"Pentium 4" brandname ready to be dropped

[Guest]

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

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> writes:

>Douglas Siebert wrote:
>> Yes, Intel can definitely do that. But consider this: Right now AMD
>> is selling everything they can make, supplying a desktop market that's
>> growing slowly, and a server market that's growing quickly (easy to do
>> considering it was essentially zero 18 months ago) 90nm gives them
>> more chips due to the smaller die sizes, but they have to supply their
>> existing desktop market, fast growing server market, and plan to
>> attack the mobile market as well in 90nm. They may simply not have
>> the capacity to attack the dual core desktop market in any meaningful
>> way until they move to their new 300mm fab at 65nm in 2006. Sure,
>> they might sell some dual core Athlon FXs, since those are just
>> Opterons with a different pinout and they will be selling dual core
>> Opterons next summer. But if Intel moves aggressively to dual cores
>> across their whole desktop range by this time next year, AMD probably
>> won't be able to answer.

>I don't think Intel would want to move whole-hog into dual-cores for the
>desktop. Dual cores on the desktop would be expensive to build and therefore
>expensive to purchase. Dual cores will become their top-line processors to
>make up for performance no longer available through continous clockspeed
>increases. First they'll start out with bigger caches, but that will quickly
>come to a point of diminishing returns, and then they will try dual-core to
>further increase performance.


They will produce as many as necessary to use up their spare fab capacity.
Having $2 billion fabs partially idle is a poor business decision, and it
isn't as if they couldn't sell all the dual cores with one failed core as
a single core, so the cost of making a dual core is at worst double that of
making a single core. And the true cost of making a P4 is probably
something on the order of $25, so they could certainly sell their dual
core CPUs at pretty much the same price points as they sell single cores,
if they wished. What pricing scheme they actually choose will, like the
way they price all their CPUs, have to do with marketing and maximizing
their margins rather than having anything much to do with their production
cost.

I wouldn't be surprised to see them match up the prices to the single
core line. So the fastest dual core (3.2 GHz/1MB) would be priced the
same as their fastest single core at the time, which is always around
$600-ish. Then $400-ish for the next, and $275-ish for the last (2.8
GHz/1MB)

--
Douglas Siebert dsiebert@excisethis.khamsin.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -- Thomas Jefferson

 

[Guest]

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

In comp.arch Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Because we are soon to be hitting physical limits
> in how small things can be and how much power we
> can pump through those itty bitty things without
> melting them.

Those limits are far off. The present limits are economy and
price limits.

>
> Up until now and for the near future, the physical
> limits haven't been what was holding us back - it
> was our manufacturing technology. Now manufacturing
> technology is just about caught up to the physical
> limits, so what will be left except to manufacture
> bigger or better chips instead of chips that are
> merely clocked faster ?
>

And then teh markets will re-differentiate again, there will be
faster clockspeeds and what are you going to say then?

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

 

[keith]

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

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:57:25 +0000, Sander Vesik wrote:

> In comp.arch Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Because we are soon to be hitting physical limits
>> in how small things can be and how much power we
>> can pump through those itty bitty things without
>> melting them.
>
> Those limits are far off. The present limits are economy and
> price limits.

You keep saying this, but it's not true. Gate oxides are only a few atoms
thick now. Making them thinner isn't useful. Sure there are some things
that can be done (e.g. hi-K dielectrics) buyt physics only takes that so
far too. Are we done today? No, but it's not clear if we've bought much
from the last few billion$ we've spent.

The "economic" limits have been discussed for at least a decade. ...and
these predictions have been optimistic! Physics isn't easy to get around.

>> Up until now and for the near future, the physical limits haven't been
>> what was holding us back - it was our manufacturing technology. Now
>> manufacturing technology is just about caught up to the physical
>> limits, so what will be left except to manufacture bigger or better
>> chips instead of chips that are merely clocked faster ?
>>
>>
> And then teh markets will re-differentiate again, there will be faster
> clockspeeds and what are you going to say then?

Next year? ...or in twenty years? Silicon is here to stay, like the IC
engine. Where is the breakthrough?

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

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

Douglas Siebert wrote:
> They will produce as many as necessary to use up their spare fab
> capacity. Having $2 billion fabs partially idle is a poor business
> decision, and it isn't as if they couldn't sell all the dual cores
> with one failed core as a single core, so the cost of making a dual
> core is at worst double that of making a single core. And the true
> cost of making a P4 is probably something on the order of $25, so
> they could certainly sell their dual core CPUs at pretty much the
> same price points as they sell single cores, if they wished. What
> pricing scheme they actually choose will, like the way they price all
> their CPUs, have to do with marketing and maximizing their margins
> rather than having anything much to do with their production cost.

Selling all dual-core processors will hurt their margins, if they sell them
for the same price as single-cores. If they price them up, then their
margins will not be affected, but not so many people will want to buy them.
They could do better to fill up their fab capacity with increased production
of Celerons.

> I wouldn't be surprised to see them match up the prices to the single
> core line. So the fastest dual core (3.2 GHz/1MB) would be priced the
> same as their fastest single core at the time, which is always around
> $600-ish. Then $400-ish for the next, and $275-ish for the last (2.8
> GHz/1MB)

However, their dual cores will be at least 2MB (each core will have its own
1MB). The die size on that will be enormous, which would mean it would
likely have to price its dual-cores at least $100 higher than its fastest
single-cores.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

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

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news😛an.2004.10.28.01.57.12.212392@att.bizzzz...
>
> You *know* this? I'd like to see your evidence for this
"knowledge". I
> don't see a dual-core in 90nm as being a nickel more expensive to
produce
> than a uni in 130nm. Indeed, the market will *demand* dual-cores,
so the
> cost is irrelevant, the price differential will soon be *zero*.

A pretty safe forecast, since you posted the same day Via announced a
dual-core model. Yes, Via. Not known for high-priced CPUs! ;-)

 

[Guest]

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

"Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net> wrote in message
news:5Q0gd.4612$kM.258@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> news😛an.2004.10.28.01.57.12.212392@att.bizzzz...
> >
> > You *know* this? I'd like to see your evidence for this
> "knowledge". I
> > don't see a dual-core in 90nm as being a nickel more expensive to
> produce
> > than a uni in 130nm. Indeed, the market will *demand* dual-cores,
> so the
> > cost is irrelevant, the price differential will soon be *zero*.
>
> A pretty safe forecast, since you posted the same day Via announced a
> dual-core model. Yes, Via. Not known for high-priced CPUs! ;-)
>
Nah, Kieth was reasoning from first principles. or as an old guru around
here used to say, "a chip's a chip. And they all cost five dollars" (it
was a few years ago). As for the P4 "costing" 25 dollars, the reasoning
behind that assertion would be interesting.

del cecchi

 

[Guest]

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

keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:30:43 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>
>> All I know is that dual-cores will be hideously expensive. Think
>> P4-EE pricing, with NO ramp-down to mainstream pricing, at least not
>> for a few years.
>
>You *know* this? I'd like to see your evidence for this "knowledge".

Yeah, I hesitated before using that word. Obviously I don't "know"...

>I don't see a dual-core in 90nm as being a nickel more expensive to produce
>than a uni in 130nm.

But still a lot more expensive than a 90nm uni.

>Indeed, the market will *demand* dual-cores, so the
>cost is irrelevant, the price differential will soon be *zero*.

Will the market, near-term, demand dualies at mainstream prices? Or
will dualies (for the next few years) be relegated to the high end? I
hope you're right. Time will tell...

 

[Guest]

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

Del Cecchi wrote:
> Nah, Kieth was reasoning from first principles. or as an old guru around
> here used to say, "a chip's a chip. And they all cost five dollars" (it
> was a few years ago).

Isn't it three dollars? And doesn't it apply to DRAM chips only? ;-)

> As for the P4 "costing" 25 dollars, the reasoning
> behind that assertion would be interesting.

Hm, probably valid for the Celeron version, naked die only. When the retail
price starts at ~$60 including taxes, the chip (die) can't cost more than
$25.

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

 

[Guest]

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

> Tried the XPC route, though with an Athlon XP 2000+. It would probably
> be OK if sufficiently well hidden, but as a personal machine I found it
> too noisy. Now, this was an SK41G, one of the early ones, so it's quite
> possible that they've gotten better since then.
>
>> Note that quiet is usually low power, and low power is not normally a
>> gaming system.
>
>
> Thus my dilemma. ;-)
>
>> PM is ideal, but pricy.
>
>
> Pricey - *within reason* is OK.

300$ Is about what low noise water cooling solutions costs today.
And I think its within a reason for high end desktops.
Getting one or two CPU:s and VGA blocks, and chipset generated heat out
of case and radiated without a fan makes it noiseless, then get quality
low noise PSU and your system is practicly noiseless. Remember to get
heatsinks for gfx cards memory chips.

Yes 300$ may seem costly but its good for highend systems that cost much
anyway, so that cooling solution simply makes the availability of system
much better by letting it run all the time. And it doesn't include the
PSU unit cost. Also there is fanless PSU for extremists. But
I think it might be better to get your 120mm fan in a PSU than getting
fanless PSU and putting a slow 120mm case fan to cool all the components
that are not water cooled.[Fanless PSU still needs SOME air circulation
inside of it.] The advantage of getting water cooling besides being
quiet is that less air(dust) is moved through your system. Also another
advantage is that if you upgrade(your power usage) you could still use
same cooling system since it could handle a LOT more than what current
systems produce.

Of course then there is insanely pricey solution of TNN500A that doesn't
provide enough juice for highend gfx cards, or dual processors 😉

Jouni Osmala
Helsinki University of Technology

Ps. These are just opinions not based on hand on experience but from
multiple review sites. And I'd get such a system if I could afford a
highend PC. [Current one is much cheaper than DELL's cheapest offerings
around here.]

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:02:14 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>
>keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:30:43 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> All I know is that dual-cores will be hideously expensive. Think
>>> P4-EE pricing, with NO ramp-down to mainstream pricing, at least not
>>> for a few years.
>>
>>You *know* this? I'd like to see your evidence for this "knowledge".
>
>Yeah, I hesitated before using that word. Obviously I don't "know"...
>
>>I don't see a dual-core in 90nm as being a nickel more expensive to produce
>>than a uni in 130nm.
>
>But still a lot more expensive than a 90nm uni.

Probably going to be on the order of $35 vs. $45 to produce. Of
course, it's always very important to remember that the cost of
production has next to nothing to do with the price that the chips
will sell for.

>>Indeed, the market will *demand* dual-cores, so the
>>cost is irrelevant, the price differential will soon be *zero*.
>
>Will the market, near-term, demand dualies at mainstream prices? Or
>will dualies (for the next few years) be relegated to the high end? I
>hope you're right. Time will tell...

I suspect that there will be a big enough market for at least some
reasonable-priced dual-core chips that they'll get down in the
$200-$300 price range in short order. It may take a while for them to
get down into the $100-$200 price range, and some could argue that
this is where "mainstream" prices are these days, but even that price
will probably eventually go dual-core.

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

 

[Guest]

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

>>decision, and it isn't as if they couldn't sell all the dual cores
>>with one failed core as a single core, so the cost of making a dual
>>core is at worst double that of making a single core. And the true
>>cost of making a P4 is probably something on the order of $25, so
>>they could certainly sell their dual core CPUs at pretty much the
>>same price points as they sell single cores, if they wished. What
>>pricing scheme they actually choose will, like the way they price all
>>their CPUs, have to do with marketing and maximizing their margins
>>rather than having anything much to do with their production cost.
>
>
> Selling all dual-core processors will hurt their margins, if they sell them
> for the same price as single-cores. If they price them up, then their
> margins will not be affected, but not so many people will want to buy them.
> They could do better to fill up their fab capacity with increased production
> of Celerons.

No, their production is based on what they can SELL. Not otherway.
They just cannot increase the celeron production and tell people buy
them more of them at our high prices. No they maximize profits, and they
think that they can sell dual cores for higher margins than celerons!
Celeron of previous process generation is about same sized as this
process generations dual core. They have extra capacity, and they have
saturated the market with their products and have smaller competitor
crabbing some of their market share. So what they need to do is increase
the attractiveness of their processors and dual core is only reasonable
way to do it. They just cannot make more and sell for lower prices since
that would REDUCE their profits since their profits are margins*units.
And lowering celeron price will probably get less extra sales than they
would loose by selling those celerons at lower prices. They need to up
their mainstream with SOMETHING so that they could up their celerons
capabilities without hurting mainstream sales, and lowering their ASP.

>>I wouldn't be surprised to see them match up the prices to the single
>>core line. So the fastest dual core (3.2 GHz/1MB) would be priced the
>>same as their fastest single core at the time, which is always around
>>$600-ish. Then $400-ish for the next, and $275-ish for the last (2.8
>>GHz/1MB)
>
>
> However, their dual cores will be at least 2MB (each core will have its own
> 1MB). The die size on that will be enormous, which would mean it would
> likely have to price its dual-cores at least $100 higher than its fastest
> single-cores.

HOW SO? (R²*PI)/Wafercost ~30mm^2/$ for intel. Now prescott die size is
109 mm². So that should be about 4$ for silicon, Intel finally figured
out that the die area is pretty cheap.
Now yield of intel chips could be assumed way over 60% as intel has
history of going for high yield production, even for big chips.
So my estimation is that costs about 30$ for intel to make dual core VS
24$ for single core.
Yes, per die area silicon manufacturing costs are SMALL and everything
else costs a LOT. And dual core isn't huge actually its about same as
original pentiumII or Pentium IV.And they need SOMETHING to compete
against A64, so they throw their superiour manufacturing muscle so that
AMD simply cannot match it with volume production!
Yes. Most of the price of processor is [A cross margin, for R&D
including developement of process, marketing, profit, company overhead,
etc... And not the Manufacturing! prices are not anyway related to
manufacturing costs, today, unless costs happen to be really huge for
some reason.]

Jouni Osmala
Helsinki University of technology.

 

[Guest]

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

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> writes:

>Douglas Siebert wrote:
>> They will produce as many as necessary to use up their spare fab
>> capacity. Having $2 billion fabs partially idle is a poor business
>> decision, and it isn't as if they couldn't sell all the dual cores
>> with one failed core as a single core, so the cost of making a dual
>> core is at worst double that of making a single core. And the true
>> cost of making a P4 is probably something on the order of $25, so
>> they could certainly sell their dual core CPUs at pretty much the
>> same price points as they sell single cores, if they wished. What
>> pricing scheme they actually choose will, like the way they price all
>> their CPUs, have to do with marketing and maximizing their margins
>> rather than having anything much to do with their production cost.

>Selling all dual-core processors will hurt their margins, if they sell them
>for the same price as single-cores. If they price them up, then their
>margins will not be affected, but not so many people will want to buy them.
>They could do better to fill up their fab capacity with increased production
>of Celerons.


How would selling dual core processors hurt their margins, other than for
the extra few dollars for the additional silicon area? Yield is a non
issue here, since a dual core CPU with one bad core sells well as a single
core CPU.

Your suggestion to fill up fab capacity with Celerons is the LAST thing
they'd want to do if they are worried about hurting their margins! They
sell P4s for $150-$600, Celerons from $60-$110. The cost of production
is very similar, with maybe a dollar's worth of additional die area, all
of which is cache and thus yield isn't a problem for that additional area.
Please explain to me how producing more low margin products helps their
margins?

Not to mention that if they increase the supply of Celerons in the market,
they are either stuck with them if no one wants to buy them (and Intel is
already in an oversupply situation this year as it is) or they discount
them. And that's almost worse, because that would hurt their margins
more as well as lower the price of Celeron based systems compared with P4
based systems even more so it could hurt their high margin P4 sales.

Someone else in this thread calculated that the silicon costs a dollar
per 30 sq mm. Given the prices DRAMs sell for, it couldn't be much
higher than that. So using that figure, a dual core CPU has a materials
cost about $2 higher than a single core. Yield is not an issue, but
testing would be a bit more involved so let's round up the difference to
be $5. If Intel used a $15 premium like they did for the HT versus non-HT
P4s, they'd make more money on the dual core CPUs, and price wise they'd
be very desireable. We will probably be able to tell a lot about how
much excess fab capacity they have next year by the size of the dual core
premium. I just don't understand why people think that if a low end P4
sells for $150, that a dual core would have to sell for $300 for Intel
to make the same amount of money. The production cost and selling price
for CPUs have very little to do with each other!

--
Douglas Siebert dsiebert@excisethis.khamsin.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -- Thomas Jefferson

 

[rush]

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

Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote :


> In the section you snipped you missed the part about
> wanting an ATX motherboard.
>
> The AOpen one is just another one of those
> less-than-full-featured micros. Only 2 DIMM
> slots and only 3 PCI slots just doesn't cut it -
> particularly when it costs twice as much as a
> full-featured ATX board. A lot of people - but
> not me - would also be disappointed by no AGP 3.0.

http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/cm/dfi855/dfi855-1.htm

this one has AGP and P-M has huge potential, beating A64 4000 few
times.

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.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

RusH wrote:
> http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/cm/dfi855/dfi855-1.htm
>
> this one has AGP and P-M has huge potential, beating A64 4000 few
> times.

Overclocked to 2.55GHz (with a 2.0GHz P-M). You can buy an Athon64, socket
939 with 2.6GHz nominal frequency, the FX-55, and that's still a .13µ
process.

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

 

[Guest]

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

RusH wrote:

> Rob Stow wrote:
>
>> In the section you snipped you missed the part about wanting an ATX
>> motherboard.
>>
>> The AOpen one is just another one of those less-than-full-featured
>> micros. Only 2 DIMM slots and only 3 PCI slots just doesn't cut it
>> - particularly when it costs twice as much as a full-featured ATX
>> board. A lot of people - but not me - would also be disappointed
>> by no AGP 3.0.
>
> http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/cm/dfi855/dfi855-1.htm

RusH, you can read French too? 🙂

> this one has AGP

http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/7575

"Designed with versatility in mind, the 855GME-MGF is based on the
standard micro ATX form factor and features support for low latency
DDR333 memory and AGP 4X."

It seems Rob wants an ATX form factor ;-)

> and P-M has huge potential, beating A64 4000 few times.

Dothan's FPUs are weak as far as SPECfp2000 is concerned.

Dothan 2.0 GHz 32+32 KB L1 2 MB L2
Opteron 2.4 GHz 64+64 KB L1 1 MB L2
Prescott 3.4 GHz ~16+16 KB L1 1 MB L2

SPECint2000
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2004q2/cpu2000-20040614-03081.html
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2004q2/cpu2000-20040503-03003.html
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2004q2/cpu2000-20040406-02961.html

SPECfp2000
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2004q2/cpu2000-20040614-03080.html
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2004q2/cpu2000-20040503-02998.html
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2004q2/cpu2000-20040406-02962.html

Execution time, in seconds:

Dothan Opteron Prescott
164.gzip 120 105 124
175.vpr 106 105 142
176.gcc 63.5 62.2 60.5
181.mcf 141 138 144
186.crafty 64.8 58.3 79.5
197.parser 133 120 137
252.eon 68.8 50.1 65.7
253.perlbmk 112 108 101
254.gap 74.6 64.9 61.0
255.vortex 80.9 80.4 74.4
256.bzip2 129 116 137
300.twolf 147 167 185
-------------------------------------------
SPECint2000 1541 1655 1491
SPECfp2000 1088 1644 1485

--
Regards, Grumble

 

[Guest]

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

Grumble wrote:
> RusH wrote:
>
>> Rob Stow wrote:
>>
>>> In the section you snipped you missed the part about wanting an ATX
>>> motherboard.
>>>
>>> The AOpen one is just another one of those less-than-full-featured
>>> micros. Only 2 DIMM slots and only 3 PCI slots just doesn't cut it
>>> - particularly when it costs twice as much as a full-featured ATX
>>> board. A lot of people - but not me - would also be disappointed
>>> by no AGP 3.0.
>>
>>
>> http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/cm/dfi855/dfi855-1.htm
>
>
> RusH, you can read French too? 🙂
>
>> this one has AGP
>
>
> http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/7575
>
> "Designed with versatility in mind, the 855GME-MGF is based on the
> standard micro ATX form factor and features support for low latency
> DDR333 memory and AGP 4X."
>
> It seems Rob wants an ATX form factor ;-)
>

What "Rob wants" are more DIMM slots and at least
four PCI slots - preferably five so I have a spare
slot if I ever need it. If someone can squeeze what
I need onto a mATX board that is fine with me.

However, I could be very forgiving in the case of this
board. I *love* the PCI-X slot I saw in the photos.
Like most motherboards manufacturers, DFI still has
not begun to take SATA seriously and provides very
few SATA ports and essentially no SATA RAID capability.
That PCI-X slot would be perfect for a SATA RAID card.

The other two PCI slots would be for a sound card and a
video capture card - which means I'd have to switch to
one of those external modems that I hate so much. That
effectively drives up the price of the motherboard by
$60 (Canadian) because I wouldn't be able to reuse my
existing PCI modem.



--
BOYCOTT GOOGLE !
Partners in crime with the scum that rules China.

For more info search for "Google China Censor Searches".
http://search.yahoo.com/search?_adv_prop=web&x=op&ei=UTF-8&prev_vm=p&fr=fp-top&va=google+china+censor+searches&va_vt=any&vp=&vp_vt=any&vo=&vo_vt=any&ve=&ve_vt=any&vd=m3&vst=0&vs=&vf=html&vm=i&vc=&fl=1&vl=lang_en&n=10"

Google's side of the story:
http://www.google.com/googleblog/2004/09/china-google-news-and-source-inclusion.html

 

[Guest]

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

RusH wrote:

> Rob Stow wrote:
>
>> In the section you snipped you missed the part about wanting an ATX
>> motherboard.
>>
>> The AOpen one is just another one of those less-than-full-featured
>> micros. Only 2 DIMM slots and only 3 PCI slots just doesn't cut it
>> - particularly when it costs twice as much as a full-featured ATX
>> board. A lot of people - but not me - would also be disappointed
>> by no AGP 3.0.
>
> http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/cm/dfi855/dfi855-1.htm

"[...] 2 slots DDR-SDRAM, 1 port AGP 4x, 1 port PCI-X et 2 ports PCI
standard. Les ports DDR peuvent supporter de la DDR333 au maximum
officiellement. Les ports PCI sont au standard habituel (32 bits, 33
MHz) et le port PCI-X peut fonctionner jusqu'à 66 MHz sur 64 bits."

--
Regards, Grumble

 

[Guest]

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

Rob Stow wrote:

> What "Rob wants" are more DIMM slots and at least
> four PCI slots - preferably five so I have a spare
> slot if I ever need it. If someone can squeeze what
> I need onto a mATX board that is fine with me.
>
> However, I could be very forgiving in the case of this
> board. I *love* the PCI-X slot I saw in the photos.
> Like most motherboards manufacturers, DFI still has
> not begun to take SATA seriously and provides very
> few SATA ports and essentially no SATA RAID capability.
> That PCI-X slot would be perfect for a SATA RAID card.

I thought the Intel 6300ESB southbridge supported SATA?

> The other two PCI slots would be for a sound card and a
> video capture card - which means I'd have to switch to
> one of those external modems that I hate so much. That
> effectively drives up the price of the motherboard by
> $60 (Canadian) because I wouldn't be able to reuse my
> existing PCI modem.

You don't like the integrated Realtek ALC655?

--
Regards, Grumble

 

[Guest]

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

Grumble wrote:
> Rob Stow wrote:
>
>> What "Rob wants" are more DIMM slots and at least
>> four PCI slots - preferably five so I have a spare
>> slot if I ever need it. If someone can squeeze what
>> I need onto a mATX board that is fine with me.
>>
>> However, I could be very forgiving in the case of this
>> board. I *love* the PCI-X slot I saw in the photos.
>> Like most motherboards manufacturers, DFI still has
>> not begun to take SATA seriously and provides very
>> few SATA ports and essentially no SATA RAID capability.
>> That PCI-X slot would be perfect for a SATA RAID card.
>
>
> I thought the Intel 6300ESB southbridge supported SATA?
>
>> The other two PCI slots would be for a sound card and a
>> video capture card - which means I'd have to switch to
>> one of those external modems that I hate so much. That
>> effectively drives up the price of the motherboard by
>> $60 (Canadian) because I wouldn't be able to reuse my
>> existing PCI modem.
>
>
> You don't like the integrated Realtek ALC655?
>

No. I want my Audigy 2. Most integrated sound
works adequately for playback, but poorly for
recording. And I have noticed in the past that
CPU usage is a *lot* higher when using integrated
sound for recording compared to using something
like an Audigy. In another year it won't matter -
by then I should be finally finished copying all
of my LPs and 45s into digital storage.


--
BOYCOTT GOOGLE !
Partners in crime with the scum that rules China.

For more info search for "Google China Censor Searches".
http://search.yahoo.com/search?_adv_prop=web&x=op&ei=UTF-8&prev_vm=p&fr=fp-top&va=google+china+censor+searches&va_vt=any&vp=&vp_vt=any&vo=&vo_vt=any&ve=&ve_vt=any&vd=m3&vst=0&vs=&vf=html&vm=i&vc=&fl=1&vl=lang_en&n=10"

Google's side of the story:
http://www.google.com/googleblog/2004/09/china-google-news-and-source-inclusion.html

 

[Guest]

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

Grumble wrote:
> Rob Stow wrote:
>
>> What "Rob wants" are more DIMM slots and at least
>> four PCI slots - preferably five so I have a spare
>> slot if I ever need it. If someone can squeeze what
>> I need onto a mATX board that is fine with me.
>>
>> However, I could be very forgiving in the case of this
>> board. I *love* the PCI-X slot I saw in the photos.
>> Like most motherboards manufacturers, DFI still has
>> not begun to take SATA seriously and provides very
>> few SATA ports and essentially no SATA RAID capability.
>> That PCI-X slot would be perfect for a SATA RAID card.
>
>
> I thought the Intel 6300ESB southbridge supported SATA?

It does, but
1.) Only two ports. I'd like 6 at a minimum just for
hard drives, and preferrably a few more so that I can
eventually upgrade my optical drives from IDE to SATA.
2.) The only RAID option with two ports is mirroring.
(By definition simple striping is *not* RAID since there
is no redundancy.)
3.) I couldn't see any SATA ports in the pictures at
the link provided. That might be only because the pictures
were low-res and quite dark.



--
BOYCOTT GOOGLE !
Partners in crime with the scum that rules China.

For more info search for "Google China Censor Searches".
http://search.yahoo.com/search?_adv_prop=web&x=op&ei=UTF-8&prev_vm=p&fr=fp-top&va=google+china+censor+searches&va_vt=any&vp=&vp_vt=any&vo=&vo_vt=any&ve=&ve_vt=any&vd=m3&vst=0&vs=&vf=html&vm=i&vc=&fl=1&vl=lang_en&n=10"

Google's side of the story:
http://www.google.com/googleblog/2004/09/china-google-news-and-source-inclusion.html

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:58:38 GMT, Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:

>Grumble wrote:
>> Rob Stow wrote:
>>
>>> What "Rob wants" are more DIMM slots and at least
>>> four PCI slots - preferably five so I have a spare
>>> slot if I ever need it. If someone can squeeze what
>>> I need onto a mATX board that is fine with me.
>>>
>>> However, I could be very forgiving in the case of this
>>> board. I *love* the PCI-X slot I saw in the photos.
>>> Like most motherboards manufacturers, DFI still has
>>> not begun to take SATA seriously and provides very
>>> few SATA ports and essentially no SATA RAID capability.
>>> That PCI-X slot would be perfect for a SATA RAID card.
>>
>>
>> I thought the Intel 6300ESB southbridge supported SATA?
>
>It does, but
>1.) Only two ports. I'd like 6 at a minimum just for
>hard drives, and preferrably a few more so that I can
>eventually upgrade my optical drives from IDE to SATA.
>2.) The only RAID option with two ports is mirroring.
>(By definition simple striping is *not* RAID since there
>is no redundancy.)
>3.) I couldn't see any SATA ports in the pictures at
>the link provided. That might be only because the pictures
>were low-res and quite dark.

Yes there are two SATA ports -- black connectors -- right next to the IDE
connectors. You can see them on a photo on the 2nd page of the article.

Rgds, George Macdonald

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

 

[rush]

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

Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote :

> The other two PCI slots would be for a sound card and a
> video capture card - which means I'd have to switch to
> one of those external modems that I hate so much. That
> effectively drives up the price of the motherboard by
> $60 (Canadian) because I wouldn't be able to reuse my
> existing PCI modem.

modem ? are you even serious ? This board goes for ~$800.
As far as PCI slot are concerned you can always snap in PCI riser card
and have as many PCI slots as you like.

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.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

RusH wrote:
> Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote :
>
>
>>The other two PCI slots would be for a sound card and a
>>video capture card - which means I'd have to switch to
>>one of those external modems that I hate so much. That
>>effectively drives up the price of the motherboard by
>>$60 (Canadian) because I wouldn't be able to reuse my
>>existing PCI modem.
>
>
> modem ? are you even serious ?

You bet. Not for internet access, but for things like
phone dialing, message taking, caller-ID, logging,
etc. And I'm searching for an app I can afford that
will give features like auto-answer/reply based on
caller-ID. (Eg., automatically tell 1-800 numbers
to shove their telemarketing, surveys, etc where the
sun doesn't shine. With a white-list for exceptions,
of course.)


> This board goes for ~$800.

A ridiculous price considering how cripped it is
compared to what you get on most motherboards.

For $800 people should be getting board+cpu+cooling,
with a more PCI slots, DIMM slots, and SATA ports.
I'm sure most people would also be expecting either
AGP 3.0 or PCI-E at that price.

When it costs six times as much as a full-featured
P4 or Athlon64 ATX board, you expect it to have more
features, not less.

> As far as PCI slot are concerned you can always snap in PCI riser card
> and have as many PCI slots as you like.

Yup. And now you have to hack away at the back of the
case because the cards are perpendicular to the slots
in the case instead of lining up nicely with them.
Still, its something I'll consider with the AOpen board
(priced at a more reasonable but still expensive $260).



--
BOYCOTT GOOGLE !
Partners in crime with the scum that rules China.

For more info search for "Google China Censor Searches".
http://search.yahoo.com/search?_adv_prop=web&x=op&ei=UTF-8&prev_vm=p&fr=fp-top&va=google+china+censor+searches&va_vt=any&vp=&vp_vt=any&vo=&vo_vt=any&ve=&ve_vt=any&vd=m3&vst=0&vs=&vf=html&vm=i&vc=&fl=1&vl=lang_en&n=10"

Google's side of the story:
http://www.google.com/googleblog/2004/09/china-google-news-and-source-inclusion.html