New PCI card on old motherboard

[Guest]

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

Keith wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:19:47 +0100, Grumble wrote:
>
>> Keith wrote:
>>
>>> <straw_grasping_mode>
>>> Is it a "universal" PCI card or is it a 5V
>>> card. It's possible it's intended for 3.3V PCI?
>>> <straw_grasping_mode/>
>>
>> The data sheet states:
>> Form Factor 32-bit PCI v2.2 Operation
>> Voltage 3.3V
>>
>> Would my motherboard support 3.3V or 5V?
>
> It took a while to refresh my 34YO memory (was thinking about this
> one the way to brunch ;-), but there is something here. ISTR at some
> point (PCI 2.2?) the spec *required* that 3.3V be supplied to the
> appropriate pins (A21, B25, A27, B31, A33, B36, A39, B41, B43, A45,
> A53, and B54), even in 5V slots, to support universal cards.
>
> According to my third edition Shanley and Anderson (covering PCI
> 2.1), it is "strongly recommended" that 3.3V be supplied in a 5V
> system, but not required. ISTR that PCI 2.2 made this a requirement
> (will check tomorrow with the fourth edition of S&A).

The document provided by RusH states:
http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/conventional/conventional_pci/2_2sum1215.pdf

The remainder of this paper gives an overview of the differences between
revisions of 2.1 and the 2.2 draft version of the PCI Local Bus
specification. This list is not comprehensive and the Final version
should be used. [...]

Chapter 4 Electrical Specification

Section 4.3.4.1. Power Requirements, now requires the system designer to
provide 3.3 V rail in the connector. Before it was not required, but
system designer was to provide a way to add it.

> So... If you're into hacking, you might wire in 3.3V to the
> connector and see. If the WiFi card has the two keyways (indicating
> a universal card) it should work in a 5V system if it has 3.3V on the
> bus. ...or replace the board, though I don't know which socket-7
> boards would be 2.2 compliant.

I guess I'll have to look for a PCI 2.1 compliant 802.11g adapter. The
other solution is a so-called "game adapter" which provides an Ethernet
to Wi-Fi (802.3 to 802.11) bridge. Although they are still somewhat
pricey, in my opinion. (I have an ageless ISA Ethernet card handy.)

--
Regards, Grumble

 

[keith]

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

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:42:31 +0100, Grumble wrote:

> Keith wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:19:47 +0100, Grumble wrote:
>>
>>> Keith wrote:
>>>
>>>> <straw_grasping_mode>
>>>> Is it a "universal" PCI card or is it a 5V
>>>> card. It's possible it's intended for 3.3V PCI?
>>>> <straw_grasping_mode/>
>>>
>>> The data sheet states:
>>> Form Factor 32-bit PCI v2.2 Operation
>>> Voltage 3.3V
>>>
>>> Would my motherboard support 3.3V or 5V?
>>
>> It took a while to refresh my 34YO memory (was thinking about this
>> one the way to brunch ;-), but there is something here. ISTR at some
>> point (PCI 2.2?) the spec *required* that 3.3V be supplied to the
>> appropriate pins (A21, B25, A27, B31, A33, B36, A39, B41, B43, A45,
>> A53, and B54), even in 5V slots, to support universal cards.
>>
>> According to my third edition Shanley and Anderson (covering PCI
>> 2.1), it is "strongly recommended" that 3.3V be supplied in a 5V
>> system, but not required. ISTR that PCI 2.2 made this a requirement
>> (will check tomorrow with the fourth edition of S&A).
>
> The document provided by RusH states:
> http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/conventional/conventional_pci/2_2sum1215.pdf
>
> The remainder of this paper gives an overview of the differences between
> revisions of 2.1 and the 2.2 draft version of the PCI Local Bus
> specification. This list is not comprehensive and the Final version
> should be used. [...]
>
> Chapter 4 Electrical Specification
>
> Section 4.3.4.1. Power Requirements, now requires the system designer to
> provide 3.3 V rail in the connector. Before it was not required, but
> system designer was to provide a way to add it.

Sure, you can hack it in! ;-)

>> So... If you're into hacking, you might wire in 3.3V to the
>> connector and see. If the WiFi card has the two keyways (indicating
>> a universal card) it should work in a 5V system if it has 3.3V on the
>> bus. ...or replace the board, though I don't know which socket-7
>> boards would be 2.2 compliant.
>
> I guess I'll have to look for a PCI 2.1 compliant 802.11g adapter. The
> other solution is a so-called "game adapter" which provides an Ethernet
> to Wi-Fi (802.3 to 802.11) bridge. Although they are still somewhat
> pricey, in my opinion. (I have an ageless ISA Ethernet card handy.)

ISA? You're nutz! ;-) PCI cards are a dime-a-dozen. ...and they work.

The other alternative is a USB to WiFi. I think I saw several of these
while browsing about the web on the PCI 2.2 issue. I wasn't paying much
attention to the trivia (like whether they actually work) though.

--
Keith

 

[vvv]

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

Yes.. the problem is PCI version incompability...

PCI wifi cards need PCI 2.2 or newer.

And those older boards are only PCI 2.1 compliant.

How do I know? I had the same problem with my BX chipset motherboard with a
PCI wireless card.


"RusH" <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote in message
news:Xns95AF8681A302RusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.97...
>> I've (finally) hopped on the Wi-Fi bandwagon, and bought, among
>> other gear, a pair of PCI 802.11g network adapters.
>>
>> Problem is, the PCI card is properly detected on my recent
>> motherboard (2001 ASUS A7V133-C SocketA) but *NOT* on my older
>> motherboard (1997 ASUS P/I-P55T2P4 Socket7).
>
> lack of PCI 2.1 or something, it wont work
>
>
> Pozdrawiam.
> --
> RusH //
> http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
> Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
> You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

 

[Guest]

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

vvv wrote:

> Yes.. the problem is PCI version incompability...
>
> PCI wifi cards need PCI 2.2 or newer.
>
> And those older boards are only PCI 2.1 compliant.
>
> How do I know? I had the same problem with my BX chipset motherboard
> with a PCI wireless card.

Have you ever found a PCI 2.1 compliant 802.11g card?

Have you tried the U.S. Robotics USR5416?
http://www.usr.com/products/networking/wireless-product.asp?sku=USR5416

The specs explicitly mention "PCI 2.1/2.2 compliant".
http://www.usr.com/products/networking/wireless-product.asp?sku=USR5416&type=specs

Have you tried a game adapter (Ethernet to WiFi bridge)?

--
Regards, Grumble

 

[rush]

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

Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org> wrote :

> Have you tried the U.S. Robotics USR5416?
> http://www.usr.com/products/networking/wireless-product.asp?sku=USR
> 5416
>
> The specs explicitly mention "PCI 2.1/2.2 compliant".
> http://www.usr.com/products/networking/wireless-product.asp?sku=USR
> 5416&type=specs

like I said earlier, its only buzzword to make feature list bigger.
This one doesnt like PCI 2.1 either.

> Have you tried a game adapter (Ethernet to WiFi bridge)?

This is his only reliable option.

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

 

[Guest]

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

Grumble wrote:
>
> The P/I-P55T2P4 came with an Intel 430HX chipset, aka Triton 2:

Woo, hoo... famous ol' motherboard, back in the day - one of the first
to do 83 MHz FSB, IIRC. (I had its archrival, the Abit IT5H... ;-)

--
Mike Smith

 

[keith]

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

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:50:17 -0500, Mike Smith wrote:

> Grumble wrote:
>>
>> The P/I-P55T2P4 came with an Intel 430HX chipset, aka Triton 2:
>
> Woo, hoo... famous ol' motherboard, back in the day - one of the first
> to do 83 MHz FSB, IIRC. (I had its archrival, the Abit IT5H... ;-)

Oh, please! It wasn't the first and when it did it overclocked the piss
out of everything on the board. The HX chipset was *never* rated for
anything above 66MHz.

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

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

keith wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:50:17 -0500, Mike Smith wrote:
>
>
>>Grumble wrote:
>>
>>>The P/I-P55T2P4 came with an Intel 430HX chipset, aka Triton 2:
>>
>>Woo, hoo... famous ol' motherboard, back in the day - one of the first
>>to do 83 MHz FSB, IIRC. (I had its archrival, the Abit IT5H... ;-)
>
>
> Oh, please! It wasn't the first and when it did it overclocked the piss
> out of everything on the board. The HX chipset was *never* rated for
> anything above 66MHz.

What's with the attitude? For one thing, I said "*one* of the first".
For another, I never said it wasn't overclocking, nor did I imply that
it was a no-brainer; i.e. that you didn't have to go looking for PCI
cards that could handle the higher clock rate. But I guess some people
just *live* to be nasty to others on Usenet, huh?

--
Mike Smith

 

[keith]

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

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:43:47 -0500, Mike Smith wrote:

> keith wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:50:17 -0500, Mike Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Grumble wrote:
>>>
>>>>The P/I-P55T2P4 came with an Intel 430HX chipset, aka Triton 2:
>>>
>>>Woo, hoo... famous ol' motherboard, back in the day - one of the first
>>>to do 83 MHz FSB, IIRC. (I had its archrival, the Abit IT5H... ;-)
>>
>>
>> Oh, please! It wasn't the first and when it did it overclocked the piss
>> out of everything on the board. The HX chipset was *never* rated for
>> anything above 66MHz.
>
> What's with the attitude? For one thing, I said "*one* of the first".


The "attitude" is because I spent a couple of years working to get the S7
bus to 75, 83MHz, then 100MHz, which nothing from Intel ever did (indeed
they made it impossible with their components). Specifications do matter,
though lusers like you don't care about such trivia.

> For another, I never said it wasn't overclocking, nor did Iimply that
> it was a no-brainer; i.e. that you didn't have to go looking for PCI
> cards that could handle the higher clock rate.

Many didn't. If you want to play Russian roulette, please don't let me
stop you.

> But I guess some people just *live* to be nasty to others on Usenet, huh?

I guess some people just don't care about reliability or data integrity.
Over-clocking rulz! <gag-cough>

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

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

keith wrote:
>
>
> The "attitude" is because I spent a couple of years working to get the S7
> bus to 75, 83MHz, then 100MHz, which nothing from Intel ever did (indeed
> they made it impossible with their components). Specifications do matter,
> though lusers like you don't care about such trivia.

Well, if you're so anal about specifications, then why were you trying
to overclock? Can't have your cake and eat it, too. Me, I just did it
'cause it was fun.

>>For another, I never said it wasn't overclocking, nor did Iimply that
>>it was a no-brainer; i.e. that you didn't have to go looking for PCI
>>cards that could handle the higher clock rate.
>
> Many didn't. If you want to play Russian roulette, please don't let me
> stop you.

"Russian Roulette". LOL <sigh> Have you ever thought of trying decaf?
It's a *PC*, not a nuclear bomb. Get over yourself.

>>But I guess some people just *live* to be nasty to others on Usenet, huh?
>
> I guess some people just don't care about reliability or data integrity.

Not when it's my own computer, I'm doing it for fun, and the machine's
got nothing on it but games.

> Over-clocking rulz! <gag-cough>

Again, seriously - what's with the arrogant, uptight, holier-than-thou
attitude? Who the hell are you, anyway?

--
Mike Smith

 

[Guest]

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

I've have the usr 5416 in my PCI 2.1 and it and it works perfectly. I
tried several other G (netgear, linksys and d-link), but none worked.
If you can use a B also the d-link DWL 520 works in a PCI 2.1 slot.
my configuration: Mobo Asus p2b-f, p3@650 Mhz, 256Mb pc100, win98se

 

[keith]

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

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:01:31 -0800, mikele wrote:

> I've have the usr 5416 in my PCI 2.1 and it and it works perfectly. I
> tried several other G (netgear, linksys and d-link), but none worked.
> If you can use a B also the d-link DWL 520 works in a PCI 2.1 slot.
> my configuration: Mobo Asus p2b-f, p3@650 Mhz, 256Mb pc100, win98se

I think it was decided (two months ago, BTW) that PCI 2.1 allowed 3.3V on
the PCI slot, but didn't require it. PCI 2.2 does, this the card
specifies PCI 2.2. It's an iffy proposition assuming it will run on in a
PCI 2.1 slot. Though it may be fine, there is no guarantee.

I had a similar quandry looking for a sound card for my "antique" Tyan
1598C2. The card I ended up with only claimed PCI 2.2 compatability, but
it worked anyway. Claiminng spec conformance doesn't tell all.

--
Keith