?) of their OpenGL driver into the game directory so that it
> would use that instead of any current ones as anything newer than that
> causes very regular crashes.
>
> My next video card will have me back in the nVidia camp thank you...
> now, if you don't mind, I've got some fire to discover!
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Hmmm, not exactly my experience with my ATI Radeon 9600XT. I have no
problems with the latest driver what so ever, most games paly very nicely.

Carlo
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote in message
news:eiUcd.15430$4I7.2999@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
board.
>
> (aside): AMD bet on 64-bit. Intel on hyperthreading and now dual core. I'd
> rather have
> the latter.

Actually AMD bet on 64bit & dual core, Intel bet on Hyperpipeline and
Hyperthreading. When AMD beat them to the punch on x86 dual core Intel
started scrambling to catch up (as with 64b).

Carlo
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
> I think you're placing far too much faith in temp readings
> from your mbrd's BIOS. The mbrd mfrs can calibrate them
> to read anything you want - there have been several cases

I didn't see any calibration factors when I looked at the
WinBond chip datasheets. They seemed to have thermister
curves hardwired in. But of course, the BIOS reports could
do anything.

> where they have responded to user concerns of high reported
> CPU temps by lowering them, in a later BIOS, to the point
> they read lower than the mbrd "system temp".

I frequently see CPU temps well below mobo at idle (only!)
The CPUs have nice big HSFs, while the mobo has to suffer the
heat from the half-dozen voltage reglators sunk into it.

> The fact is that such readings are not useful as an absolute
> measure of temperature - the only use they really have is
> for detecting changes in general system/CPU thermal behavior.

Fully agreed. I think the biggest problem is thermister
placement. Very few have thermisters that contact the CPU
with a small dab of thermal grease. Board mounted thermisters
are subject to all sort of case ventilation/cooling vagaries.
I expect they read low.

-- Robert
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:58:46 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>> The fact is that such readings are not useful as an absolute
>> measure of temperature - the only use they really have is
>> for detecting changes in general system/CPU thermal behavior.
>
> Fully agreed. I think the biggest problem is thermister
> placement. Very few have thermisters that contact the CPU
> with a small dab of thermal grease. Board mounted thermisters
> are subject to all sort of case ventilation/cooling vagaries.
> I expect they read low.

Sure, I've been arguing this for some years. Certainly all manufacturers
specify where thermal measurements are to be taken, bit no motherboard
measures there (it's not easy). The absolute numbers mean absolutely
*nothing*. Monitoring is useful, if for no other reason than to warn of a
dirty case. ;-) ...but even there it does no good unless one moves the
limits in significantly and accepts spurrious alarms.

--
Keith
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

keith wrote:
> Intel can't even got a trivial thing like 64b right. Of course they
> don't *want* to, since it'll kill Itanic (the fools haven't come to
> grips with the fact that it's been dead for four years).

The Inquirer is saying that it's likely that Windows XP 64-bit will be
delayed some more, simply to accomodate Intel's dual-cores. I have a feeling
that the final release of XP64 will simply look at the Intel chip steppings
and refuse to run in 64-bit mode on anything other than their last revision,
when Intel tells Microsoft that it's finally gotten the compatibility right.
🙂

Yousuf Khan
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:58:46 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
<redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:

>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>> I think you're placing far too much faith in temp readings
>> from your mbrd's BIOS. The mbrd mfrs can calibrate them
>> to read anything you want - there have been several cases
>
>I didn't see any calibration factors when I looked at the
>WinBond chip datasheets. They seemed to have thermister
>curves hardwired in. But of course, the BIOS reports could
>do anything.

Hmm, do you happen to know: does the monitoring software which runs under
the OS get its readings from a BIOS call?

>> where they have responded to user concerns of high reported
>> CPU temps by lowering them, in a later BIOS, to the point
>> they read lower than the mbrd "system temp".
>
>I frequently see CPU temps well below mobo at idle (only!)
>The CPUs have nice big HSFs, while the mobo has to suffer the
>heat from the half-dozen voltage reglators sunk into it.

I had one mbrd which was showing 63C for AthlonXP 2800+ CPU temp under
light usage and a system temp of 36C - Usenet was littered with msgs from
"worried"🙂. The next version of the BIOS lowered the CPU reading to 35C
while the system stayed 36/37C.

>> The fact is that such readings are not useful as an absolute
>> measure of temperature - the only use they really have is
>> for detecting changes in general system/CPU thermal behavior.
>
>Fully agreed. I think the biggest problem is thermister
>placement. Very few have thermisters that contact the CPU
>with a small dab of thermal grease. Board mounted thermisters
>are subject to all sort of case ventilation/cooling vagaries.
>I expect they read low.

From my POV, they'll let you know when a fan is failing or the spider
population has gotten out of hand.🙂

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:55:45 -0400, "Carlo Razzeto" <crazzeto@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>news:blm8n0l8btntcrdtum1sc50bqkgov7ejb6@4ax.com...
>>
>> Call me a caveman, but my ATI video card causes it's fair share of
>> problems, more than I've had with either of my two previous nVidia
>> cards. The newest version of the drivers just won't work properly
>> (they cause 100% CPU usage if I move the mouse quickly, and heaven
>> forbid I want to resize a window!) while the older version causes
>> crashes in a couple of games. For one game in particular (Star Wars:
>> Knights of the old Republic) I had to copy over an old version (3.7 I
>> think?) of their OpenGL driver into the game directory so that it
>> would use that instead of any current ones as anything newer than that
>> causes very regular crashes.
>>
>> My next video card will have me back in the nVidia camp thank you...
>> now, if you don't mind, I've got some fire to discover!
>>
>> -------------
>> Tony Hill
>> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
>
>Hmmm, not exactly my experience with my ATI Radeon 9600XT. I have no
>problems with the latest driver what so ever, most games paly very nicely.

ATI was one of the BIG VIA (non-Intel ?) chipset finger pointers:
basically... "we're working on it but don't hold your breath".🙂

Their early stuff was dreadful - ATI Wonder on ISA - they freely admitted
at the time that "yes our hardware uses the NMI and yes, we know that's
supposed to be a no-no... so what?"

They didn't get labeled as the supplier of the "driver of the month" for
nothing.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips George Macdonald wrote:
> Hmm, do you happen to know: does the monitoring software
> which runs under the OS get its readings from a BIOS call?

I can't find any "temperature" BIOS calls (Ralf Brown's list),
and the Winbonds are easy enough to read, so I'm presuming
MS-Win32 monitoring software goes directly to hardware.

> I had one mbrd which was showing 63C for AthlonXP 2800+
> CPU temp under light usage and a system temp of 36C -
> Usenet was littered with msgs from "worried"🙂. The next
> version of the BIOS lowered the CPU reading to 35C while
> the system stayed 36/37C.

Well, if I say 63C on a processor at idle, I'd be in there
checking it out (carefully with fingers, no coffee!)

I suspect this was a totally different issue. AMD K7 processors
_need_ a certain signal from the Northbridge before dropping into a
low power state at idle (HLT). Maddening--why? A PCI config bit
has to be set which a BIOS rev could easily do. I do it manually
on one of my machines. I can look up references if you wish.

> From my POV, they'll let you know when a fan is failing or
> the spider population has gotten out of hand.🙂

Yep -- the trend tells the tale.

-- Robert
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips George Macdonald wrote:
>> Hmm, do you happen to know: does the monitoring software
>> which runs under the OS get its readings from a BIOS call?
>
> I can't find any "temperature" BIOS calls (Ralf Brown's list),
> and the Winbonds are easy enough to read, so I'm presuming
> MS-Win32 monitoring software goes directly to hardware.

Is that still being maintained? I once contributed to Ralf's list back in
the early 90's. Used to see him all of the time on Fidonet.

Yousuf Khan
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:08:26 -0400, Tony Hill
<hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:


>Call me a caveman, but my ATI video card causes it's fair share of
>problems, more than I've had with either of my two previous nVidia
>cards. The newest version of the drivers just won't work properly
>(they cause 100% CPU usage if I move the mouse quickly, and heaven
>forbid I want to resize a window!) while the older version causes
>crashes in a couple of games. For one game in particular (Star Wars:
>Knights of the old Republic) I had to copy over an old version (3.7 I
>think?) of their OpenGL driver into the game directory so that it
>would use that instead of any current ones as anything newer than that
>causes very regular crashes.
>
>My next video card will have me back in the nVidia camp thank you...
>now, if you don't mind, I've got some fire to discover!

You are not using the latest drivers as they have fixed the KOTOR
isuue. And I just tested this suppsed 100% cpu usage when using the
mouse and you are FOS. I use Omega drivers myself but I know the KOTOR
issue ahs been fixed even in the regular ATI drivers.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 03:52:08 -0400, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:


>>Hmmm, not exactly my experience with my ATI Radeon 9600XT. I have no
>>problems with the latest driver what so ever, most games paly very nicely.
>
>ATI was one of the BIG VIA (non-Intel ?) chipset finger pointers:
>basically... "we're working on it but don't hold your breath".🙂
>
>Their early stuff was dreadful - ATI Wonder on ISA - they freely admitted
>at the time that "yes our hardware uses the NMI and yes, we know that's
>supposed to be a no-no... so what?"
>
>They didn't get labeled as the supplier of the "driver of the month" for
>nothing.

Things change and anyone who thinks ATI is the same as then needs to
have their head checked.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:35:06 -0400, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:


>I think you're placing far too much faith in temp readings from your mbrd's
>BIOS. The mbrd mfrs can calibrate them to read anything you want - there
>have been several cases where they have responded to user concerns of high
>reported CPU temps by lowering them, in a later BIOS, to the point they
>read lower than the mbrd "system temp".
>
>The fact is that such readings are not useful as an absolute measure of
>temperature - the only use they really have is for detecting changes in
>general system/CPU thermal behavior.
>
>Rgds, George Macdonald

Yea, I read a test report on one website where they attached their own
thermistor and compared Abit IC7 to an Asus mb (can't remember model)
and the Abit mb always read higher and the Asus always read lower.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 03:18:08 -0400, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

>keith wrote:
>> Intel can't even got a trivial thing like 64b right. Of course they
>> don't *want* to, since it'll kill Itanic (the fools haven't come to
>> grips with the fact that it's been dead for four years).
>
>The Inquirer is saying that it's likely that Windows XP 64-bit will be
>delayed some more, simply to accomodate Intel's dual-cores. I have a feeling
>that the final release of XP64 will simply look at the Intel chip steppings
>and refuse to run in 64-bit mode on anything other than their last revision,
>when Intel tells Microsoft that it's finally gotten the compatibility right.
>🙂

Is Intel's EM64T really considered incompatible? I thought they'd gotten
it close enough that it was no hassle to OS or software developers. If
things get delayed more, there's gonna be a bunch of workstation software
vendors (and their customers) who are gonna be pissed. OTOH maybe that's
their punishment for "decertifying" Itanium.🙂

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:32:12 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
<redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:

>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips George Macdonald wrote:
>> Hmm, do you happen to know: does the monitoring software
>> which runs under the OS get its readings from a BIOS call?
>
>I can't find any "temperature" BIOS calls (Ralf Brown's list),
>and the Winbonds are easy enough to read, so I'm presuming
>MS-Win32 monitoring software goes directly to hardware.

Mbrd vendor writes both so I guess the rest of the world doesn't have to
know about it. It'd certainly be interesting to know.

>> I had one mbrd which was showing 63C for AthlonXP 2800+
>> CPU temp under light usage and a system temp of 36C -
>> Usenet was littered with msgs from "worried"🙂. The next
>> version of the BIOS lowered the CPU reading to 35C while
>> the system stayed 36/37C.
>
>Well, if I say 63C on a processor at idle, I'd be in there
>checking it out (carefully with fingers, no coffee!)
>
>I suspect this was a totally different issue. AMD K7 processors
>_need_ a certain signal from the Northbridge before dropping into a
>low power state at idle (HLT). Maddening--why? A PCI config bit
>has to be set which a BIOS rev could easily do. I do it manually
>on one of my machines. I can look up references if you wish.

Ah yes I recall that being discussed before but had forgotten about it -
the same rev of the software monitor gave the same readings as the BIOS
versions so that could explain it, though the higher temp, with the first
BIOS, did go up a bit under load... not by much. This is not the kind of
thing the mbrd mfrs are inclined to fess up to either, as a BIOS
"correction". Given ambient temp, in the office, I'd still have thought
the CPU temp was a bit on the low side but it seems to correspond with your
experience.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom