Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

P4 retail box thermal material?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 30, 2004 9:22:07 PM

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".
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 30, 2004 9:22:08 PM

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.
May 30, 2004 11:44:52 PM

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
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2004 12:00:39 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2004 4:24:58 AM

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. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2004 4:27:07 AM

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

Oops
"Anthony Fremont"

That's still better than just turning OFF. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2004 4:27:08 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2004 4:38:52 AM

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

>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2004 4:52:42 AM

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. ;-)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2004 4:52:43 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2004 1:04:00 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2004 2:37:20 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2004 5:13:15 PM

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-00596...

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2004 5:13:16 PM

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-00596...
>
> 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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2004 7:20:25 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2004 7:20:26 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2004 2:09:08 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2004 11:40:35 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2004 11:41:10 AM

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)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2004 11:43:07 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2004 11:44:52 AM

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...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2004 11:51:29 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2004 6:28:35 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2004 7:01:42 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2004 11:11:52 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 2, 2004 11:45:41 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 2, 2004 4:16:35 PM

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. ;-)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 2, 2004 4:19:41 PM

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).
June 2, 2004 6:42:05 PM

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)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 2, 2004 9:39:14 PM

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?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 3, 2004 1:23:53 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 3, 2004 4:19:29 AM

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 ?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 3, 2004 5:43:34 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 3, 2004 5:43:35 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 3, 2004 8:50:11 AM

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

>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 6, 2004 11:56:43 PM

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
!