AMD v Intel boards: design differences

[eigernorth]

Hi folks,

I have always wondered why on the Intel boards the south bridge is located above the CPU, and on AMD boards the bridge is located below the CPU.

It seems to me that the location of the south bridge has knock-on effects on how the PCI slots can be arranged, as follows:

1) On Intel boards, PCI-1 seems to be a mini, then there is an x16; then there is an empty slot for the graphics card. I find this a highly efficient and clean design.

2) On AMD boards, PCI-1 is an x16, followed by a mini -- but without a space in between. This means that the mini is most likely unusable because of the double graphics cards; I find this inefficient and bothersome -- yes I am an AMD fanboy

Does anyone know whether the AMD boards:
i) the south bridge does have a knock-on effect on PCI slot arrangement?
ii) must have the south bridge below the CPU, or is it something the board manufacturers have traditionally done?
iii) even if the south bridge must be located below the CPU, is the inefficient slot arrangement really the best that manufacturers can do?

 

[wolverine96]

First off, any dual-slot graphics card will cover a slot. There's no fixing that.

I don't really see why the placement of parts (like north bridge, etc.) should matter. The manufacture could put all the parts anywhere. Obviously, they should place the PCI slots in the right place, leave room for mount-holes, etc.

 

[endeavour37a]

On Intel ATX boards you are right, the x16 slot is normally the second one but on the uATX it is the first one, who knows

The south bridge is a big component with a large heat sink, I am just guessing but perhaps this is a consideration, just finding a place to something that big without interfering with the memory or bus slots. Other things sort of have to be somewhere, like the back interfaces, the VRM's close to the CPU, the memory close to the CPU, SATA on the edge...... just guessing of course