P4 retail box thermal material?

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

When I opened the box, I found a black piece of tape or whatever on the
bottom of the heat sink. Is that part of the thermal material or should
I remove it?

I've also looked at Intel's site and downloaded a pdf on the thermal
management and fitting, but found no instructions to remove the tape.

Furthermore, Scott Muellers book mention that the thermal material may
be either paste, pad or tape.

There is also a reference in the motherboard manual to "thermal tape".
35 answers Last reply
More about retail thermal material
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Johannes H Andersen" wrote

    > When I opened the box, I found a black piece of tape or whatever on
    the
    > bottom of the heat sink. Is that part of the thermal material or
    should
    > I remove it?

    Leave it on.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Johannes H Andersen wrote:

    > When I opened the box, I found a black piece of tape or whatever on the
    > bottom of the heat sink. Is that part of the thermal material or should
    > I remove it?
    >
    > I've also looked at Intel's site and downloaded a pdf on the thermal
    > management and fitting, but found no instructions to remove the tape.
    >

    Some come with "protective tape" over the thermal pad to protect it in
    shipping. The instructions that come with the CPU should explain this in
    detail. If this "tape" you're talking about is a small square then this is
    probably just the thermal pad, leave it alone and just install it. If it's
    a piece of tape that goes over to the edge of the HS, it's probably a piece
    of tape to protect the pad. It should be pretty obvious if it's the
    protective kind of tape. Good thing with a P4, if you screw up this part,
    the chip just throttles itself back instead of burning up.
    --

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

    In article <2hv9n7Fgt4viU2@uni-berlin.de>, fotocord@yahoo.com
    says...
    > Johannes H Andersen wrote:
    >
    > > When I opened the box, I found a black piece of tape or whatever on the
    > > bottom of the heat sink. Is that part of the thermal material or should
    > > I remove it?
    > >
    > > I've also looked at Intel's site and downloaded a pdf on the thermal
    > > management and fitting, but found no instructions to remove the tape.
    > >
    >
    > Some come with "protective tape" over the thermal pad to protect it in
    > shipping. The instructions that come with the CPU should explain this in
    > detail. If this "tape" you're talking about is a small square then this is
    > probably just the thermal pad, leave it alone and just install it. If it's
    > a piece of tape that goes over to the edge of the HS, it's probably a piece
    > of tape to protect the pad. It should be pretty obvious if it's the
    > protective kind of tape.

    The Retail Opterons come with a hard plastic sheet over the
    bottom of the fansink to protect the goo. Seems to be an
    excellent solution.

    > Good thing with a P4, if you screw up this part,
    > the chip just throttles itself back instead of burning up.

    The P4 throttles in any case. ;-)

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

    "KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message

    > The P4 throttles in any case. ;-)

    That's still better than just turning. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
    ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Oops
    "Anthony Fremont"

    That's still better than just turning OFF. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
    >
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <vZuuc.36137$lY2.20474@fe1.texas.rr.com>,
    spam@anywhere.com says...
    > Oops
    > "Anthony Fremont"
    >
    > That's still better than just turning OFF. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

    You really ought to get with the 21st century, AF. P4 is dead.
    *dead*, *DEAD*, I tell you! ...just as I predicted some few
    years ago. ;-)

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

    KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
    > The P4 throttles in any case. ;-)

    I've been working on demonstrating/testing just this.
    What leads you to this conclusion?

    -- Robert author `cpuburn` http://pages.sbcglobal.net/redelm

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

    "KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1b2446e99325b56398992e@news1.news.adelphia.net...
    > In article <vZuuc.36137$lY2.20474@fe1.texas.rr.com>,
    > spam@anywhere.com says...
    > > Oops
    > > "Anthony Fremont"
    > >
    > > That's still better than just turning OFF. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
    >
    > You really ought to get with the 21st century, AF. P4 is dead.
    > *dead*, *DEAD*, I tell you! ...just as I predicted some few
    > years ago. ;-)

    Give it up Keith, Intel rules. Just go on over to Tom's Hardware and
    see for yourself. ;-)
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <ulvuc.36141$lY2.21335@fe1.texas.rr.com>,
    spam@anywhere.com says...
    >
    > "KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1b2446e99325b56398992e@news1.news.adelphia.net...
    > > In article <vZuuc.36137$lY2.20474@fe1.texas.rr.com>,
    > > spam@anywhere.com says...
    > > > Oops
    > > > "Anthony Fremont"
    > > >
    > > > That's still better than just turning OFF. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
    > >
    > > You really ought to get with the 21st century, AF. P4 is dead.
    > > *dead*, *DEAD*, I tell you! ...just as I predicted some few
    > > years ago. ;-)
    >
    > Give it up Keith, Intel rules. Just go on over to Tom's Hardware and
    > see for yourself. ;-)

    Hogwash! Opteron rulz. P4 is dead, *dead*, DEAD*! Intel got
    caught with their panties soiled, once again. Now, if I can get
    the last 10' of the cable from the upstairs bedroom to the wiring
    "closet" tomorrow... Then there is Linux to figr out.

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

    "KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote
    >I wrote:

    > > Give it up Keith, Intel rules. Just go on over to Tom's Hardware
    and
    > > see for yourself. ;-)
    >
    > Hogwash! Opteron rulz. P4 is dead, *dead*, DEAD*! Intel got
    > caught with their panties soiled, once again.

    Nah, you're fantasizing again, HT is king. ;-)

    > Now, if I can get
    > the last 10' of the cable from the upstairs bedroom to the wiring
    > "closet" tomorrow... Then there is Linux to figr out.

    It's about time you got with the program (Linux that is). Which flavor
    will you be using? I highly recommend Gentoo (www.gentoo.org) for the
    long haul. Of course if you really wish to get your hands dirty, you
    may want to do an LFS (www.linuxfromscratch.org) install just for grins.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <4yCuc.20475$4x2.15776@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
    spam@anywhere.com says...
    >
    > "KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote
    > >I wrote:
    >
    > > > Give it up Keith, Intel rules. Just go on over to Tom's Hardware
    > and
    > > > see for yourself. ;-)
    > >
    > > Hogwash! Opteron rulz. P4 is dead, *dead*, DEAD*! Intel got
    > > caught with their panties soiled, once again.
    >
    > Nah, you're fantasizing again, HT is king. ;-)

    HT is dead, *dead*, *DEAD*! (well, until the next attempt, anyway
    ;) and P4 has been canceled. ;-)

    > > Now, if I can get
    > > the last 10' of the cable from the upstairs bedroom to the wiring
    > > "closet" tomorrow... Then there is Linux to figr out.
    >
    > It's about time you got with the program (Linux that is). Which flavor
    > will you be using?

    SuSE 9.1

    > I highly recommend Gentoo (www.gentoo.org) for the
    > long haul. Of course if you really wish to get your hands dirty, you
    > may want to do an LFS (www.linuxfromscratch.org) install just for grins.

    I'm not a programmer type. I want a system that works, rather
    than one I have to keep fiddling with. Though I may install
    something else in another partition for play. I'm dumping Win
    because of it's licensing/registration/security (read that both
    ways) issues, not because I want to fiddle with the OS all day. I
    went with SuSE because I believe it has better AMD64 support. ;-)

    I installed SuSE late yesterday, but the monitor doesn't work
    (H.V refresh too high) after installation. It also complained
    about some other things (like no Internet found), so I'll retry
    after I get the last 10' of the pipe finished, likely this
    afternoon.

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

    Anthony Fremont wrote:
    >
    > "KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote
    > >I wrote:
    >
    > > > Give it up Keith, Intel rules. Just go on over to Tom's Hardware
    > and
    > > > see for yourself. ;-)
    > >
    > > Hogwash! Opteron rulz. P4 is dead, *dead*, DEAD*! Intel got
    > > caught with their panties soiled, once again.
    >
    > Nah, you're fantasizing again, HT is king. ;-)
    >
    > > Now, if I can get
    > > the last 10' of the cable from the upstairs bedroom to the wiring
    > > "closet" tomorrow... Then there is Linux to figr out.
    >
    > It's about time you got with the program (Linux that is). Which flavor
    > will you be using? I highly recommend Gentoo (www.gentoo.org) for the
    > long haul. Of course if you really wish to get your hands dirty, you
    > may want to do an LFS (www.linuxfromscratch.org) install just for grins.

    Thanks folks, didn't imagine that I would start a long thread. Found this
    however:

    http://support.intel.com/support/processors/sb/cs-005969-prd24.htm

    This should clear up the matter; I'll leave the black strip on.

    Done is done, I did also consider AMD but got a P4C 2.8/800. My choice
    however, was motivated by the Intel's dual channel memory and 800 fsb.
    I think this is more important than small differences in GHz. Notice
    that I picked the lowest GHz in currently available in this family.

    AMD also have dual channel versions, but that's the 940 socket family
    which costs more. Once this computer is up, I'll hardly notice the
    innards. Whatever you buy it will be obsolete tomorrow, but then I have
    work to do.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <40BB215B.122D5C60@sizefitter_spam_gets_fried.com>,
    johs@sizefitter_spam_gets_fried.com says...
    >
    >
    > Anthony Fremont wrote:
    > >
    > > "KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote
    > > >I wrote:
    > >
    > > > > Give it up Keith, Intel rules. Just go on over to Tom's Hardware
    > > and
    > > > > see for yourself. ;-)
    > > >
    > > > Hogwash! Opteron rulz. P4 is dead, *dead*, DEAD*! Intel got
    > > > caught with their panties soiled, once again.
    > >
    > > Nah, you're fantasizing again, HT is king. ;-)
    > >
    > > > Now, if I can get
    > > > the last 10' of the cable from the upstairs bedroom to the wiring
    > > > "closet" tomorrow... Then there is Linux to figr out.
    > >
    > > It's about time you got with the program (Linux that is). Which flavor
    > > will you be using? I highly recommend Gentoo (www.gentoo.org) for the
    > > long haul. Of course if you really wish to get your hands dirty, you
    > > may want to do an LFS (www.linuxfromscratch.org) install just for grins.
    >
    > Thanks folks, didn't imagine that I would start a long thread. Found this
    > however:
    >
    > http://support.intel.com/support/processors/sb/cs-005969-prd24.htm
    >
    > This should clear up the matter; I'll leave the black strip on.
    >
    > Done is done, I did also consider AMD but got a P4C 2.8/800. My choice
    > however, was motivated by the Intel's dual channel memory and 800 fsb.
    > I think this is more important than small differences in GHz. Notice
    > that I picked the lowest GHz in currently available in this family.
    >
    > AMD also have dual channel versions, but that's the 940 socket family
    > which costs more. Once this computer is up, I'll hardly notice the
    > innards. Whatever you buy it will be obsolete tomorrow, but then I have
    > work to do.

    A little more $$, sure. I decided add the $$ (go bare-bones
    elsewhere, for now) and skip the K7 family altogether. Note that
    AMD not only has dual-channel, but an integrated memory
    controller. Intel has to stuff memory accesses through the
    northbridge and system bus.

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

    "KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
    > spam@anywhere.com says...

    > > Nah, you're fantasizing again, HT is king. ;-)
    >
    > HT is dead, *dead*, *DEAD*! (well, until the next attempt, anyway
    > ;) and P4 has been canceled. ;-)

    No way, AMD will HAVE to implement multi-threading in some fashion
    sooner or later. Prolly later, like usual. ;-) BTW, Intel is coming
    out with their 64bit P4 in August AIUI.

    > > > Now, if I can get
    > > > the last 10' of the cable from the upstairs bedroom to the wiring
    > > > "closet" tomorrow... Then there is Linux to figr out.
    > >
    > > It's about time you got with the program (Linux that is). Which
    flavor
    > > will you be using?
    >
    > SuSE 9.1

    I've never installed SuSE, couldn't get past all that german. ;-) I
    started with Slackware in 1995, also done a few Redhat installs, an LFS,
    played with Knoppix, and completed a bunch of Gentoo setups. I now
    strictly use Gentoo for customer server setups. Installing or updating
    packages in Gentoo is way too easy.

    > > I highly recommend Gentoo (www.gentoo.org) for the
    > > long haul. Of course if you really wish to get your hands dirty,
    you
    > > may want to do an LFS (www.linuxfromscratch.org) install just for
    grins.
    >
    > I'm not a programmer type. I want a system that works, rather

    Then install Gentoo. I'm serious, it's a piece of cake. Emerge is the
    greatest thing since sliced bread. Just follow the step by step
    instructions to bootstrap your way up and then afterwards you'll know
    what you need to know to manage your system.

    > than one I have to keep fiddling with. Though I may install
    > something else in another partition for play. I'm dumping Win
    > because of it's licensing/registration/security (read that both

    Yeah, MS is clueless. But thanks to spyware, addware and virii, I keep
    myself pretty busy. ;-)

    > ways) issues, not because I want to fiddle with the OS all day. I
    > went with SuSE because I believe it has better AMD64 support. ;-)

    I really don't see how any one distribution can have better support, the
    kernel is the kernel is the..... The nice thing about Gentoo is that
    you can compile everything (kernel, libs, and apps) optimized for your
    CPU. The downside of that is you can't simply stick your hard-drive in
    another box (unless it's the same arch of course).

    > I installed SuSE late yesterday, but the monitor doesn't work
    > (H.V refresh too high) after installation. It also complained

    Post your XF86Config file and let me see what they've mangled in it.
    ;-) It could be that your monitor lied to the X server about its
    capabilities. It happens. Getting things like 3D acceleration to work
    can be a pain. Most Linux install problems are due to greedy
    manufacturers not supporting it and demanding NDA's before releasing
    hardware details. Once manufacturers get with the program, Linux should
    run away with the market since developers will be able to concentrate on
    the kernel and apps instead of spending all their time reverse
    engineering braindead hardware to create drivers. ;-)

    > about some other things (like no Internet found), so I'll retry
    > after I get the last 10' of the pipe finished, likely this
    > afternoon.

    Yeah, that last 10' can be a real bitch.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <Z2Iuc.20517$4x2.6768@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
    spam@anywhere.com says...
    >
    > "KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
    > > spam@anywhere.com says...
    >
    > > > Nah, you're fantasizing again, HT is king. ;-)
    > >
    > > HT is dead, *dead*, *DEAD*! (well, until the next attempt, anyway
    > > ;) and P4 has been canceled. ;-)
    >
    > No way, AMD will HAVE to implement multi-threading in some fashion
    > sooner or later. Prolly later, like usual. ;-) BTW, Intel is coming
    > out with their 64bit P4 in August AIUI.

    Seriously, multi-core chips are the next thing. HT isn't all
    that big of a win, at least as implemented.

    > > > > Now, if I can get
    > > > > the last 10' of the cable from the upstairs bedroom to the wiring
    > > > > "closet" tomorrow... Then there is Linux to figr out.
    > > >
    > > > It's about time you got with the program (Linux that is). Which
    > flavor
    > > > will you be using?
    > >
    > > SuSE 9.1
    >
    > I've never installed SuSE, couldn't get past all that german. ;-) I
    > started with Slackware in 1995, also done a few Redhat installs, an LFS,
    > played with Knoppix, and completed a bunch of Gentoo setups. I now
    > strictly use Gentoo for customer server setups. Installing or updating
    > packages in Gentoo is way too easy.

    No German. SuSE is owned by Novell.

    > > > I highly recommend Gentoo (www.gentoo.org) for the
    > > > long haul. Of course if you really wish to get your hands dirty,
    > you
    > > > may want to do an LFS (www.linuxfromscratch.org) install just for
    > grins.
    > >
    > > I'm not a programmer type. I want a system that works, rather
    >
    > Then install Gentoo. I'm serious, it's a piece of cake. Emerge is the
    > greatest thing since sliced bread. Just follow the step by step
    > instructions to bootstrap your way up and then afterwards you'll know
    > what you need to know to manage your system.

    I was specifically warned away from Gentoo but a colleague. BTW,
    he thought my choice of SuSE was the right one too (he uses
    Gentoo).

    > > than one I have to keep fiddling with. Though I may install
    > > something else in another partition for play. I'm dumping Win
    > > because of it's licensing/registration/security (read that both
    >
    > Yeah, MS is clueless. But thanks to spyware, addware and virii, I keep
    > myself pretty busy. ;-)

    ;-)

    > > ways) issues, not because I want to fiddle with the OS all day. I
    > > went with SuSE because I believe it has better AMD64 support. ;-)
    >
    > I really don't see how any one distribution can have better support, the
    > kernel is the kernel is the..... The nice thing about Gentoo is that
    > you can compile everything (kernel, libs, and apps) optimized for your
    > CPU. The downside of that is you can't simply stick your hard-drive in
    > another box (unless it's the same arch of course).

    Dunno, but SuSE is considered a front-runner in 64bit support.
    Port/compile/test with 64b? Dunno, I'm only going by what I've
    read.

    > > I installed SuSE late yesterday, but the monitor doesn't work
    > > (H.V refresh too high) after installation. It also complained
    >
    > Post your XF86Config file and let me see what they've mangled in it.
    > ;-) It could be that your monitor lied to the X server about its
    > capabilities. It happens. Getting things like 3D acceleration to work
    > can be a pain.

    You're likely right, though I didn't have the energy to dig
    through it last night. No 3D here. It's a pretty stock monitor
    graphics card setup (ViewSonic P95f + Matrox G550). I'll likely
    try it again after I move this machine upstairs (so I can go dual
    head).

    > Most Linux install problems are due to greedy
    > manufacturers not supporting it and demanding NDA's before releasing
    > hardware details. Once manufacturers get with the program, Linux should
    > run away with the market since developers will be able to concentrate on
    > the kernel and apps instead of spending all their time reverse
    > engineering braindead hardware to create drivers. ;-)

    SuSE claims to have been tested ("supports") the G550.

    > > about some other things (like no Internet found), so I'll retry
    > > after I get the last 10' of the pipe finished, likely this
    > > afternoon.
    >
    > Yeah, that last 10' can be a real bitch.

    Actually it's not bad, but RG-6 doesn't stretch that much. ;-)
    The hard part was the first 10' (through a wall between the
    dining room and family room up to the upstairs. This is just
    drilling down from the electrical closet (outside shed, sort of
    thing) to the basement (done). Next, a(nother) trip to the Home
    Despot for some 'F' and RJ45 parts. I thought I had everything,
    but I can't find 'em. :-(

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

    On Mon, 31 May 2004 12:10:38 -0400, KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
    >In article <Z2Iuc.20517$4x2.6768@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
    >spam@anywhere.com says...
    >> No way, AMD will HAVE to implement multi-threading in some fashion
    >> sooner or later. Prolly later, like usual. ;-) BTW, Intel is coming
    >> out with their 64bit P4 in August AIUI.
    >
    >Seriously, multi-core chips are the next thing. HT isn't all
    >that big of a win, at least as implemented.

    I like the idea of HT, it seems like a decent way to get some extra
    performance for a small transistor cost. However I'm not sure if it's
    really a big win. It certainly isn't for all cases, though I have
    seen some places where it bumps performance up by 20-25%. That's
    pretty respectable IMO.

    That being said, I'm REAL excited about future dual-core chips. I'm
    thinking that I'm going to ride my current system out until they
    arrive and upgrade then. I've got an AthlonXP 1700+ that is serving
    me pretty well, though some games are occasionally a bit slow and
    compiling stuff in Gentoo is slow as always.

    >> I've never installed SuSE, couldn't get past all that german. ;-) I
    >> started with Slackware in 1995, also done a few Redhat installs, an LFS,
    >> played with Knoppix, and completed a bunch of Gentoo setups. I now
    >> strictly use Gentoo for customer server setups. Installing or updating
    >> packages in Gentoo is way too easy.
    >
    >No German. SuSE is owned by Novell.

    They may be owned by Novell, but it's still pretty much a German
    thing. That being said, all the important scripts and instructions
    seem to have been well translated into English last time I looked into
    it (pre-Novell buyout).

    >> Then install Gentoo. I'm serious, it's a piece of cake. Emerge is the
    >> greatest thing since sliced bread. Just follow the step by step
    >> instructions to bootstrap your way up and then afterwards you'll know
    >> what you need to know to manage your system.
    >
    >I was specifically warned away from Gentoo but a colleague. BTW,
    >he thought my choice of SuSE was the right one too (he uses
    >Gentoo).

    As another user of Gentoo, I would also warn away from it. Gentoo is
    great for people who live and breath Linux as well as those who just
    like to play around with it. However, if you want a system that
    pretty much just works out of the box, it's not a very good choice.

    >> I really don't see how any one distribution can have better support, the
    >> kernel is the kernel is the..... The nice thing about Gentoo is that
    >> you can compile everything (kernel, libs, and apps) optimized for your
    >> CPU. The downside of that is you can't simply stick your hard-drive in
    >> another box (unless it's the same arch of course).
    >
    >Dunno, but SuSE is considered a front-runner in 64bit support.
    >Port/compile/test with 64b? Dunno, I'm only going by what I've
    >read.

    SuSE was the first to get their 64-bit system really up to par. From
    what I understand, these days RedHat, Gentoo and Mandrake (and maybe a
    few others) are all doing just fine with 64-bits as well. The 64-bit
    part itself was pretty straight-forward, most distributions already
    support some 64-bit architecture in some for or another (mostly old
    Alpha and/or SPARC, though some also support PPC 64-bit). Mostly it
    was just a straight recompile. The only tricky part was the bi-arch
    nature of AMD64 systems, getting them to work well with 32-bit x86
    binaries as well as the 64-bit x64-64 ones.

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

    Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >Johannes H Andersen wrote:
    >
    >> When I opened the box, I found a black piece of tape or whatever on the
    >> bottom of the heat sink. Is that part of the thermal material or should
    >> I remove it?
    >>
    >> I've also looked at Intel's site and downloaded a pdf on the thermal
    >> management and fitting, but found no instructions to remove the tape.
    >>
    >
    >Some come with "protective tape" over the thermal pad to protect it in
    >shipping.

    P4's don't, in my experience.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:

    >In article <vZuuc.36137$lY2.20474@fe1.texas.rr.com>,
    >spam@anywhere.com says...
    >> Oops
    >> "Anthony Fremont"
    >>
    >> That's still better than just turning OFF. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
    >
    >You really ought to get with the 21st century, AF. P4 is dead.
    >*dead*, *DEAD*, I tell you! ...just as I predicted some few
    >years ago. ;-)

    I think you predicted the same for USB, though... 8)
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Anthony Fremont" <spam@anywhere.com> wrote:

    >It's about time you got with the program (Linux that is). Which flavor
    >will you be using? I highly recommend Gentoo (www.gentoo.org) for the
    >long haul. Of course if you really wish to get your hands dirty, you
    >may want to do an LFS (www.linuxfromscratch.org) install just for grins.

    Crikey. Neither one of these is for the Linux neophite, eh? I've
    been playing with Fedora core 2 and I like it.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:

    >A little more $$, sure. I decided add the $$ (go bare-bones
    >elsewhere, for now) and skip the K7 family altogether. Note that
    >AMD not only has dual-channel, but an integrated memory
    >controller.

    AMD has dual channel for huge $$$, yes. Although it's also true that
    the Athlon doesn't have the thirst for bandwidth that the P$ does...
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:

    >I like the idea of HT, it seems like a decent way to get some extra
    >performance for a small transistor cost.

    I agree. It's obviously not as good as two CPU's, but it's also much
    cheaper than two CPU's.

    >(snip)
    >
    >As another user of Gentoo, I would also warn away from it. Gentoo is
    >great for people who live and breath Linux as well as those who just
    >like to play around with it. However, if you want a system that
    >pretty much just works out of the box, it's not a very good choice.

    Agreed. ALSO, anyone considering trying one of the new Linux's should
    be aware of a problem they have with dual-boot systems - that is, they
    don't work, as I learned the hard way 8(. I had Win2k, and
    installed Fedora on my secondary drive (installing Grub as my
    boot-loader), and Win2k would no longer boot.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <2g5nb097hh3ggl1en5vm7rdkhgm9k1m3lj@4ax.com>,
    hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca says...
    > On Mon, 31 May 2004 12:10:38 -0400, KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
    > >In article <Z2Iuc.20517$4x2.6768@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
    > >spam@anywhere.com says...
    > >> No way, AMD will HAVE to implement multi-threading in some fashion
    > >> sooner or later. Prolly later, like usual. ;-) BTW, Intel is coming
    > >> out with their 64bit P4 in August AIUI.
    > >
    > >Seriously, multi-core chips are the next thing. HT isn't all
    > >that big of a win, at least as implemented.
    >
    > I like the idea of HT, it seems like a decent way to get some extra
    > performance for a small transistor cost. However I'm not sure if it's
    > really a big win. It certainly isn't for all cases, though I have
    > seen some places where it bumps performance up by 20-25%. That's
    > pretty respectable IMO.

    Wunnerful ideas don't always translate into great products. The
    P4 is a perfect example. Wunnerfull, but not great.
    >
    > That being said, I'm REAL excited about future dual-core chips. I'm
    > thinking that I'm going to ride my current system out until they
    > arrive and upgrade then. I've got an AthlonXP 1700+ that is serving
    > me pretty well, though some games are occasionally a bit slow and
    > compiling stuff in Gentoo is slow as always.

    I skipped the K7 generation totally. My K6 still works tonight,
    thanks to a KVM. ;-) Games? Please! Perhaps something
    interesting, but I don't do 3D-shoot-em-ups. I've not seen a
    reason to go 3D. I've seen *many* to do excellent 2D though.


    > >> I've never installed SuSE, couldn't get past all that german. ;-) I
    > >> started with Slackware in 1995, also done a few Redhat installs, an LFS,
    > >> played with Knoppix, and completed a bunch of Gentoo setups. I now
    > >> strictly use Gentoo for customer server setups. Installing or updating
    > >> packages in Gentoo is way too easy.
    > >
    > >No German. SuSE is owned by Novell.
    >
    > They may be owned by Novell, but it's still pretty much a German
    > thing. That being said, all the important scripts and instructions
    > seem to have been well translated into English last time I looked into
    > it (pre-Novell buyout).

    Have you looked at 9.1? I'm still wondering about the warning
    message that I'm installing a 32bit OS on a 64bit machine.
    though. I want to start over, but it seems to be adamant that it
    knows better. ...perhaps that "German" thing? ;-)

    > >> Then install Gentoo. I'm serious, it's a piece of cake. Emerge is the
    > >> greatest thing since sliced bread. Just follow the step by step
    > >> instructions to bootstrap your way up and then afterwards you'll know
    > >> what you need to know to manage your system.
    > >
    > >I was specifically warned away from Gentoo but a colleague. BTW,
    > >he thought my choice of SuSE was the right one too (he uses
    > >Gentoo).
    >
    > As another user of Gentoo, I would also warn away from it. Gentoo is
    > great for people who live and breath Linux as well as those who just
    > like to play around with it. However, if you want a system that
    > pretty much just works out of the box, it's not a very good choice.

    That's what I've been told (obviously), by one who frequents both
    my office and this group. ;-)

    > >> I really don't see how any one distribution can have better support, the
    > >> kernel is the kernel is the..... The nice thing about Gentoo is that
    > >> you can compile everything (kernel, libs, and apps) optimized for your
    > >> CPU. The downside of that is you can't simply stick your hard-drive in
    > >> another box (unless it's the same arch of course).
    > >
    > >Dunno, but SuSE is considered a front-runner in 64bit support.
    > >Port/compile/test with 64b? Dunno, I'm only going by what I've
    > >read.
    >
    > SuSE was the first to get their 64-bit system really up to par. From
    > what I understand, these days RedHat, Gentoo and Mandrake (and maybe a
    > few others) are all doing just fine with 64-bits as well. The 64-bit
    > part itself was pretty straight-forward, most distributions already
    > support some 64-bit architecture in some for or another (mostly old
    > Alpha and/or SPARC, though some also support PPC 64-bit). Mostly it
    > was just a straight recompile. The only tricky part was the bi-arch
    > nature of AMD64 systems, getting them to work well with 32-bit x86
    > binaries as well as the 64-bit x64-64 ones.

    Hmmm. Is this why I'm getting the above *stupid* message? I do
    plan on reformatting everything and starting over. I still have
    this machine, at least until I get the CFO to buy into Linux.

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

    In article <iauob09t7vnqpel3ond50710qdmfqd6gqi@4ax.com>,
    chrisv@nospam.invalid says...
    > KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <vZuuc.36137$lY2.20474@fe1.texas.rr.com>,
    > >spam@anywhere.com says...
    > >> Oops
    > >> "Anthony Fremont"
    > >>
    > >> That's still better than just turning OFF. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
    > >
    > >You really ought to get with the 21st century, AF. P4 is dead.
    > >*dead*, *DEAD*, I tell you! ...just as I predicted some few
    > >years ago. ;-)
    >
    > I think you predicted the same for USB, though... 8)

    Yeah, I was never a fan of USB and have only recently bought any
    USB widgets (a still camera and printer, still in its box). How
    long did it take for USB to become usable? It's only in it's
    later incarnations is it even useful. If you remember my
    proposal was to simply use Ethernet for low speed connections
    (the infrastructure was already there) and Fire-Wire for the
    high end. Though apparently Apple mucked the latter possibility
    possibility up.

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

    On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 07:44:52 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
    wrote:
    >
    >KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
    >
    >>A little more $$, sure. I decided add the $$ (go bare-bones
    >>elsewhere, for now) and skip the K7 family altogether. Note that
    >>AMD not only has dual-channel, but an integrated memory
    >>controller.
    >
    >AMD has dual channel for huge $$$, yes.

    Not quite so huge, the 1xx series of Opteron chips are actually rather
    reasonably priced (I was quite surprised the last time I checked).
    They start at only a bit over $150 and even the some of the faster 146
    (1.8GHz) chips can be found for under $500. Expensive, yes, but in
    the same basic range as high-end P4 chips.

    Also, AMD just today announced their socket 939 Athlon64 chips which
    should bring dual-channel Athlon64s to the masses. (amazingly enough
    you can actually BUY the chips today too! albeit for a
    first-on-the-block premium).

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

    Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:

    >On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 07:44:52 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
    >wrote:
    >>
    >>KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
    >>
    >>>A little more $$, sure. I decided add the $$ (go bare-bones
    >>>elsewhere, for now) and skip the K7 family altogether. Note that
    >>>AMD not only has dual-channel, but an integrated memory
    >>>controller.
    >>
    >>AMD has dual channel for huge $$$, yes.
    >
    >Not quite so huge, the 1xx series of Opteron chips are actually rather
    >reasonably priced (I was quite surprised the last time I checked).
    >They start at only a bit over $150 and even the some of the faster 146
    >(1.8GHz) chips can be found for under $500. Expensive, yes, but in
    >the same basic range as high-end P4 chips.

    True. I was thinking of the FX chips, which are like $700. What the
    heck's the diff between an "opteron for workstations" and an FX?

    >Also, AMD just today announced their socket 939 Athlon64 chips which
    >should bring dual-channel Athlon64s to the masses. (amazingly enough
    >you can actually BUY the chips today too! albeit for a
    >first-on-the-block premium).

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

    Yep, even inside my Chieftec case.

    KR Williams wrote:
    >
    > The P4 throttles in any case. ;-)
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    My birthday is coming up. Hint, hint... :)

    KR Williams wrote:
    >
    > (a still camera and printer, still in its box).
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
    : On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 07:44:52 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
    : wrote:
    ::
    :: KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
    ::
    ::: A little more $$, sure. I decided add the $$ (go bare-bones
    ::: elsewhere, for now) and skip the K7 family altogether. Note that
    ::: AMD not only has dual-channel, but an integrated memory
    ::: controller.
    ::
    :: AMD has dual channel for huge $$$, yes.
    :
    : Not quite so huge, the 1xx series of Opteron chips are actually rather
    : reasonably priced (I was quite surprised the last time I checked).
    : They start at only a bit over $150 and even the some of the faster 146
    : (1.8GHz) chips can be found for under $500. Expensive, yes, but in
    : the same basic range as high-end P4 chips.
    :
    : Also, AMD just today announced their socket 939 Athlon64 chips which
    : should bring dual-channel Athlon64s to the masses. (amazingly enough
    : you can actually BUY the chips today too! albeit for a
    : first-on-the-block premium).

    Oh man, I'm there! I have been waiting (and waiting, and waiting.....)
    for this chipset (and the ensuing mobo) to come out for a while now.
    Think I'll be patient and wait a bit longer however, as I **hate** to be
    "first-on-the-block" with this kind of new technology.

    J.
    (/still drooling at the thought, though)
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    > KR Williams wrote:
    > >
    > > The P4 throttles in any case. ;-)

    "Walt" <NoSpamForWalt@Early.com> wrote in message
    news:40BDFD63.F25EB133@Early.com...
    > Yep, even inside my Chieftec case.

    How do you know it's throttling? Are you sure your video card isn't
    throttling? Is it a Northwood or Prescott?
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <40BDFE1D.76342B8C@Early.com>, NoSpamForWalt@Early.com
    says...
    > My birthday is coming up. Hint, hint... :)

    Nah, I had to move things upstairs into Brad's old room (he's
    "gone", though he's in town tonight). The printer was part of
    S' Christmas present to go with the camera, but I really had no
    place to put it (I did, but...). The scam worked and I now have
    a new machine, but now I'm getting grief because I want to dump
    Win. It'll still be there on the old system! ...just a few
    keystrokes away.


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

    chrisv wrote:

    > True. I was thinking of the FX chips, which are like $700. What the
    > heck's the diff between an "opteron for workstations" and an FX?
    >

    The Socket 940 FX differs from the Opty 1xx only in how it
    is marketed. The FX's also seem to be showing a trend of
    being in the stores a little earlier than an Opty 1xx of
    the same clock speed.

    When the Opty 150 and 250 first came out I did a little
    price checking: at some vendor web sites you could save
    $200 or more by getting an 2.4 GHz Opty 150 instead of a
    2.4 GHz FX. Wonder if that has been "corrected" yet ?
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:45:41 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
    wrote:
    >Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
    >>Not quite so huge, the 1xx series of Opteron chips are actually rather
    >>reasonably priced (I was quite surprised the last time I checked).
    >>They start at only a bit over $150 and even the some of the faster 146
    >>(1.8GHz) chips can be found for under $500. Expensive, yes, but in
    >>the same basic range as high-end P4 chips.
    >
    >True. I was thinking of the FX chips, which are like $700. What the
    >heck's the diff between an "opteron for workstations" and an FX?

    Main difference is the fancy printing on the box :>

    The Opteron and the socket 940 Athlon64 FX chips are otherwise
    identical if they're running at the same clock speed (ie the Athlon64
    FX 51 == Opteron 148 and Athlon64 FX == Opteron 150). In theory the
    FX chips have only 1 Hypertransport link while the Opterons have 3
    (though none are capable of being used in multiprocessor connections),
    but I've never seen any motherboards try to make use of this
    difference and I understand that the FX chips really do have all 3 HT
    connections working just fine.

    Of course, now with the new Socket 939 Athlon64 FX chips being
    announced they are going to be somewhat different. Still using the
    same die, but they will have a different pin-out.

    >>Also, AMD just today announced their socket 939 Athlon64 chips which
    >>should bring dual-channel Athlon64s to the masses. (amazingly enough
    >>you can actually BUY the chips today too! albeit for a
    >>first-on-the-block premium).
    >
    >Cool.

    Yup, combine that with the nForce 250 chipset arriving and the
    Athlon64 is finally starting to look like a rather attractive platform
    IMO.

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

    Tony Hill wrote:

    > On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:45:41 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Not quite so huge, the 1xx series of Opteron chips are actually rather
    >>>reasonably priced (I was quite surprised the last time I checked).
    >>>They start at only a bit over $150 and even the some of the faster 146
    >>>(1.8GHz) chips can be found for under $500. Expensive, yes, but in
    >>>the same basic range as high-end P4 chips.
    >>
    >>True. I was thinking of the FX chips, which are like $700. What the
    >>heck's the diff between an "opteron for workstations" and an FX?
    >
    >
    > Main difference is the fancy printing on the box :>
    >
    > The Opteron and the socket 940 Athlon64 FX chips are otherwise
    > identical if they're running at the same clock speed (ie the Athlon64
    > FX 51 == Opteron 148 and Athlon64 FX == Opteron 150). In theory the
    > FX chips have only 1 Hypertransport link while the Opterons have 3

    No. All of the Opty's and all of the FX's have 3 HT links.

    The Opty 1xx and the FX are identical except for the marketing.
    As well, you get different cpu fans with the retail box FX
    than you do with a retail boxed Opty 1xx. There also seems to
    be a little anecdotal evidence that the FX is more overclockable -
    assuming, of course, that you don't consider "anecdotal evidence"
    to be an oxymoron.

    What sets the Opty 1xx/FX, 2xx and 8xx apart is the number of coherent
    HT links there are. 1xx and FX have no coherent and 3 noncoherent.
    2xx has 1 coherent and 2 NC. 8xx have 3 coherent and zero NC.
    Coherent can be used for anything. NC cannot be used for interproc
    links.

    > (though none are capable of being used in multiprocessor connections),
    > but I've never seen any motherboards try to make use of this
    > difference and I understand that the FX chips really do have all 3 HT
    > connections working just fine.
    >
    > Of course, now with the new Socket 939 Athlon64 FX chips being
    > announced they are going to be somewhat different. Still using the
    > same die, but they will have a different pin-out.
    >
    >
    >>>Also, AMD just today announced their socket 939 Athlon64 chips which
    >>>should bring dual-channel Athlon64s to the masses. (amazingly enough
    >>>you can actually BUY the chips today too! albeit for a
    >>>first-on-the-block premium).
    >>
    >>Cool.
    >
    >
    > Yup, combine that with the nForce 250 chipset arriving and the
    > Athlon64 is finally starting to look like a rather attractive platform
    > IMO.
    >
    > -------------
    > Tony Hill
    > hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
    > a new machine, but now I'm getting grief because I want to dump
    > Win. It'll still be there on the old system! ...just a few
    > keystrokes away.

    One word: KVM.

    Iomega make a really cute 2 port with attached siamesed cables.

    -- Robert

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

    In article <76yvc.2218$oW3.1468@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
    redelm@ev1.net.invalid says...
    > KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
    > > a new machine, but now I'm getting grief because I want to dump
    > > Win. It'll still be there on the old system! ...just a few
    > > keystrokes away.
    >
    > One word: KVM.

    Well, that's sorta the reason the old system (this one) *is*
    "just a few keystrokes away". ...and the only way I can post
    here. KNode refuses to allow me to post articles (though I can
    read all day). ...most frustrating.

    > Iomega make a really cute 2 port with attached siamesed cables.

    I went with a 2-port Belkin, mainly because I got a good deal. I
    don't like the attached cables. I've heard some monitors have
    problems with them.

    --
    Keith
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs