4.0Ghz P4 now officially cancelled

[jk]

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

George Macdonald wrote:

> 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?

It isn't a matter of compatibility, but of performance running 64 bit software.

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1



> 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??

 

[Guest]

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

George Macdonald wrote:
> 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.🙂

No, it's not considered incompatible -- in theory. It's just considered
buggy. Stuff doesn't work like it should sometimes.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

George Macdonald wrote:
> 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.

Motherboard Monitor seems to detect various chipsets and stuff, to configure
itself. So I would assume that they poll the temperature monitors directly
rather than through a BIOS call. However, like so much else that happens
through the BIOS these days, it doesn't really get used while Windows is
running, but it sets up an environment prior to Windows starting. It's
possible that mobo makers use the BIOS to set the temperature sensor
multiplication factors.

Yousuf Khan

 

[keith]

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

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:10:29 -0700, Bruce Mckown wrote:

> 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.

Once burned... Remember, hardware was *expensive* then. I'd likely look
at ATI now, but NVidia would be my first choice. Actually 3D and
games aren't my thing so neither is all that interesting.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

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

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:51:32 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> George Macdonald wrote:
>> 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.🙂
>
> No, it's not considered incompatible -- in theory. It's just considered
> buggy. Stuff doesn't work like it should sometimes.

You're the one following all this stuff, but I thought there was a problem
with:

- NX
- Physical address width (limited to 36b, but reports 40)
- DMA MMU not 64b

...or have these been fixed?

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:15:10 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:


>Once burned... Remember, hardware was *expensive* then. I'd likely look
>at ATI now, but NVidia would be my first choice. Actually 3D and
>games aren't my thing so neither is all that interesting.

Well, I suggest you do some serious research first. Here, I'll do it
for you.

http://www.techimo.com/newsapp/index.pl?user=408&cat=500&thumb=1
The Inquirer has some info on the new battleground for ATI and nVidia:
WHQL certification. One has to wonder what is going on over at nVidia.
Looks like after multiple driver submissions to Microsoft, nVidia is
still incapable of passing WHQL certification. Meanwhile, ATI has
received certification for its latest Catalyst 4.9 driver.

Our snitch sent us complete report on WHQL test finished at nVidia
Geforce 5950 card with 61.77. They are failing each and part of WHQL
test. They are failing in all fourteen tests including, D3Dlines,
Multisampling, Non power 2 conditional RenderTarget, Pixel Shader
Precision, Pixel Shader Ver. 1.1, Pixel Shader Ver. 1.2, Pixel Shader
Ver. 1.3, Pixel Shader Ver. 1.4, Pixel Shader Ver. 2.0, Point Sprites,
Texture address, Texture stage, Update surface and YUV Bit test.

 

[Guest]

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.
>🙂

I dunno, it seems every month The Inquirer finds some new conspiracy
theory to prove that Microsoft is delaying WinXP for x64 one Intel
technology or another.

Personally I think they're forgetting the old saying.. "Never
attribute to malice what can easily be explained by incompetence". I
really don't think there's any conspiracy theory required here, merely
the fact that Microsoft is totally incapable of designing a product in
a timely manner. Just look at Longhorn, it's already been delayed by
2+ years and had it's feature set cut back, and it hasn't even hit the
beta stages yet!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

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

> 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!

Just a word of warning about latest detonators, the GDI rendering is broken
currently atleast with GF 6800 U: windows are not always properly updated,
text is not updated, etc.

 

[Guest]

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

keith wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:51:32 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> No, it's not considered incompatible -- in theory. It's just
>> considered buggy. Stuff doesn't work like it should sometimes.
>
> You're the one following all this stuff, but I thought there was a
> problem with:
>
> - NX
> - Physical address width (limited to 36b, but reports 40)
> - DMA MMU not 64b
>
> ...or have these been fixed?

Yes, these are all of the listed major bugs that Intel has to resolve. NX
bit has a few special cases which causes the CPU to totally lockup. The
36-bit limit being reported as 40-bit is another one. But as for the DMA
MMU, I think that just an extension of Xeon's 36-bit physical memory
limitations problem.

NX and size limit bug would probably mean that Microsoft won't even bother
to support 64-bit mode on those early CPUs, at least not without a firmware
upgrade.

Yousuf Khan

 

[AJ]

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

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:fkh8n0p69hjrjvohh8tcjgpt70me4s53nj@4ax.com...
> 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

See, you're an AMD zealot because you (like that keith ranter) are trying to
pursuade me to try/buy AMD. All I did was tell you why I'm currently using
Intel and you both go off in a huff and try to impose your own personalities
on me. I don't give a sh@! what you use. I'm not trying to convince anyone,
but you zealots are. Get a grip and see yourselves!

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😱ol8n01joe7ibirjoebnfcajo61o9dufor@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:05:50 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:
>> 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.

That statement has no value if you're trying to convince someone/anyone,
realize. (I've used both too).

> 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.

I look at the MB/CPU (and chipset of course) as a unit. I wouldn't care if the
CPU was soldered on the
board (it would probably cheaper). I've never used a CPU from one system
in another (I don't think most stand alone system users have/would/do, though
the techies here probably do). Removability/replaceability is a good paradigm
for video cards, but for a CPU the cost/benefit is probably not worth it (?).
Maybe that should be for those priced-way-out-there "extreme" boards and
not for mainstream users who want low prices.

AJ

 

[AJ]

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

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:2ri8n0t5ol1naldood6ev0ddlqovdo9bk4@4ax.com...
> 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.

Why? I'm not doing a scientific comparison for a magazine.

> The mbrd mfrs can calibrate them to read anything you want

They seem to be consistent across different boards.

>- 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".

As long as they are measured the same way, it's fine. The readings are
hardly useless. Quite useful actually.

> 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.

I think most people report those readings here though. Most people don't
have scientifically thermocoupled systems! The relative readings were
relevant for this thread (pretty much measured the same way and are
probably fairly consistent from board to board. I've built a few (5) of them
and they all turn out the same (except for the +10C Prescott).

AJ

 

[AJ]

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

"Bruce Mckown" <no@email.here> wrote in message news:ds7bn0p8hbmtf7qpli2iupt4qnvc8leaen@4ax.com...
> 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.

I think a lot of you are trying to be too scientific and missing the point of
the value of the *relative* readings and that some level of comparison can
be done with those and the info is still useful.

AJ

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:10:29 -0700, Bruce Mckown <no@email.here> wrote:

>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.

Did I say that they are the same? Despite your gratuitous response, there
*have* been many years between then and now, during which their reputation
stayed in the gutter. They damned near came apart at the seams a couple of
times in the meantime and their non-OEM policy was ill-conceived in the
face of the market. If they have put such things behind them all the
better - competition is good and benefits us all. Tony's experiences do
not inspire confidence in them.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:31:47 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:

>
>
>George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>It isn't a matter of compatibility, but of performance running 64 bit software.
>
>http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1

Well I looked again and still cannot fathom what is being said in that
article nor whether there is a defensive posture wrt Intel. The first
version of it was considerably worse in decoding what exactly was run in
the way of 32 vs. 64-bit code; its present form is a considerable
improvement but it is still extrememly confusing. I tend to not give it
much credence.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:54:45 -0400, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Motherboard Monitor seems to detect various chipsets and stuff, to configure
>itself. So I would assume that they poll the temperature monitors directly
>rather than through a BIOS call. However, like so much else that happens
>through the BIOS these days, it doesn't really get used while Windows is
>running, but it sets up an environment prior to Windows starting. It's
>possible that mobo makers use the BIOS to set the temperature sensor
>multiplication factors.

M$ has defined the BIOS call protocols and structures for all the different
ways of interfacing to it and hardware from an OS -- tables, real and
protected mode calls -- so the calls still exist in theory. Whether any
are still used is a big mystery to me. Since mbrd monitoring is not
something that M$ is terribly interested in I'm not sure what the situation
might be there in particular.

Your use of capital letters for Motherboard Monitor seems to indicate the
product of that name, which I quit using a while back, so I've no idea what
kind of results it gives in the situation at hand. I was referring to the
use of the monitoring software which comes on the CD-ROM with the mbrd
package.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[Guest]

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

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
news:j6icn0ls23ks9kevh7qhu3qb781r4em39o@4ax.com...
>
> Did I say that they are the same? Despite your gratuitous response, there
> *have* been many years between then and now, during which their reputation
> stayed in the gutter. They damned near came apart at the seams a couple
> of
> times in the meantime and their non-OEM policy was ill-conceived in the
> face of the market. If they have put such things behind them all the
> better - competition is good and benefits us all. Tony's experiences do
> not inspire confidence in them.
>
> Rgds, George Macdonald
>
> "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who,
> me??

I was burned by an old ATI Rage Fury that wouldn't even run in my old
Athlon, which I ended up exchanging for a TNT2 M64. But when the time came
to upgrade my video card again the price was right on a Radeon 9000 Pro, so
I decided to give it a try. I really wasn't too disappointed, the card was
pretty fast and I didn't have any issues getting it to work on the same
motherboard the Rage Fury couldn't run on. So far my Radeon 9600XT has been
solid as well, so I'm not really too disapointed.

Carlo

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:26:05 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:

>
>"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:fkh8n0p69hjrjvohh8tcjgpt70me4s53nj@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:05:50 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:

>> 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
>
>See, you're an AMD zealot because you (like that keith ranter) are trying to
>pursuade me to try/buy AMD. All I did was tell you why I'm currently using
>Intel and you both go off in a huff and try to impose your own personalities
>on me. I don't give a sh@! what you use. I'm not trying to convince anyone,
>but you zealots are. Get a grip and see yourselves!

I dunno what it is with you iZombies - you miss what is being said and
twist what people say to find non existent accusations and quarrels; you
find anything non-Intel "frightening"; and you don't even have a clue about
the origin of the parts you are buying... and so conjure up reasons for
buying them.

No, I know you are beyond persuading and when I said "maybe you should try
it", what I was suggesting is that you have never in fact tried it and
therefore have no reason for your irrational prejudices. I, OTOH, have
tried both and make my *choice* accordingly - I came close to doing a P4
system with Northwood, just so I'd have a direct, personal comparison, but
no way will I be tempted to Prescott.

To tell the truth, I don't give a wet fart what CPU, mbrd or whatever that
*you* use but when you stick your head in the sand and spout your spurious
dogma, people here will correct you. We'd hate for some poor lurker to get
the impression that you actually know anything.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[Guest]

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

George Macdonald wrote:
> M$ has defined the BIOS call protocols and structures for all the
> different ways of interfacing to it and hardware from an OS --
> tables, real and protected mode calls -- so the calls still exist in
> theory. Whether any
> are still used is a big mystery to me. Since mbrd monitoring is not
> something that M$ is terribly interested in I'm not sure what the
> situation might be there in particular.

These days, BIOS tends to be used once and only once, during the bootup.
Unlike in the olden days of DOS where BIOS was more or less an integral part
of the OS, and it was used continuously by both applications and OS calls.

These days the BIOS sets up an initial "environment" for the OS. The OS
reads the various BIOS environment parameters and adopts them as its own,
but it implements the code internally in Protected Mode, and it is free to
ignore them if it wants.

> Your use of capital letters for Motherboard Monitor seems to indicate
> the product of that name, which I quit using a while back, so I've no
> idea what kind of results it gives in the situation at hand. I was
> referring to the use of the monitoring software which comes on the
> CD-ROM with the mbrd package.

Yes, I was referring to the Mobo Monitor program itself. Most of the
prepackaged monitoring software that come with motherboards tend to agree
with Mobo Monitor readings, and Mobo Monitor tends to agree with BIOS status
screen readings for the most part too. So I would assume that there is a
standard way to interpret the data coming out of these monitoring chips.

Yousuf Khan

 

[keith]

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

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:35:05 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> keith wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:51:32 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>> No, it's not considered incompatible -- in theory. It's just
>>> considered buggy. Stuff doesn't work like it should sometimes.
>>
>> You're the one following all this stuff, but I thought there was a
>> problem with:
>>
>> - NX
>> - Physical address width (limited to 36b, but reports 40)
>> - DMA MMU not 64b
>>
>> ...or have these been fixed?
>
> Yes, these are all of the listed major bugs that Intel has to resolve. NX
> bit has a few special cases which causes the CPU to totally lockup.

Good plan, but I was under the impression that Intel didn't implement it
at all. Thanks.

>The 36-bit limit being reported as 40-bit is another one.

It seems this is so stupid that Intel must not have been serious about
AMD64 at all. Amazingly *stupid*.

> But as for the DMA MMU, I think that just an extension of Xeon's 36-bit
> physical memory limitations problem.

Wonderful, but my understanding that the I/O MMU was only 32b. Stupid!
Come on Intel! This stuff is *simple*! One can speculate that they're
trying to slow down AMD64 by *not* being fully compatable.

> NX and size limit bug would probably mean that Microsoft won't even
> bother to support 64-bit mode on those early CPUs, at least not without
> a firmware upgrade.

....but will they (ever) support AMD64 on processors that work as expected?

--
Keith

 

[keith]

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

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:41:56 +0000, AJ wrote:

>
> "Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news😱ol8n01joe7ibirjoebnfcajo61o9dufor@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:05:50 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> That statement has no value if you're trying to convince someone/anyone,
> realize. (I've used both too).

Gee, AJ. Wanna pissss offf any more of the knowledgeable in the group
with your asinine comments. Hint: Tony's been around the block a few
times. You *might* try learning, rather than bing a little prick.

>> 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.
>
> I look at the MB/CPU (and chipset of course) as a unit. I wouldn't care
> if the CPU was soldered on the board (it would probably cheaper).

....which shows that you haven't a *clue* about the PC market. What a
maroon!

> I've never used a CPU from one system in another (I don't think most
> stand alone system users have/would/do, though the techies here probably
> do). Removability/replaceability is a good paradigm for video cards, but
> for a CPU the cost/benefit is probably not worth it (?).

Again, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. The PC market
*demands* socketed motherboards, and not because of replacements. Think
about it. If you need a further clue, perhaps one of the nice people here
will fill you in. Though I have no idea why they would bother.

> Maybe that
> should be for those priced-way-out-there "extreme" boards and not for
> mainstream users who want low prices.

Totally clueless.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

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

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:56:33 +0000, AJ wrote:

>
> "Bruce Mckown" <no@email.here> wrote in message news:ds7bn0p8hbmtf7qpli2iupt4qnvc8leaen@4ax.com...
>> 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.
>
> I think a lot of you are trying to be too scientific

Oh, now *THAT'S* a serious fault! Science means nothing? Good grief
Gert!

> and missing the point of
> the value of the *relative* readings and that some level of comparison
> can be done with those and the info is still useful.

Relative to *what*, exactly?

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:51:32 -0400, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:
>
>George Macdonald wrote:
>> 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.🙂
>
>No, it's not considered incompatible -- in theory. It's just considered
>buggy. Stuff doesn't work like it should sometimes.

And this is different from every other processor on the planet how
exactly? There are only a few errata out there, and most are fixable
through a microcode update, the others can be worked around. There
are some minor gotcha's that OS developers (and compiler writers to a
lesser extend) will have to watch out for, but not really any
different from 32-bit x86.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:09:02 -0700, Bruce Mckown <no@email.here>
wrote:
>
>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.

No I'm not using the latest drivers because they don't work on my
system.

> And I just tested this suppsed 100% cpu usage when using the
>mouse and you are FOS.

It's obviously a bug that is not going to appear on everyone's system.
While I'm not overly impressed with the quality of ATI's drivers, I'm
definitely quite certain that they wouldn't have such a HUGE and
noticeable issue unless it only manifested itself in very odd
situations. When I've got more time I might try to narrow down the
issue a bit more, it likely has something to do with my drivers not
liking my AGP chipset.

> I use Omega drivers myself but I know the KOTOR
>issue ahs been fixed even in the regular ATI drivers.

About time, it was a known-bug for over a year!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:41:56 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:
>
>"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news😱ol8n01joe7ibirjoebnfcajo61o9dufor@4ax.com...
>> 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.
>
>I look at the MB/CPU (and chipset of course) as a unit. I wouldn't care if the
>CPU was soldered on the
>board (it would probably cheaper). I've never used a CPU from one system
>in another (I don't think most stand alone system users have/would/do, though
>the techies here probably do). Removability/replaceability is a good paradigm
>for video cards, but for a CPU the cost/benefit is probably not worth it (?).
>Maybe that should be for those priced-way-out-there "extreme" boards and
>not for mainstream users who want low prices.

The reason for socketed CPUs has absolutely nothing to do with
end-users swapping CPUs around to various systems, or even for
warranty replacement of such parts. The reason is because it would be
TOTALLY unfeasible for the HPaqs and Dells of the world to have a
whole separate set of stock for all the various speed grades and
processor types that they might stick in any one motherboard. Dell
based pretty much their entire business model around keeping low
inventories, and soldering processors onto the board completely ruins
that idea as far as processor/motherboards are concerned. End result,
socket CPUs are *cheaper*, not more expensive, due to market factors
beyond simple technical reasons.

All that being said, it has absolutely zero to do with buying a
motherboard, CPU and chipset all from one company vs. from three
separate companies. If you don't mind my asking, just WHAT is it that
you feel is a negative fact about buying a CPU, chipset and
motherboard made from different companies?

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca