Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RDRam

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 10, 2004 9:32:59 AM

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

I have a PC with an Asus P4-TE mobo. Right now I have 2 Rimms, each 256. My
manual shows that the board can handle 2 GB of memory.

The manual does not say that the memory must be added in pairs but I seem to
have read that and it sticks in the back of my mind. The manual also does
not tell me if the memory I have is ECC or not. Would some kind soul tell me
if I can add two 512's to the two 256's I have or a 512 & 256 or must I add
2 more two 256's.

Computer builder has been slow in responding so I thought someone here could
help

Thank you.

Diane

More about : rdram

December 10, 2004 9:05:03 PM

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

"Diane" <phonyaddress@invaliddomain.com> wrote :

> Would some kind soul tell me if I can add two 512's to the two
> 256's I have or a 512 & 256 or must I add 2 more two 256's.

just dump this board with rimms and buy something normal


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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 10, 2004 10:35:21 PM

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

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 06:32:59 -0500, "Diane"
<phonyaddress@invaliddomain.com> wrote:

>I have a PC with an Asus P4-TE mobo. Right now I have 2 Rimms, each 256. My
>manual shows that the board can handle 2 GB of memory.
>
>The manual does not say that the memory must be added in pairs but I seem to
>have read that and it sticks in the back of my mind. The manual also does
>not tell me if the memory I have is ECC or not. Would some kind soul tell me
>if I can add two 512's to the two 256's I have or a 512 & 256 or must I add
>2 more two 256's.

I don't recall the rules on DRDRAM but the chipset is certainly dual
channel and according to NewEgg's product listings "all 16-bit RDRAM must
be used in pairs". Also check the manual here:
http://usa.asus.com/mb/socket478/p4t-e/overview.htm

Have a look at the modules you have to see if they're labeled ECC.

>Computer builder has been slow in responding so I thought someone here could
>help

He's probably slow because the stuff is expensive (about 2-3 times price of
similar sized DDR-DRAM) and scarce to get what you might need: the only
512MBs NewEgg has are non-ECC; for 265MB they seem to have both. For a bit
more than the price of two 256MB RIMMs and a lot less than two 512MB, you
could get a decent i865 mbrd
(http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti...
or
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti...)
and two sticks of 512MB DDR400-DRAM:
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti...

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 10, 2004 10:48:38 PM

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

I don't own a system that uses Rambus memory, but...

P4 Rambus machines require that the memory be installed in pairs. (There was
a form of Rambus memory that was essentially a pair in a single package, but
you have the regular 16 bit version.) I believe that the pairs can be of
different capacity, so it'd be OK to add a pair of 512 MB RIMMs. I normally
seek memory guidance at www.crucial.com, but they don't sell Rambus memory.

As the P4T-E can use ECC or non-ECC memory, I suggest that you use a utility
to tell which sort is installed. (CPU-Z is a small one:
http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php .) You may be able to mix ECC and non-ECC, if
you turn off ECC in the system's BIOS.

Out of curiosity, I checked prices at www.newegg.com. It appears that 512 MB
PC800 RIMMs are over $200 (US) each. You could pick up an Asus P4P800SE
mainboard for about $100, and a pair of 512 MB PC3200 DIMMs (1 GB total) for
less than $150. A 2.4 GHz "Northwood" CPU (800 MHz FSB) costs less than
$150, in the full retail package. For about the cost of 1 GB of RIMMs, you
could upgrade to a faster DDR system, with 1 GB or RAM. (This is a little
disingenuous, as I neglect the value of the labor to do the upgrade.
Swapping mainboards is a lot more work than inserting new memory.) I mention
this to show that another poster's response wasn't quite as impertinent as
it might have seemed.

(Socket 478 and DDR are on the way out. Intel is now pushing Socket T, also
known as LGA 775, and DDR2 memory. I believe that the Socket T CPUs aren't
much more expensive than their Socket 478 equivalents, but DDR2 is still
pricey.)

I hope that you are happy with your choice.

Address scrambled. Replace nkbob with bobkn.

"Diane" <phonyaddress@invaliddomain.com> wrote in message
news:10rj2blbh8hfe3@corp.supernews.com...
>I have a PC with an Asus P4-TE mobo. Right now I have 2 Rimms, each 256.
>My manual shows that the board can handle 2 GB of memory.
>
> The manual does not say that the memory must be added in pairs but I seem
> to have read that and it sticks in the back of my mind. The manual also
> does not tell me if the memory I have is ECC or not. Would some kind soul
> tell me if I can add two 512's to the two 256's I have or a 512 & 256 or
> must I add 2 more two 256's.
>
> Computer builder has been slow in responding so I thought someone here
> could help
>
> Thank you.
>
> Diane
>
>
December 11, 2004 8:55:20 AM

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

"Bob Knowlden" <nkbob@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:31uufcF3hmkq8U1@individual.net...
>I don't own a system that uses Rambus memory, but...
>

<<SNIP>>

> (Socket 478 and DDR are on the way out. Intel is now pushing Socket T,
> also known as LGA 775, and DDR2 memory. I believe that the Socket T CPUs
> aren't much more expensive than their Socket 478 equivalents, but DDR2 is
> still pricey.)
>
> I hope that you are happy with your choice.
>
> Address scrambled. Replace nkbob with bobkn.
>

Thanks for your comprehensive answer. I did notice as I was searching around
for memory, that the chips were costly and hard to find. My PC was custom
made and I have been very pleased with its performance. 3 yr warranty runs
out in March and your suggestion about upgrading makes economical sense.

I didn't have a clue about Rambus memory when I bought this PC, but one
learns something new everyday...<<sigh>>. Thanks again.

Diane
December 11, 2004 1:15:22 PM

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

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 05:55:20 -0500, Diane wrote:

>
> "Bob Knowlden" <nkbob@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:31uufcF3hmkq8U1@individual.net...
>>I don't own a system that uses Rambus memory, but...
>>
>
> <<SNIP>>
>
>> (Socket 478 and DDR are on the way out. Intel is now pushing Socket T,
>> also known as LGA 775, and DDR2 memory. I believe that the Socket T CPUs
>> aren't much more expensive than their Socket 478 equivalents, but DDR2 is
>> still pricey.)
>>
>> I hope that you are happy with your choice.
>>
>> Address scrambled. Replace nkbob with bobkn.
>>
>
> Thanks for your comprehensive answer. I did notice as I was searching around
> for memory, that the chips were costly and hard to find. My PC was custom
> made and I have been very pleased with its performance. 3 yr warranty runs
> out in March and your suggestion about upgrading makes economical sense.

If it was custom built, you *should* (doesn't always work) be able to
simply replace the processor/motherboard, and memory and keep the rest of
your installation (hardware and software).

> I didn't have a clue about Rambus memory when I bought this PC, but one
> learns something new everyday...<<sigh>>. Thanks again.

You should have dropped in here three years ago. You would have learned
more about the law firm of RamBus, ShamBus, and ScamBus than you ever
wanted to know. ;-)

--
Keith
December 12, 2004 12:31:32 AM

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

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:05:03 +0000 (UTC), RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl>
wrote:

>"Diane" <phonyaddress@invaliddomain.com> wrote :
>
>> Would some kind soul tell me if I can add two 512's to the two
>> 256's I have or a 512 & 256 or must I add 2 more two 256's.
>
>just dump this board with rimms and buy something normal
>
>
>Pozdrawiam.
And while you are at it, dump the P4 altogether. A64 provides much
better value AND performance. Thar old P4 board definitely is not
worth the memory upgrade since it still will be an old P4 system.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 12, 2004 12:49:11 AM

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

Rambus wasn't necessarily a mistake at the time. However, it turned into a
dead end technology.

Take what you hear about Rambus memory with a little skepticism. The company
is widely hated, as they are an intellectual property house (they make
little or no hardware). They launched several lawsuits, which appeared to
many to be extortionate. Also, there was a PIII chipset for RIMMs that gave
worse performance than PC133 SDRAM, although Rambus memory cost a lot more
than SDRAM. The PIII version was single channel, so the dual-channel P4 was
much better. The damage to the reputation of Rambus memory was already done,
though.

Count yourself lucky. Some of my co-workers have Dell Optiplex GX240
machines. These are P4s that use PC133 SDRAM. With a 1.7 GHz P4, one of
those is slower (at least for floating point number crunching) than the
Optiplex GX150 on my desk, which uses a 1 GHz PIII (and PC133 SDRAM ). I
don't know whether to blame Dell or Intel, as the machines use a genuine
Intel chipset. About the only good thing I can say about that combination is
that it wasn't on the market long.

Bob Kn.

"Diane" <phonyaddress@invaliddomain.com> wrote in message
news:10rlkh1748g5d93@corp.supernews.com...
>
(snip)
> I didn't have a clue about Rambus memory when I bought this PC, but one
> learns something new everyday...<<sigh>>. Thanks again.
>
> Diane
>
>
>
December 12, 2004 1:54:54 AM

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

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 21:49:11 -0500, Bob Knowlden wrote:

> Rambus wasn't necessarily a mistake at the time. However, it turned into a
> dead end technology.

Oh, good grief! The techies here even said it was dead meat before it was
shipped. It was annother "good idea" that wasn't.

> Take what you hear about Rambus memory with a little skepticism. The
> company is widely hated, as they are an intellectual property house
> (they make little or no hardware).

....not to mention that it did nothing for the end-user. It has been
forever a solution looking for a problem. Its "benefits" (few as they
are) have never come close to balancing its deficits.

> They launched several lawsuits, which
> appeared to many to be extortionate. Also, there was a PIII chipset for
> RIMMs that gave worse performance than PC133 SDRAM, although Rambus
> memory cost a lot more than SDRAM. The PIII version was single channel,
> so the dual-channel P4 was much better. The damage to the reputation of
> Rambus memory was already done, though.

Not to mention that DDR SDRAM was right around the corner. Dual=channel
DDR shortly after. The issue was never bandwidth, which is easily
handled. DRDRAM never delivered on *latency*. The fact is that it was
*another* technology backed by Intel to try to segment the market. Once
again, they fell flat on their face.

> Count yourself lucky. Some of my co-workers have Dell Optiplex GX240
> machines. These are P4s that use PC133 SDRAM. With a 1.7 GHz P4, one of
> those is slower (at least for floating point number crunching) than the
> Optiplex GX150 on my desk, which uses a 1 GHz PIII (and PC133 SDRAM ). I
> don't know whether to blame Dell or Intel, as the machines use a genuine
> Intel chipset. About the only good thing I can say about that
> combination is that it wasn't on the market long.

At least one can buy PC133 DRAM at a reasonable price. This was never
even the intention behind ScamBus memory.

--
Keith
December 12, 2004 3:27:26 AM

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

keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
: On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 05:55:20 -0500, Diane wrote:
:
::
:: "Bob Knowlden" <nkbob@comcast.net> wrote in message
:: news:31uufcF3hmkq8U1@individual.net...
::: I don't own a system that uses Rambus memory, but...
:::
::
:: <<SNIP>>
::
::: (Socket 478 and DDR are on the way out. Intel is now pushing
::: Socket T, also known as LGA 775, and DDR2 memory. I believe that
::: the Socket T CPUs aren't much more expensive than their Socket
::: 478 equivalents, but DDR2 is still pricey.)
:::
::: I hope that you are happy with your choice.
:::
::: Address scrambled. Replace nkbob with bobkn.
:::
::
:: Thanks for your comprehensive answer. I did notice as I was
:: searching around for memory, that the chips were costly and hard
:: to find. My PC was custom made and I have been very pleased with
:: its performance. 3 yr warranty runs out in March and your
:: suggestion about upgrading makes economical sense.
:
: If it was custom built, you *should* (doesn't always work) be able
: to simply replace the processor/motherboard, and memory and keep
: the rest of your installation (hardware and software).
:
:: I didn't have a clue about Rambus memory when I bought this PC,
:: but one learns something new everyday...<<sigh>>. Thanks again.
:
: You should have dropped in here three years ago. You would have
: learned more about the law firm of RamBus, ShamBus, and ScamBus
: than you ever wanted to know. ;-)

Really, must we open then door once again to the likes of "Tim Sullivan" /
"John Corse" etc.? Humph!

j.
December 12, 2004 3:27:27 AM

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

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 00:27:26 +0100, jack wrote:

> keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> : On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 05:55:20 -0500, Diane wrote:
> :
> ::
> :: "Bob Knowlden" <nkbob@comcast.net> wrote in message
> :: news:31uufcF3hmkq8U1@individual.net...
> ::: I don't own a system that uses Rambus memory, but...
> :::
> ::
> :: <<SNIP>>
> ::
> ::: (Socket 478 and DDR are on the way out. Intel is now pushing
> ::: Socket T, also known as LGA 775, and DDR2 memory. I believe that
> ::: the Socket T CPUs aren't much more expensive than their Socket
> ::: 478 equivalents, but DDR2 is still pricey.)
> :::
> ::: I hope that you are happy with your choice.
> :::
> ::: Address scrambled. Replace nkbob with bobkn.
> :::
> ::
> :: Thanks for your comprehensive answer. I did notice as I was
> :: searching around for memory, that the chips were costly and hard
> :: to find. My PC was custom made and I have been very pleased with
> :: its performance. 3 yr warranty runs out in March and your
> :: suggestion about upgrading makes economical sense.
> :
> : If it was custom built, you *should* (doesn't always work) be able
> : to simply replace the processor/motherboard, and memory and keep
> : the rest of your installation (hardware and software).
> :
> :: I didn't have a clue about Rambus memory when I bought this PC,
> :: but one learns something new everyday...<<sigh>>. Thanks again.
> :
> : You should have dropped in here three years ago. You would have
> : learned more about the law firm of RamBus, ShamBus, and ScamBus
> : than you ever wanted to know. ;-)
>
> Really, must we open then door once again to the likes of "Tim Sullivan" /
> "John Corse" etc.? Humph!

Sure. L'il Timmy has to make a living somehow! How else than pump-n-dump? ;-)

--
Keith
December 12, 2004 8:06:35 AM

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

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 21:49:11 -0500, "Bob Knowlden" <nkbob@comcast.net>
wrote:

....snip...
>Count yourself lucky. Some of my co-workers have Dell Optiplex GX240
>machines. These are P4s that use PC133 SDRAM. With a 1.7 GHz P4, one of
>those is slower (at least for floating point number crunching) than the
>Optiplex GX150 on my desk, which uses a 1 GHz PIII (and PC133 SDRAM ). I
>don't know whether to blame Dell or Intel, as the machines use a genuine
>Intel chipset. About the only good thing I can say about that combination is
>that it wasn't on the market long.
>
>Bob Kn.
....snip...
>
Count yourself - and your co-workers - lucky. I recently finished a
project for one company where us developers (both employees and
consultants) had to put up with some 4 year old P3-866. It was quite
an achievement when we persuaded the management that these clunkers
needed at least memory upgrade to HUGE (by company standard) 512 MB
(and this for .NET development!) from then-current 128. And nothing
better than old fading 17" monitors. Of course secretary's desk
sported brand new P4 with HT (presumably at least 2.4) and 19" display
- probably to increase her speed of typing in MS Word.
December 12, 2004 1:15:21 PM

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

"nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tpjnr0d628vsb461hor3ho44ok022grs69@4ax.com...

<snip!>

> Count yourself - and your co-workers - lucky. I recently finished a
> project for one company where us developers (both employees and
> consultants) had to put up with some 4 year old P3-866. It was quite
> an achievement when we persuaded the management that these clunkers
> needed at least memory upgrade to HUGE (by company standard) 512 MB
> (and this for .NET development!) from then-current 128. And nothing
> better than old fading 17" monitors. Of course secretary's desk
> sported brand new P4 with HT (presumably at least 2.4) and 19" display
> - probably to increase her speed of typing in MS Word.

Sigh.

You've just described my work PC. It's got 384Mb only because I chucked a
256Mb DIMM
in there myself. Everyone knows that Win2K works just peachy with 128Mb of
RAM. You
forgot to mention those ultra-zippy 5400RPM, 6Gb drives in those old
boxes...

Don't pick on the secretary too much - at least s/he uses the machine to do
something. Our
PC techs sitting there with schpankity new P4's with all the goodies just to
run MS Outlook
are what get to me ...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 12, 2004 11:32:24 PM

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

In article <321pteF3dgj4kU1@individual.net>, Bob Knowlden
<nkbob@comcast.net> writes

>Some of my co-workers have Dell Optiplex GX240
>machines. These are P4s that use PC133 SDRAM. With a 1.7 GHz P4, one of
>those is slower (at least for floating point number crunching) than the
>Optiplex GX150 on my desk, which uses a 1 GHz PIII (and PC133 SDRAM ). I
>don't know whether to blame Dell or Intel, as the machines use a genuine
>Intel chipset.

These will presumably be the ones with the buggy Intel MTH (Memory
Translator Hub) which allowed the i820 chipset to use SDRAM at the
expense of performance.

--
..sigmonster on vacation
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 12, 2004 11:32:25 PM

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

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 20:32:24 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
<mike@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote:

>In article <321pteF3dgj4kU1@individual.net>, Bob Knowlden
><nkbob@comcast.net> writes
>
>>Some of my co-workers have Dell Optiplex GX240
>>machines. These are P4s that use PC133 SDRAM. With a 1.7 GHz P4, one of
>>those is slower (at least for floating point number crunching) than the
>>Optiplex GX150 on my desk, which uses a 1 GHz PIII (and PC133 SDRAM ). I
>>don't know whether to blame Dell or Intel, as the machines use a genuine
>>Intel chipset.
>
>These will presumably be the ones with the buggy Intel MTH (Memory
>Translator Hub) which allowed the i820 chipset to use SDRAM at the
>expense of performance.

The Optiplex GX150 uses the i815E chipset and the Optiplex GX240 uses
the i845 chipset. Both straight SDRAM controllers, no RDRAM or MTH's
involved. There were actually very few PCs ever built using that MTH
chip; I don't know if any of Dell's Optiplex line ever used them.
Compaq definitely never used such a setup in their Deskpro or Evo line
and I don't think HP did in their Vectra or Kayak lines either.

Mostly those buggy chips only found their way into the much more
price-conscious (and less reliable) consumer grade systems. Even
there they were pretty rare since most people opted for VIA chipsets
for such systems instead (at that time VIA had a larger share of the
chipset market than Intel did).


The real problem with that Dell GX240 system was that the P4 and SDRAM
just didn't mix well and the i845 wasn't all that great of a chipset.
It was reliable enough, which is why it was fairly widely used, but
until the second or third revision the performance was pretty weak.
Not only did this chip just not have enough bandwidth to keep the P4
well fed, the latency on the memory wasn't all that hot either. When
it came out, DDR was already available for the P4 from VIA and others,
making the first i845 chips rather uninteresting. On the upside, it
didn't last that long before being replaced by the DDR-capable i845
which improved performance significantly. Variations of that updated
chipset are still being sold today in bargain-basement systems.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 13, 2004 6:04:07 AM

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

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 21:49:11 -0500, "Bob Knowlden" <nkbob@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Rambus wasn't necessarily a mistake at the time. However, it turned into a
>dead end technology.
>
>Take what you hear about Rambus memory with a little skepticism. The company
>is widely hated, as they are an intellectual property house (they make
>little or no hardware).

They make no hardware at all... other than a few prototype -- proof of
concept if you like -- chips which are obviously foundried. The hate is
more due to the high ratio of lawyers they employ and contract... plus the
hint that one of the principals appeared to jump ship before a university
could get its hands on the patents. One *does* wonder though: who was the
sponsor of the original research??

> They launched several lawsuits, which appeared to
>many to be extortionate.

It *was* extortionate - the courts have reduced the infingement count to be
tried at the next trial from 54 to 4(I think those numbers are right?).
All this angst over 4 dubious patents is absurd.

Make no mistake here - the entire industry narrowly escaped being held up
for ransom by a nest of shyster lawyers. When they were at the muscle
flexing stage, they had declared that they would go after every DDR
interface on the planet: FSBs, IDE-UDMA, SATA, AGP etc. etc.... all were to
be subjected to licensing. You couldn't use a countdown register or a DLL
without submitting to their inspection.

In case you hadn't noticed, they currently have their attention on a
hi-jack of the PCI-Express connection interface. IOW it ain't over yet and
the industry may yet find itself subjected to legal wrangling... if
Infineon loses the next round and then Micron capitulates, prepare to bend
over at the waist.

> Also, there was a PIII chipset for RIMMs that gave
>worse performance than PC133 SDRAM, although Rambus memory cost a lot more
>than SDRAM. The PIII version was single channel, so the dual-channel P4 was
>much better. The damage to the reputation of Rambus memory was already done,
>though.

The i820 was a dog, the i840 showed a slight advantage on AGP "long
transfers", which hardly any software ever used and which was withdrawn
from the specs for AGP 3.0 anyway.

FWIW, and counter to the apportioning of blame to MTH, here's one of the
more interesting articles related to DRDRAM, Rambus and Intel:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/electronicnews/index.as....
Note the comments on (negative) timing margins. A disgruntled
ex-employee?... perhaps but how many err, gruntled ex-employees are there
and recall the reduction of the RIMM count and the aborted rollout of
(non-MTH) DRDRAM mbrds in Sep '99.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 13, 2004 11:54:30 AM

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

"jack" <jack@ibm.com> wrote:

>: You should have dropped in here three years ago. You would have
>: learned more about the law firm of RamBus, ShamBus, and ScamBus
>: than you ever wanted to know. ;-)
>
>Really, must we open then door once again to the likes of "Tim Sullivan" /
>"John Corse" etc.? Humph!

Don't forget RayO and Chris Pitzel, who also disappeared right about
the same time DRDRAM did. 8)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 13, 2004 10:21:41 PM

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

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:51:45 -0500, Tony Hill

>Mostly those buggy chips only found their way into the much more
>price-conscious (and less reliable) consumer grade systems.

Not sure about that - here, the i820 never did fall into affordability
before the scandal blew up. I stayed with the venerable i440BX in
those days, even if it required a slotket card; then when 815 and 815e
came out, I jumped over to that as native S370.

I haven't seen or sold a single i820, tho I built one i850 for a big
multimedia dev system.

>The real problem with that Dell GX240 system was that the P4 and SDRAM
>just didn't mix well and the i845 wasn't all that great of a chipset.
>It was reliable enough, which is why it was fairly widely used, but
>until the second or third revision the performance was pretty weak.

It wasn't long after i845 that the i845G came out, which was
DDR-based, and I switched to that. I think I built about 3 pre-DDR
SDRAM-based P4 systems; I don't remember them being slow.

>didn't last that long before being replaced by the DDR-capable i845
>which improved performance significantly. Variations of that updated
>chipset are still being sold today in bargain-basement systems.

Yep; first the i845D, then the G with SVGA + AGP.



>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
The most accurate diagnostic instrument
in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 13, 2004 10:21:42 PM

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

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:21:41 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"
<cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:51:45 -0500, Tony Hill
>
>>Mostly those buggy chips only found their way into the much more
>>price-conscious (and less reliable) consumer grade systems.
>
>Not sure about that - here, the i820 never did fall into affordability
>before the scandal blew up.

Perhaps I should have said "price-conscious and buzzword happy"
consume grade systems. Dell sold a few of those as their "high-end"
systems because they had the latest and greatest chipset from Intel.
for a time it was also the ONLY Intel chipset that support PC133
memory, and since Dell was locked in to their standard
nothing-but-Intel deal, they didn't have the option of using the much
faster VIA chipsets like everyone else did.

> I stayed with the venerable i440BX in
>those days, even if it required a slotket card; then when 815 and 815e
>came out, I jumped over to that as native S370.

That's what a lot of people did, though many others started using VIA
chipsets instead as they offered better performance and a MUCH better
price than anything Intel had.

>I haven't seen or sold a single i820, tho I built one i850 for a big
>multimedia dev system.

I remember one friend had an i820 system with the MTH chips and SDRAM.
Piece of junk. I never ran into any troubles with the memory, but the
first few revisions of the i8xx drivers were terrible and caused all
kinds of troubles. It wasn't until around the time of the i815
chipset that Intel finally got their drivers in order, and the result
was a rather respectable chipset.

>>The real problem with that Dell GX240 system was that the P4 and SDRAM
>>just didn't mix well and the i845 wasn't all that great of a chipset.
>>It was reliable enough, which is why it was fairly widely used, but
>>until the second or third revision the performance was pretty weak.
>
>It wasn't long after i845 that the i845G came out, which was
>DDR-based, and I switched to that. I think I built about 3 pre-DDR
>SDRAM-based P4 systems; I don't remember them being slow.

"Slow" is, of course, a relative term. 10% slower than other P4
systems doesn't seem like much if you're comparing it to a PII 300MHz
box. However, when compared to the top-end PIII systems being sold at
that time, running at 1.0GHz with the i815E chipset, the performance
was nothing to get excited about. The 1.0GHz PIII systems were often
as fast or faster than the 1.5 and 1.6GHz P4s, let alone the slower
1.3 and 1.4GHz boxes.

>>didn't last that long before being replaced by the DDR-capable i845
>>which improved performance significantly. Variations of that updated
>>chipset are still being sold today in bargain-basement systems.
>
>Yep; first the i845D, then the G with SVGA + AGP.

And now the i845GV, which is basically the same as the G but without
AGP. This is the one that you will find on many low-end Celeron
systems, though it's being replaced now with either the i865GL or the
new i910GL. You can still find it in, for example, HPaq's Pavilion
a700y or their Presario SR1010V.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
December 14, 2004 12:39:14 AM

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

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:54:30 -0600, chrisv wrote:

> "jack" <jack@ibm.com> wrote:
>
>>: You should have dropped in here three years ago. You would have
>>: learned more about the law firm of RamBus, ShamBus, and ScamBus
>>: than you ever wanted to know. ;-)
>>
>>Really, must we open then door once again to the likes of "Tim Sullivan" /
>>"John Corse" etc.? Humph!
>
> Don't forget RayO and Chris Pitzel, who also disappeared right about
> the same time DRDRAM did. 8)

But to be fair to jack@ibm.com (hmm), Timmy keeps comming back to
pump every time RMBS gets a little good news.

--
Keith
December 14, 2004 12:50:18 AM

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

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:21:41 +0200, cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:51:45 -0500, Tony Hill
>
>>Mostly those buggy chips only found their way into the much more
>>price-conscious (and less reliable) consumer grade systems.
>
> Not sure about that - here, the i820 never did fall into affordability
> before the scandal blew up.

Chris, you must admit that you're not exactly in the center of the PC
universe. Perhaps you mean before *you* heard the ex(im)plosion?
The scandal was hot and on the front-burner well before Intel shipped
chipset one. DRDRAM was the wrong idea at the wrong time. Trying to
corner the memory market (and others) using extortion didn't help the
minimal technical case any at all.

> I stayed with the venerable i440BX in
> those days, even if it required a slotket card; then when 815 and 815e
> came out, I jumped over to that as native S370.

The 440BX was an excellent chipset (the last of the Intel goodies). I had
several systems with 'em. The last one (ASUS with integrated SCSI-UW) is
cluttering my office, waiting to be thrown into the dumpster (minus
keyboard ;-).
>
> I haven't seen or sold a single i820, tho I built one i850 for a big
> multimedia dev system.
>
>>The real problem with that Dell GX240 system was that the P4 and SDRAM
>>just didn't mix well and the i845 wasn't all that great of a chipset. It
>>was reliable enough, which is why it was fairly widely used, but until
>>the second or third revision the performance was pretty weak.
>
> It wasn't long after i845 that the i845G came out, which was DDR-based,
> and I switched to that. I think I built about 3 pre-DDR SDRAM-based P4
> systems; I don't remember them being slow.

But they made up for it by being expensive. ;-)

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 14, 2004 12:27:22 PM

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

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:39:14 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>Timmy keeps comming back to pump every time RMBS gets a little good news.

No wonder if we haven't seen him for a while, then ;-)



>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Tech Support: The guys who follow the
'Parade of New Products' with a shovel.
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 14, 2004 12:27:23 PM

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

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:27:22 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"
<cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:39:14 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>>Timmy keeps comming back to pump every time RMBS gets a little good news.
>
>No wonder if we haven't seen him for a while, then ;-)

It's my understanding that over on the Yahoo stock boards they manufacture
the good news.. which is i suspect one of the reasons that the RMBS charts
have interesting saw-tooth and square wave patterns.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 14, 2004 12:33:45 PM

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

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:31:01 -0500, Tony Hill
>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:21:41 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"

>>... i820 never did fall into affordability before the scandal blew up.

>Perhaps I should have said "price-conscious and buzzword happy"
>consume grade systems. Dell sold a few of those as their "high-end"
>systems because they had the latest and greatest chipset from Intel.

Ah, Dell. I remember a Dell that had only DIMM slots and was based on
a chipset that doesn't support SDRAM. Had to use EDO DIMMs, and guess
how available and cost-effective *those* were,

>>I stayed with the venerable i440BX in those days, even if it required
>>a slotket card; then when 815 and 815e came out, I jumped over

>That's what a lot of people did, though many others started using VIA
>chipsets instead as they offered better performance and a MUCH better
>price than anything Intel had.

I've never been happy to trust VIA. If I was, I'd likely be AMD too.

>>Yep; first the i845D, then the G with SVGA + AGP.
>
>And now the i845GV, which is basically same as the G but without AGP.

Run away screaming! I don't do crippleware such as no-ATX or mATX.
Well, when PCI Express catches on, I'll drop the AGP requirement :-)



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Treat Yourself - You're Worth It! #29:
Next bath night, try using the "soft"
side of the sponge/scourer.
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 14, 2004 12:33:46 PM

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

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:33:45 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"
<cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:31:01 -0500, Tony Hill
>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:21:41 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"
>
>>>... i820 never did fall into affordability before the scandal blew up.
>
>>Perhaps I should have said "price-conscious and buzzword happy"
>>consume grade systems. Dell sold a few of those as their "high-end"
>>systems because they had the latest and greatest chipset from Intel.
>
>Ah, Dell. I remember a Dell that had only DIMM slots and was based on
>a chipset that doesn't support SDRAM. Had to use EDO DIMMs, and guess
>how available and cost-effective *those* were,
>
>>>I stayed with the venerable i440BX in those days, even if it required
>>>a slotket card; then when 815 and 815e came out, I jumped over
>
>>That's what a lot of people did, though many others started using VIA
>>chipsets instead as they offered better performance and a MUCH better
>>price than anything Intel had.
>
>I've never been happy to trust VIA. If I was, I'd likely be AMD too.
>
>>>Yep; first the i845D, then the G with SVGA + AGP.
>>
>>And now the i845GV, which is basically same as the G but without AGP.
>
>Run away screaming! I don't do crippleware such as no-ATX or mATX.
>Well, when PCI Express catches on, I'll drop the AGP requirement :-)

Mid-range AGP cards are getting hard to find in the U.S. Nvidia recently
announced that the 6600GTs would "support" AGP but judging by the extra
$50. or so cost over PCI-Express I suspect that the boot is on the other
foot as regards extra bridge circuitry now. Whereas a few months ago, the
bridge was necessary to get PCI-Express..... There are couple of AGP
6600GT cards being sold but I haven't seen any 6600s(non-GT) yet.

I'm a *little* surprised that PCI-Express has caught on as fast as it has
but the fast fade-away of mid-range AGP is even more surprising. BTW, in
case you hadn't noticed, the favorite e-tailer for DIYers here is
www.newegg.com .... and no I don't think it's an EggHead revival.:-)

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 14, 2004 9:44:30 PM

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <or5tr0dsk7cjl09hf6evicrprgcig3nqu3@4ax.com>,
cquirke (MVP Win9x) <cquirkenews@removethis.mvps.org> wrote:
>Way before Intel and system RDRAM, I remember a Cirrus Logic "Laguna"
>card that used RDRAM. It was a weak performer, as CL generally were
>by then, and was a 2M SVGA priced at near-1M levels. Because SVGA
>manages its own RAM, oddball RAM types were common - even so, RDRAM
>was minor, along with early DDR and Tseng's MDRAM.

While we're on the subject of weird memory on video cards, can anyone
identify the type that was used on this ancient video card?

http://alfter.us/graphics/vidcard.jpg

It's a 2MB ISA SVGA card based on the Trident TVGA8900D. The eight metal
boxes on the left are the card's memory. They're about a quarter-inch tall
and have 23 pins each in a 5x5 grid pattern (with two pins missing,
presumably for keying). Is this some sort of standard memory technology in
an oddball package, or is it something truly weird?

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Linux)

iD8DBQFBvzSNVgTKos01OwkRAvEjAJ90p9NxOGi3Cosv3vCB7OPheYESugCgsEfd
GUL1GyWHPuL/kPeQ0FvMcbY=
=8xYR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
December 14, 2004 9:44:31 PM

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

In article <iwGvd.527$F25.353@okepread07>,
salfter@salfter.diespammersdie.dyndns.org says...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In article <or5tr0dsk7cjl09hf6evicrprgcig3nqu3@4ax.com>,
> cquirke (MVP Win9x) <cquirkenews@removethis.mvps.org> wrote:
> >Way before Intel and system RDRAM, I remember a Cirrus Logic "Laguna"
> >card that used RDRAM. It was a weak performer, as CL generally were
> >by then, and was a 2M SVGA priced at near-1M levels. Because SVGA
> >manages its own RAM, oddball RAM types were common - even so, RDRAM
> >was minor, along with early DDR and Tseng's MDRAM.
>
> While we're on the subject of weird memory on video cards, can anyone
> identify the type that was used on this ancient video card?
>
> http://alfter.us/graphics/vidcard.jpg
>
> It's a 2MB ISA SVGA card based on the Trident TVGA8900D. The eight metal
> boxes on the left are the card's memory. They're about a quarter-inch tall
> and have 23 pins each in a 5x5 grid pattern (with two pins missing,
> presumably for keying). Is this some sort of standard memory technology in
> an oddball package, or is it something truly weird?

Those cans look suspiciously like IBM 1/2" DRAM modules, last used
*moons* ago. If it really is a 2MB card, the modules would be 2Mb,
which seems high for that package.

Are there any IBMish part numbers
  • on the memory or the card?

  • IBM component/FRU part numbers are of the form NNAXXXX
    Where: N= numeric
    A= Alpha (usually, but *really* old stuff may be numeric)
    X= Alpha-numeric (for components usually all numeric)

    --
    Keith
    December 14, 2004 11:27:44 PM

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

    Scott Alfter <salfter@salfter.diespammersdie.dyndns.org> wrote:
    : -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    : Hash: SHA1
    :
    : In article <or5tr0dsk7cjl09hf6evicrprgcig3nqu3@4ax.com>,
    : cquirke (MVP Win9x) <cquirkenews@removethis.mvps.org> wrote:
    :: Way before Intel and system RDRAM, I remember a Cirrus Logic
    :: "Laguna" card that used RDRAM. It was a weak performer, as CL
    :: generally were by then, and was a 2M SVGA priced at near-1M
    :: levels. Because SVGA manages its own RAM, oddball RAM types were
    :: common - even so, RDRAM was minor, along with early DDR and
    :: Tseng's MDRAM.
    :
    : While we're on the subject of weird memory on video cards, can
    : anyone identify the type that was used on this ancient video card?
    :
    : http://alfter.us/graphics/vidcard.jpg
    :
    : It's a 2MB ISA SVGA card based on the Trident TVGA8900D. The eight
    : metal boxes on the left are the card's memory. They're about a
    : quarter-inch tall and have 23 pins each in a 5x5 grid pattern (with
    : two pins missing, presumably for keying). Is this some sort of
    : standard memory technology in an oddball package, or is it
    : something truly weird?

    Can't say, but what I'd like to know is who is that strange man behind the
    curtain...er...graphics card? Too funny! :-)

    j.
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    a b } Memory
    December 15, 2004 12:42:29 AM

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

    On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 07:47:18 -0500, George Macdonald
    >On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:33:45 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"

    >>Well, when PCI Express catches on, I'll drop the AGP requirement :-)
    >
    >I'm a *little* surprised that PCI-Express has caught on as fast as it has
    >but the fast fade-away of mid-range AGP is even more surprising.

    I think it's DirectX 9 that's driving SVGA (or rather, 3d) -
    especially now that new PCs ship with XP SP2 and DX9c.

    The new pixel shading stuff looks drop-dead beautiful, but bottom-end
    cards can't do it at all. Even chipsets we aspire to here (e.g.
    FX5700) that can do, do it slowly. It takes boss ones to do it well.

    So I think there may have been quite a bit of new development with
    this in mind - just in time to start off on tomorrow's bus.

    The other thing, is that PCI Express seems such a U-turn on the AGP
    concept ("get the SVGA off the general bus, give it it's own fat
    pipe") that I wonder if something hasn't gone wrong with AGP.



    >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
    On the 'net, *everyone* can hear you scream
    >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    a b } Memory
    December 15, 2004 12:42:30 AM

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

    On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:42:29 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"
    <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote:

    >On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 07:47:18 -0500, George Macdonald
    >>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:33:45 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"
    >
    >>>Well, when PCI Express catches on, I'll drop the AGP requirement :-)
    >>
    >>I'm a *little* surprised that PCI-Express has caught on as fast as it has
    >>but the fast fade-away of mid-range AGP is even more surprising.
    >
    >I think it's DirectX 9 that's driving SVGA (or rather, 3d) -
    >especially now that new PCs ship with XP SP2 and DX9c.
    >
    >The new pixel shading stuff looks drop-dead beautiful, but bottom-end
    >cards can't do it at all. Even chipsets we aspire to here (e.g.
    >FX5700) that can do, do it slowly. It takes boss ones to do it well.

    I'm no video expert but it appears that, with the FX5700 in particular,
    Nvidia dropped the ball on pixel shading and allowed ATI to nose ahead...
    something few would have predicted. In pixel shading, the ATI 9600 series
    supposedly did much better.

    >So I think there may have been quite a bit of new development with
    >this in mind - just in time to start off on tomorrow's bus.
    >
    >The other thing, is that PCI Express seems such a U-turn on the AGP
    >concept ("get the SVGA off the general bus, give it it's own fat
    >pipe") that I wonder if something hasn't gone wrong with AGP.

    AIUI, in that PCI-Express is not a bus at all - more several point to point
    interconnects - I suppose it is a swing away. The idea is that video will
    have a fat pipe (16-lane) within PCI-Ex specs; most regular devices will
    have a 1-lane version and if necessary, down the road some high bandwidth
    devices may get more lanes as required.

    For video, it *is* also a break, I suppose, in that it's not a mezzanine
    bus but that term is getting to have less meaning in modern systems.
    PCI-Express is less accessible as a standard to mere mortals, so I'm not
    sure what design parameters there are available for the implementers but it
    would also appear that having a bi-directional high bandwidth inter-connect
    for video is a bit of a waste.

    At any rate it's here and going at full steam ahead - Intel finally got its
    way on NGIO.:-) As for AGP, the DIME seems to have been a red herring and
    and with the strobe clocks running at quadruple the common clock for 8x, it
    was pretty much tapped out on future directions.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    a b } Memory
    December 15, 2004 1:26:50 AM

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

    On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:42:29 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"
    <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote:

    >On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 07:47:18 -0500, George Macdonald
    >>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:33:45 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"
    >
    >>>Well, when PCI Express catches on, I'll drop the AGP requirement :-)
    >>
    >>I'm a *little* surprised that PCI-Express has caught on as fast as it has
    >>but the fast fade-away of mid-range AGP is even more surprising.
    >
    >I think it's DirectX 9 that's driving SVGA (or rather, 3d) -
    >especially now that new PCs ship with XP SP2 and DX9c.
    >
    >The new pixel shading stuff looks drop-dead beautiful, but bottom-end
    >cards can't do it at all. Even chipsets we aspire to here (e.g.
    >FX5700) that can do, do it slowly. It takes boss ones to do it well.
    >
    >So I think there may have been quite a bit of new development with
    >this in mind - just in time to start off on tomorrow's bus.
    >
    >The other thing, is that PCI Express seems such a U-turn on the AGP
    >concept ("get the SVGA off the general bus, give it it's own fat
    >pipe") that I wonder if something hasn't gone wrong with AGP.

    The paradigm is virtually the same, it's just the transport that's been
    changed: most desktop systems will have their PCIe graphics card slot on a
    dedicated PCI Express hose - preferably 16b wide...

    /daytripper
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    a b } Memory
    December 15, 2004 2:21:25 AM

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

    On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:44:30 GMT, (Scott Alfter) wrote:
    >cquirke (MVP Win9x) <cquirkenews@removethis.mvps.org> wrote:

    >>Way before Intel and system RDRAM, I remember a Cirrus Logic "Laguna"
    >>card that used RDRAM. It was a weak performer, as CL generally were
    >>by then, and was a 2M SVGA priced at near-1M levels. Because SVGA
    >>manages its own RAM, oddball RAM types were common - even so, RDRAM
    >>was minor, along with early DDR and Tseng's MDRAM.

    >While we're on the subject of weird memory on video cards, can anyone
    >identify the type that was used on this ancient video card?

    >http://alfter.us/graphics/vidcard.jpg

    Very small bee hives?

    >It's a 2MB ISA SVGA card based on the Trident TVGA8900D. The eight metal
    >boxes on the left are the card's memory. They're about a quarter-inch tall
    >and have 23 pins each in a 5x5 grid pattern (with two pins missing,
    >presumably for keying). Is this some sort of standard memory technology in
    >an oddball package, or is it something truly weird?

    I have to tell you, "truly wierd" comes to mind. Was this a Windows
    accelerator chipset? I wasn't aware that Trident got into that in the
    ISA era, I thought the only mainstream players were Cirrus Logic (the
    first I heard of) and S3 (who rocked at the time).



    >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
    On the 'net, *everyone* can hear you scream
    >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    a b } Memory
    December 15, 2004 2:42:43 AM

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

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    In article <MPG.1c29251bd3396db09897d4@news.individual.net>,
    Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >In article <iwGvd.527$F25.353@okepread07>,
    >salfter@salfter.diespammersdie.dyndns.org says...
    >> While we're on the subject of weird memory on video cards, can anyone
    >> identify the type that was used on this ancient video card?
    >>
    >> http://alfter.us/graphics/vidcard.jpg
    >>
    >> It's a 2MB ISA SVGA card based on the Trident TVGA8900D. The eight metal
    >> boxes on the left are the card's memory. They're about a quarter-inch tall
    >> and have 23 pins each in a 5x5 grid pattern (with two pins missing,
    >> presumably for keying). Is this some sort of standard memory technology in
    >> an oddball package, or is it something truly weird?
    >
    >Those cans look suspiciously like IBM 1/2" DRAM modules, last used
    >*moons* ago. If it really is a 2MB card, the modules would be 2Mb,
    >which seems high for that package.

    I think it's a 2MB card; it could be just 1MB. It's not currently installed
    in anything, and hooking up a junk-box 486 or Pentium to check is more than
    I want to do right now.

    >Are there any IBMish part numbers
  • on the memory or the card?

    Nope...the memory "cans" have no identifying markings on them at all. The
    three chips (graphics processor, RAMDAC, and firmware ROM) are all Trident
    parts, and the rest is a bunch of passive components. It appears to be a
    generic "made-in-China" video card that could've been sold by nearly
    anybody.

    _/_
    / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
    (IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
    \_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Linux)

    iD8DBQFBv3pwVgTKos01OwkRAqbSAJ9/kKR9L9+zjDxcdmq7E/B7Bgbx2QCeIvh0
    W5R5Acf7LM/tzn/FGFgaAlo=
    =DqSw
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    December 15, 2004 2:43:14 AM

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

    On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:27:22 +0200, cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:

    > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:39:14 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >
    >>Timmy keeps comming back to pump every time RMBS gets a little good news.
    >
    > No wonder if we haven't seen him for a while, then ;-)

    Timmy? He was shilling here as recently as two weeks ago (December 4)
    ....at least that's the date according to the server I use.

    --
    Keith
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    a b } Memory
    December 15, 2004 2:58:25 AM

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

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    In article <jkgur0lfim123qv7k9fude8rep7q30qkir@4ax.com>,
    cquirke (MVP Win9x) <cquirkenews@removethis.mvps.org> wrote:
    >On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:44:30 GMT, (Scott Alfter) wrote:
    >>While we're on the subject of weird memory on video cards, can anyone
    >>identify the type that was used on this ancient video card?
    >
    >>http://alfter.us/graphics/vidcard.jpg
    >>
    >>It's a 2MB ISA SVGA card based on the Trident TVGA8900D. The eight metal
    >>boxes on the left are the card's memory. They're about a quarter-inch tall
    >>and have 23 pins each in a 5x5 grid pattern (with two pins missing,
    >>presumably for keying). Is this some sort of standard memory technology in
    >>an oddball package, or is it something truly weird?
    >
    >I have to tell you, "truly wierd" comes to mind. Was this a Windows
    >accelerator chipset? I wasn't aware that Trident got into that in the
    >ISA era, I thought the only mainstream players were Cirrus Logic (the
    >first I heard of) and S3 (who rocked at the time).

    The machine it was pulled from (a few years ago) was running Win95. An old
    copy of the Linux Hardware Compatibility HOWTO indicates that it's just a
    framebuffer with no acceleration. There seems to be even less documentation
    of the card running under Windows than under Linux.

    I actually found a driver package for the card with DOS, Win3.x, Win9x, and
    NT 3.5 drivers. The readme for the Win9x driver (beta, dated 27 Jul 95,
    which was a few weeks before Win95 was released) refers to it as a
    non-accelerated driver, so I'm guessing that it's just a framebuffer.

    (Followup to an earlier reply: I thought it was a 2MB card, but the limited
    info I've run across suggests that the chip only supports 1MB.)

    _/_
    / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
    (IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
    \_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Linux)

    iD8DBQFBv34gVgTKos01OwkRAi3FAKDZJoGTT/WKM0Q5hR3DtJGQMNfZ7gCgzeXp
    FPtvNDZ2cPmS9mc7TB8Sio0=
    =jhOJ
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    a b } Memory
    December 15, 2004 5:23:36 AM

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

    On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:33:45 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"
    <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote:

    >On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:31:01 -0500, Tony Hill
    >
    >>Perhaps I should have said "price-conscious and buzzword happy"
    >>consume grade systems. Dell sold a few of those as their "high-end"
    >>systems because they had the latest and greatest chipset from Intel.
    >
    >Ah, Dell. I remember a Dell that had only DIMM slots and was based on
    >a chipset that doesn't support SDRAM. Had to use EDO DIMMs, and guess
    >how available and cost-effective *those* were,

    Those were probably more common than RDRAM chips, you can even still
    find them today if need be. A fair number of the 430HX based boards
    used them.

    >>That's what a lot of people did, though many others started using VIA
    >>chipsets instead as they offered better performance and a MUCH better
    >>price than anything Intel had.
    >
    >I've never been happy to trust VIA. If I was, I'd likely be AMD too.

    I'm no big VIA fan (though IMO nVidia makes some really top-notch
    chipsets, and for the time being at least they are AMD-only), but
    whether you were a fan or not, people definitely bought their chipsets
    but the truckload at that time.

    >>>Yep; first the i845D, then the G with SVGA + AGP.
    >>
    >>And now the i845GV, which is basically same as the G but without AGP.
    >
    >Run away screaming! I don't do crippleware such as no-ATX or mATX.
    >Well, when PCI Express catches on, I'll drop the AGP requirement :-)

    I wouldn't touch 'em either, even if AGP was a non-issue (as it is for
    the vast majority of business systems). Still, they hit a price point
    that few other chipsets can touch, cheaper even than most SiS based
    boards.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    a b } Memory
    December 15, 2004 11:53:19 AM

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

    salfter@salfter.diespammersdie.dyndns.org (Scott Alfter) wrote:

    >Nope...the memory "cans" have no identifying markings on them at all.

    Sounds like they're better-armored than our troops! 8)
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    a b } Memory
    December 15, 2004 4:20:35 PM

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

    On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:56:45 -0500, George Macdonald
    >On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:42:29 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"
    >>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 07:47:18 -0500, George Macdonald

    >>>I'm a *little* surprised that PCI-Express has caught on as fast as it has

    >>The other thing, is that PCI Express seems such a U-turn on the AGP
    >>concept ("get the SVGA off the general bus, give it it's own fat
    >>pipe") that I wonder if something hasn't gone wrong with AGP.

    >AIUI, in that PCI-Express is not a bus at all - more several point to point
    >interconnects - I suppose it is a swing away.

    I can intuit what you mean, but can't quite grasp the difference
    between several interconnects and a bus. I presume it means that
    traffic on the same wires (I assume they are the same wires?) is
    mediated in a different way or at a different level?

    >The idea is that video will have a fat pipe (16-lane) within PCI-Ex
    >specs; most regular devices will have a 1-lane version and if
    >necessary, down the road some high bandwidth
    >devices may get more lanes as required.

    Now I get it! It's that other devices are now crowding PCI into
    obselescence, e.g. Giga-LAN, S-ATA etc. so instead of AGP + PCI slots,
    we need at least 3 x fast slots. PCI-Ex sounds better designed to
    handle this gracefully, i.e. allocate width as needed without having
    to shatter old standards and set new ones (as AGP ?x now does)

    Ultimately, it shakes out to:
    - the highest CPU clock the CPU('s cache) can handle
    - the highest RAM clock the current RAM standard can handle
    - a high standard for bits that have to be in the case (PCI Ex?)
    - a standard for bits that have to be outside the case (USB?)
    - a standard for bits that are wire-less

    The trend will be to either toss stuff out of the case (so that dumb
    retail can sell them safely) or build it into the mobo, and ultimately
    processor core, as Moore's Law allows. Perhaps at some stage we won't
    have the "has to be inside the case for speed" layer at all.

    >For video, it *is* also a break, I suppose, in that it's not a mezzanine
    >bus but that term is getting to have less meaning in modern systems.

    In the original VL-Bus vs. PCI sense, I doubt if we will ever see a
    "local bus" again, given how RAM out-paces other cards and devices.

    In what sense is PCI Ex not a mezzanine bus?

    >PCI-Express is less accessible as a standard to mere mortals, so I'm not
    >sure what design parameters there are available for the implementers but it
    >would also appear that having a bi-directional high bandwidth inter-connect
    >for video is a bit of a waste.

    Unless they foresee the GPU as generating system input in some way?

    >At any rate it's here and going at full steam ahead - Intel finally got its
    >way on NGIO.:-) As for AGP, the DIME seems to have been a red herring and
    >and with the strobe clocks running at quadruple the common clock for 8x, it
    >was pretty much tapped out on future directions.

    Yep. I only understand the last bit about AGP clock; also thinking
    that whenever they up the data rate, they have to drop voltage to stop
    the wires frying, and I'm wondering at what point VR will be too
    granular to maintain voltage consistency.

    So does PCI Ex solve this by adding more physical wires? That's
    interesting if so, given the original "parallel for data speed"
    approach that swung to the "serial to avoid cross-talk and reduce pin
    count" phase we are currently enjoying with S-ATA and USB.


    Thinking back on it (especially the initial rocky and costly rollout),
    PCI's been a pretty good bus. It gained traction here in around 1995,
    so it's served us for 10 years - ?as long as ISA-16.

    And yet it seems that VIA still couldn't get the hang of it, as
    recently as a few years back (the UIDE corruption scandal).



    >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
    On the 'net, *everyone* can hear you scream
    >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    a b } Memory
    December 15, 2004 4:29:00 PM

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

    On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:23:36 -0500, Tony Hill
    >On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:33:45 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"

    >>Ah, Dell. I remember a Dell that had only DIMM slots and was based on
    >>a chipset that doesn't support SDRAM. Had to use EDO DIMMs, and guess
    >>how available and cost-effective *those* were,

    >Those were probably more common than RDRAM chips, you can even still
    >find them today if need be. A fair number of the 430HX based boards
    >used them.

    EDO 32-bit SIMMs, yes. EDO DIMMs is another matter... in just about
    all cases, mobos stayed SIMMs for EDO, DIMMs for SDRAM, and where both
    were supported, both types of slots (just don't use both at once).

    The cruel and unusual thing about these Dells were that they were
    i830HX (lovely 64M+ chipset, shame it pre-dates SDRAM) but had only
    DIMM slots, when there was no reason not to have only SIMM slots.

    At least I think they were i430HX; they may have been pre-SDRAM Slot
    One, i.e. the old PPro-generation i440FX. That, too, would have no
    reason to have DIMM slots, as there's no SDRAM support.

    >>I've never been happy to trust VIA. If I was, I'd likely be AMD too.

    >whether you were a fan or not, people definitely bought their chipsets
    >but the truckload at that time.

    Sure; I'm on the fringe by drawing the lines that I do. If I didn't
    have those requirements, I'd have been even less likely to i820.

    >>>And now the i845GV, which is basically same as the G but without AGP.

    >>Run away screaming! I don't do crippleware such as no-ATX or mATX.

    >I wouldn't touch 'em either, even if AGP was a non-issue (as it is for
    >the vast majority of business systems). Still, they hit a price point
    >that few other chipsets can touch

    True; at one time, I contemplated using i810 in such cases (this was
    before Intel had done the 815, i.e. set the precident for SVGA+AGP)
    but as it turned out, I didn't have anyone who needed that niche.
    Even the office folks went i440BX and SVGA card (often i740).



    >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
    On the 'net, *everyone* can hear you scream
    >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    a b } Memory
    December 15, 2004 4:46:06 PM

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

    On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:58:25 GMT,

    >(Followup to an earlier reply: I thought it was a 2MB card, but the limited
    >info I've run across suggests that the chip only supports 1MB.)

    That makes sense, as non-accelerated cards only need SVGA RAM to hold
    the display image, and nothing else - bearing in mind that the
    RAM-hungry SVGA graphic resolution don't do page swapping.

    So; 1600 x 1200 x 3 / 1024 / 1024 = > 4M, but more realistically for
    mid/low-range unaccel. cards, 1024 x 768 x 3 / 1024 / 1024 = 2.25M.

    That's an interesting figure, as it's exactly the amount of RAM
    Tseng's ET6000 MDRAM had on the card (but that was
    Windows-accelerated, tho prolly not at 24-bit 1024x768)

    So my impression was wrong; there was a need for 2M on unaccelerated
    SVGA cards, if they had a TrueColor RAMDAC.

    Those old Trident SlowVGA prolly pre-date TrueColor; it wasn't long
    after Tseng's ET3000 offered that, than the switch to
    Windows-accelerated and various local bus cards was in swing.



    >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
    On the 'net, *everyone* can hear you scream
    >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    a b } Memory
    December 15, 2004 7:22:22 PM

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

    On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:43:14 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

    >On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:27:22 +0200, cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:39:14 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Timmy keeps comming back to pump every time RMBS gets a little good news.
    >>
    >> No wonder if we haven't seen him for a while, then ;-)
    >
    >Timmy? He was shilling here as recently as two weeks ago (December 4)
    >...at least that's the date according to the server I use.

    Yep and I'm sure you also know who it was who "fed the troll".;-)

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    a b } Memory
    December 15, 2004 7:22:22 PM

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

    On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:20:35 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"
    <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote:

    >On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:56:45 -0500, George Macdonald
    >>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:42:29 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"
    >>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 07:47:18 -0500, George Macdonald
    >
    >>>>I'm a *little* surprised that PCI-Express has caught on as fast as it has
    >
    >>>The other thing, is that PCI Express seems such a U-turn on the AGP
    >>>concept ("get the SVGA off the general bus, give it it's own fat
    >>>pipe") that I wonder if something hasn't gone wrong with AGP.
    >
    >>AIUI, in that PCI-Express is not a bus at all - more several point to point
    >>interconnects - I suppose it is a swing away.
    >
    >I can intuit what you mean, but can't quite grasp the difference
    >between several interconnects and a bus. I presume it means that
    >traffic on the same wires (I assume they are the same wires?) is
    >mediated in a different way or at a different level?
    >
    >>The idea is that video will have a fat pipe (16-lane) within PCI-Ex
    >>specs; most regular devices will have a 1-lane version and if
    >>necessary, down the road some high bandwidth
    >>devices may get more lanes as required.
    >
    >Now I get it! It's that other devices are now crowding PCI into
    >obselescence, e.g. Giga-LAN, S-ATA etc. so instead of AGP + PCI slots,
    >we need at least 3 x fast slots. PCI-Ex sounds better designed to
    >handle this gracefully, i.e. allocate width as needed without having
    >to shatter old standards and set new ones (as AGP ?x now does)

    Yes well basically, it's not a multi-drop bus with shared wires and
    connectors - with only two devices per interconnect you get to crank up the
    clock and go (multi-)serial, which involves some protocol overhead. The
    peak bandwidth claimed for PCI-Express is 4GB/sec in its 16-lane (video)
    form but it's been suggested that the protocol overhead reduces that
    considerably. It's hard to find the truth since it's all under the PCISig
    umbrella now and downloads cost $$.

    Note that Intel has hidden the AGP docs now - the AGP 3.0 final spec is
    still here:
    http://www.intel.com/technology/agp/downloads/Spec_1_0_... but
    I got that from an external link - couldn't find any path to it from the
    Intel Web site, which keeps taking you to their PCI-Express blurb. Some of
    the older AGP specs can still be gotten here:
    http://www.motherboards.org/articles/tech-planations/92....


    >Ultimately, it shakes out to:
    > - the highest CPU clock the CPU('s cache) can handle
    > - the highest RAM clock the current RAM standard can handle
    > - a high standard for bits that have to be in the case (PCI Ex?)
    > - a standard for bits that have to be outside the case (USB?)
    > - a standard for bits that are wire-less
    >
    >The trend will be to either toss stuff out of the case (so that dumb
    >retail can sell them safely) or build it into the mobo, and ultimately
    >processor core, as Moore's Law allows. Perhaps at some stage we won't
    >have the "has to be inside the case for speed" layer at all.

    I *think* that's what Infiniband wanted you to think but M$ said no and it
    seems to be stewing on a back burner for the moment.

    >>For video, it *is* also a break, I suppose, in that it's not a mezzanine
    >>bus but that term is getting to have less meaning in modern systems.
    >
    >In the original VL-Bus vs. PCI sense, I doubt if we will ever see a
    >"local bus" again, given how RAM out-paces other cards and devices.
    >
    >In what sense is PCI Ex not a mezzanine bus?

    It depends on who implements it and the topology they adopt I suppose but
    compared with recent AGP implementations, you don't have a single
    PCI-Express hanging off the "North" hub, like we had a single AGP - you
    have a set of PCI-Express connects hanging off it instead... with the usual
    I/O, including PCI, hanging off the "South" hub.

    >>PCI-Express is less accessible as a standard to mere mortals, so I'm not
    >>sure what design parameters there are available for the implementers but it
    >>would also appear that having a bi-directional high bandwidth inter-connect
    >>for video is a bit of a waste.
    >
    >Unless they foresee the GPU as generating system input in some way?

    I'm still trying to figure why on that?... other than, I guess it allows
    UMA for the bottom end.

    >>At any rate it's here and going at full steam ahead - Intel finally got its
    >>way on NGIO.:-) As for AGP, the DIME seems to have been a red herring and
    >>and with the strobe clocks running at quadruple the common clock for 8x, it
    >>was pretty much tapped out on future directions.
    >
    >Yep. I only understand the last bit about AGP clock; also thinking
    >that whenever they up the data rate, they have to drop voltage to stop
    >the wires frying, and I'm wondering at what point VR will be too
    >granular to maintain voltage consistency.
    >
    >So does PCI Ex solve this by adding more physical wires? That's
    >interesting if so, given the original "parallel for data speed"
    >approach that swung to the "serial to avoid cross-talk and reduce pin
    >count" phase we are currently enjoying with S-ATA and USB.

    It's more of the same.... serial point to point but someone who has access
    to the docs could elaborate better than I. What's funny is that if you go
    to Intel's PCI-Express page
    http://www.intel.com/technology/pciexpress/devnet/deskt... and click on
    What is PCI-Express, you get a document extolling the virtues of 3GIO - no
    mention of PCI Express at all.

    >Thinking back on it (especially the initial rocky and costly rollout),
    >PCI's been a pretty good bus. It gained traction here in around 1995,
    >so it's served us for 10 years - ?as long as ISA-16.

    Yes it has been good and considering the appearance back then of
    proprietary, VL and then EISA "alternatives", it was just in the nick of
    time.

    >And yet it seems that VIA still couldn't get the hang of it, as
    >recently as a few years back (the UIDE corruption scandal).

    Was that the PCI Latency thing? I've never had trouble with a VIA chipset
    but I've never tried to use any esoteric PCI cards with them. While VIA
    was not blameless, a lot of their bad name came from PCI card vendors who
    tried to ignore them - IOW if it worked with an Intel chipset, that was
    good enough.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    a b } Memory
    December 15, 2004 7:48:10 PM

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

    In article <iwGvd.527$F25.353@okepread07>, Scott Alfter <salfter@salfter
    ..diespammersdie.dyndns.org> writes

    >It's a 2MB ISA SVGA card based on the Trident TVGA8900D. The eight metal
    >boxes on the left are the card's memory. They're about a quarter-inch tall
    >and have 23 pins each in a 5x5 grid pattern (with two pins missing,
    >presumably for keying). Is this some sort of standard memory technology in
    >an oddball package, or is it something truly weird?

    Are the cubes stamped IBM by any chance? The last time I saw memory
    packaged like that, it was on memory expansion boards for the IBM PS/2
    model 70 and 80 computers.

    Here: found a pic. Look at the memory cards on the left of the
    computer, sandwiched between the power supply and the left hand hard
    disk:

    http://john.ccac.rwth-aachen.de:8000/alf/ps2_80311/ps2_...


    --
    Rarely do people communicate; they just take turns talking.
    (source unknown)
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    a b } Memory
    December 15, 2004 7:58:42 PM

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

    On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:20:35 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"
    <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote:
    [snipped]
    >>PCI-Express is less accessible as a standard to mere mortals, so I'm not
    >>sure what design parameters there are available for the implementers but it
    >>would also appear that having a bi-directional high bandwidth inter-connect
    >>for video is a bit of a waste.
    >
    >Unless they foresee the GPU as generating system input in some way?

    red herring, in any case: any PCI Express link has pairs running in both
    directions.

    >>At any rate it's here and going at full steam ahead - Intel finally got its
    >>way on NGIO.:-) As for AGP, the DIME seems to have been a red herring and
    >>and with the strobe clocks running at quadruple the common clock for 8x, it
    >>was pretty much tapped out on future directions.
    >
    >Yep. I only understand the last bit about AGP clock; also thinking
    >that whenever they up the data rate, they have to drop voltage to stop
    >the wires frying, and I'm wondering at what point VR will be too
    >granular to maintain voltage consistency.
    >
    >So does PCI Ex solve this by adding more physical wires? That's
    >interesting if so, given the original "parallel for data speed"
    >approach that swung to the "serial to avoid cross-talk and reduce pin
    >count" phase we are currently enjoying with S-ATA and USB.

    Other than the Big Fat Hose implementation (16 bits), PCI Express uses fewer
    wires than PCI or PCI-X Mode 1.

    A "link" (ie: a connection between endpoint devices) consists of low-voltage
    unidirectional differential pairs running what is essentially 2 to 2.5 gigabit
    full-duplex network layers. The minimum link implementation uses two wire
    pairs for a one-bit, full-duplex link, for 2-2.5Gb DTR (uncooked, each way).
    Otoh, BFHs consist of 32 pairs - quickly approaching 64-bit PCI/PCI-X
    implementations wrt wire & pin count, but boasting up to 40Gb DTR
    (~ 5 Gigabytes/second per BFH).

    >Thinking back on it (especially the initial rocky and costly rollout),
    >PCI's been a pretty good bus. It gained traction here in around 1995,
    >so it's served us for 10 years - ?as long as ISA-16.

    We resist change.

    /daytripper (Blindly, in most cases...)
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    a b } Memory
    December 15, 2004 9:56:39 PM

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

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    In article <zSgEDiAKrGwBFw4I@jasper.livjm.ac.uk>,
    Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
    >In article <iwGvd.527$F25.353@okepread07>, Scott Alfter <salfter@salfter
    >.diespammersdie.dyndns.org> writes
    >
    >>It's a 2MB ISA SVGA card based on the Trident TVGA8900D. The eight metal
    >>boxes on the left are the card's memory. They're about a quarter-inch tall
    >>and have 23 pins each in a 5x5 grid pattern (with two pins missing,
    >>presumably for keying). Is this some sort of standard memory technology in
    >>an oddball package, or is it something truly weird?
    >
    >Are the cubes stamped IBM by any chance? The last time I saw memory
    >packaged like that, it was on memory expansion boards for the IBM PS/2
    >model 70 and 80 computers.

    They're unmarked.

    >Here: found a pic. Look at the memory cards on the left of the
    >computer, sandwiched between the power supply and the left hand hard
    >disk:
    >
    >http://john.ccac.rwth-aachen.de:8000/alf/ps2_80311/ps2_...

    Those look similar. Maybe IBM dumped a bunch of unmarked parts when the
    PS/2 tanked, and they got snapped up by some videocard manufacturer who then
    put out a card that undercut the competition.

    _/_
    / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
    (IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
    \_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Linux)

    iD8DBQFBwIjmVgTKos01OwkRAkwkAKD7aqvJvpvw/S6QuzcEM2cPFfJJaQCg3XHw
    i9yVWyEiBAH3Pcj9uWc4uwM=
    =nagj
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    December 16, 2004 1:24:44 AM

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

    On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:22:22 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

    > On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:43:14 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >
    >>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:27:22 +0200, cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:39:14 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Timmy keeps comming back to pump every time RMBS gets a little good news.
    >>>
    >>> No wonder if we haven't seen him for a while, then ;-)
    >>
    >>Timmy? He was shilling here as recently as two weeks ago (December 4)
    >>...at least that's the date according to the server I use.
    >
    > Yep and I'm sure you also know who it was who "fed the troll".;-)

    If one must troll, one must have baited hooks. ;-)

    --
    Keith
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    a b } Memory
    December 16, 2004 11:06:20 PM

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

    On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 01:42:55 -0500, Tony Hill
    >On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:29:00 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"

    >Yup, that was common on 430HX chipsets, I saw a number of them with
    >EDO-only DIMM slots. Dell definitely was not the only one doing this.

    It's the only one we caught here. Specifically, I caught some medical
    sware house trying to push these Dells at the members of the
    representitive organization I belonged to. I was co-opted onto Exco
    to sanity-check this sort of thing, and kicked some inviting butt.

    I really can't see the point in EDO DIMM mobos. Either you're
    shipping those chipsets when they were "fresh", in which case EDO
    SIMMs were abundant, or you should have moved to i440LX (if Intel CPU
    and chipset is your thing, that is).

    >They didn't see too much use on desktops, much more common on
    >workstations and low-end servers (primarily because the main selling
    >point of the HX chipset was to use more memory than most desktop users
    >could afford at that time).

    Well, by the time SIMMs were getting rare, so was traditional Socket7,
    esp. on the high-end. I can't see "we need a strong PC that will run
    over 64M RAM, so let's stay on traditional Socket 7 that won't run PII
    and won't run new non-Intel >66MHz-based CPUs either".

    >The 440FX-based boards for PPros and EARLY PII systems (the 440LX
    >chipset was delayed for a couple months after the PIIs release) used
    >EDO DIMMs almost exclusively.

    Yes, but the ones I saw were SIMMs, not DIMMs.

    >Having worked a brief bit with the Intel i8xx chipsets at the time, I
    >would have gone for VIA instead due to stability reasons.

    Were those the early "PIII should be RDRAM" horrors? I passed that
    whole era by, sticking with i440BX, and when the same thing happened
    more forcefully on P4, I mainly stayed off P4 until there were
    Celerons and i845G to drop the platform out of the clouds.

    I did a couple of pre-S478-Celeron P4s, though I don't know if any
    were S423 or whatever it was. Seemed to me, the original
    RDRAM-dominated S423 was the same sort of early-adopter graveyard as
    P60/66 and PPro (except unlike PPro, it didn't rock much at anything)



    >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
    On the 'net, *everyone* can hear you scream
    >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
    Anonymous
    a b à CPUs
    a b } Memory
    December 19, 2004 7:10:59 AM

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

    On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:05:39 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"
    <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote:

    >On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:22:56 -0500, Tony Hill
    >>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:06:20 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Win9x)"
    >
    >>>I really can't see the point in EDO DIMM mobos. Either you're
    >>>shipping those chipsets when they were "fresh", in which case EDO
    >>>SIMMs were abundant, or you should have moved to i440LX (if Intel CPU
    >>>and chipset is your thing, that is).
    >
    >>Once the 440LX chipset arrived it rendered all these designs obsolete
    >>pretty much overnight, they all pre-date them.
    >
    >Yep. Then the i440BX's 100MHz support made 'LX an embarrasment :-)

    Eventually yes, though not for 6+ months.

    >>The trick was that you could get more memory in a system using
    >>EDO DIMMs than you could using EDO SIMMs.
    >
    >Ahhhh - *now* I get it. It looks like Dell overproduced those mobos,
    >then, which is odd because you'd have expected thier close
    >relationship with Intel to have let them know to the month when i440LX
    >would be out.

    They DID move to the i440LX the month it was out, but that was
    something like 2 years after the i430HX and i440FX came out. There
    was a LOT of time in between for EDO DIMMs to make an appearance.

    >Hence attempts to push them on unsuspecting un-tech-savvy
    >professionals in the 3rd-world. Who turned out to be not unsuspecting
    >enough, and it cost the parties concerned++

    Not really. When these system were sold there wasn't exactly a lot of
    other options. It was that of the i430VX chipset with it's 64MB
    cacheable limit. We're not talking about the era of 500MHz machines
    here.

    >>These systems all predate the PII, with the exception of a VERY small
    >>number of the first run of PII systems while the 440LX was delayed.
    >
    >I built one or two of those early-adopter i440FX/PII, or at least
    >quoted on them (can't remember if there were any takers). What drove
    >the move to PII, even before the original (and ghastly!) Celeron, was
    >the availability of affordable AGP cards.

    Or more to the point, Intel's none-too-gentle nudging towards the PII
    due to them not producing any AGP-capable socket 7 chipsets. The
    i440FX, of course, did not support AGP. Really the i440LX was the
    chipset to bring the PII to market... it was just a couple of months
    late.

    >>Getting more than 128MB of memory on a board using SIMMs was very
    >>difficult to do, but much easier using DIMMs
    >
    >Yes, I got it :-)
    >
    >The thought of waiting for MemTest 11 to chug through 256M RAM at
    >iP55C-233 speed is uuurgh, but I can see the need.

    Hence the reason why you can still find EDO DIMMs today. There was
    demand and it was the only (easy) solution available. I suppose you
    COULD have designed a board with 16 SIMM sockets or some such
    nonesense, but 4 EDO DIMMs was more economical and sensible.

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