amd vs. intel

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

hi,
i would like to find a Web site / article that contrasts amd w/ intel
(as generally as possible and upToDate)
would anybody know of a Web site / article which does so?
thanks
130 answers Last reply
More about intel
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:04:13 -0500, Tanya
    <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:

    >i would like to find a Web site / article that contrasts amd w/ intel
    >(as generally as possible and upToDate)
    >would anybody know of a Web site / article which does so?

    Umm.. that's a bit of a broad question, is there something a bit more
    specific you're looking at?

    I mean, simply contrasting the companies you might find that they are
    both silicon companies, both founded in 1969 by different groups of
    people that previously worked at Fairchild Semiconductor. Ohh, and
    they both have their headquarters in Silicon Valley, actually just
    down the road from one another (Sunnyvale for AMD, Santa Clara for
    Intel, about 5KM away).

    However, if you're looking at a comparison of specific products, ie
    their microprocessors, you might want to check some of the following
    links:

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2249

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx.html

    http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/amd-hammer-1.ars

    http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/pentium-1.ars


    Umm.. that should at least get you started! There are LOTS of others
    though, it just depends on what specific sort of info you're looking
    for.

    The long-story short though is that both companies make good
    processors that are plenty fast for the vast majority of what people
    do. Ohh, that and in almost all cases the processor is a HIGHLY
    overrated component when it comes to determining the quality and speed
    of a system.

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

    Tony Hill wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:04:13 -0500, Tanya
    > <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
    >
    > >i would like to find a Web site / article that contrasts amd w/ intel
    > >(as generally as possible and upToDate)
    > >would anybody know of a Web site / article which does so?
    >
    > Umm.. that's a bit of a broad question, is there something a bit more
    > specific you're looking at?
    >
    > I mean, simply contrasting the companies you might find that they are
    > both silicon companies, both founded in 1969 by different groups of
    > people that previously worked at Fairchild Semiconductor. Ohh, and
    > they both have their headquarters in Silicon Valley, actually just
    > down the road from one another (Sunnyvale for AMD, Santa Clara for
    > Intel, about 5KM away).
    >
    > However, if you're looking at a comparison of specific products, ie
    > their microprocessors, you might want to check some of the following
    > links:
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2249
    >
    > http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx.html
    >
    > http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/amd-hammer-1.ars
    >
    > http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/pentium-1.ars
    >
    > Umm.. that should at least get you started! There are LOTS of others
    > though, it just depends on what specific sort of info you're looking
    > for.
    >
    > The long-story short though is that both companies make good
    > processors that are plenty fast for the vast majority of what people
    > do. Ohh, that and in almost all cases the processor is a HIGHLY
    > overrated component when it comes to determining the quality and speed
    > of a system.

    Yeah, based on what I've learned so far, start by studying up on main
    board bus archetecture (and chipset) and build system on that
    foundation. Everything will fall into place from there. You might say
    the same going the other way -- starting with processor -- but there's
    probably too much quality, and design variation in boards that'll work
    with the proc you pick to make that the way to go. Whereas if you start
    with the best board you can figure out to get, you can then just pick
    the best processor -- by the time you've learned about chipsets, and
    bus archetechture, proc'll be a breeze -- that'll work with the board.

    Bryan

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

    Tony Hill wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:04:13 -0500, Tanya
    > <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
    >
    > >i would like to find a Web site / article that contrasts amd w/ intel
    > >(as generally as possible and upToDate)
    > >would anybody know of a Web site / article which does so?
    >
    > Umm.. that's a bit of a broad question, is there something a bit more
    > specific you're looking at?
    >
    > I mean, simply contrasting the companies you might find that they are
    > both silicon companies, both founded in 1969 by different groups of
    > people that previously worked at Fairchild Semiconductor. Ohh, and
    > they both have their headquarters in Silicon Valley, actually just
    > down the road from one another (Sunnyvale for AMD, Santa Clara for
    > Intel, about 5KM away).
    >
    > However, if you're looking at a comparison of specific products, ie
    > their microprocessors, you might want to check some of the following
    > links:
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2249
    >
    > http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx.html
    >
    > http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/amd-hammer-1.ars
    >
    > http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/pentium-1.ars
    >
    > Umm.. that should at least get you started! There are LOTS of others
    > though, it just depends on what specific sort of info you're looking
    > for.
    >
    > The long-story short though is that both companies make good
    > processors that are plenty fast for the vast majority of what people
    > do. Ohh, that and in almost all cases the processor is a HIGHLY
    > overrated component when it comes to determining the quality and speed
    > of a system.

    Yeah, based on what I've learned so far, start by studying up on main
    board bus archetecture (and chipset) and build system on that
    foundation. Everything will fall into place from there. You might say
    the same going the other way -- starting with processor -- but there's
    probably too much quality, and design variation in boards that'll work
    with the proc you pick to make that the way to go. Whereas if you start
    with the best board you can figure out to get, you can then just pick
    the best processor -- by the time you've learned about chipsets, and
    bus archetechture, proc'll be a breeze -- that'll work with the board.

    Bryan

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

    Is your goal to build a system or systems for yourself from scratch, or
    to simply buy ready-built systems with these processors on it? Or maybe
    to upgrade an existing system with one of these processors?

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

    Bryan Hoover wrote:

    > Tony Hill wrote:
    > >
    > > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:04:13 -0500, Tanya
    > > <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
    > >
    > > >i would like to find a Web site / article that contrasts amd w/ intel
    > > >(as generally as possible and upToDate)
    > > >would anybody know of a Web site / article which does so?

    <snip>

    > > However, if you're looking at a comparison of specific products, ie
    > > their microprocessors, you might want to check some of the following
    > > links:
    > >
    > > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353
    > >
    > > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2249
    > >
    > > http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx.html
    > >
    > > http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/amd-hammer-1.ars
    > >
    > > http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/pentium-1.ars
    > >
    > > Umm.. that should at least get you started! There are LOTS of others
    > > though, it just depends on what specific sort of info you're looking
    > > for.
    > >
    > > The long-story short though is that both companies make good
    > > processors that are plenty fast for the vast majority of what people
    > > do. Ohh, that and in almost all cases the processor is a HIGHLY
    > > overrated component when it comes to determining the quality and speed
    > > of a system.
    >
    > Yeah, based on what I've learned so far, start by studying up on main
    > board bus archetecture (and chipset) and build system on that
    > foundation. Everything will fall into place from there. You might say
    > the same going the other way -- starting with processor -- but there's
    > probably too much quality, and design variation in boards that'll work
    > with the proc you pick to make that the way to go. Whereas if you start
    > with the best board you can figure out to get, you can then just pick
    > the best processor -- by the time you've learned about chipsets, and
    > bus archetechture, proc'll be a breeze -- that'll work with the board.

    thanks for the reply...
    perhaps chip set comparison would be more useful...
    sincerely
    Tanya
    (the boards that i have seen for intel-based systems are fairly similar)


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

    Tony Hill wrote:

    > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:04:13 -0500, Tanya
    > <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
    >
    > >i would like to find a Web site / article that contrasts amd w/ intel
    > >(as generally as possible and upToDate)
    > >would anybody know of a Web site / article which does so?
    >
    > Umm.. that's a bit of a broad question, is there something a bit more
    > specific you're looking at?

    <snip>

    > However, if you're looking at a comparison of specific products, ie
    > their microprocessors, you might want to check some of the following
    > links:
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2249
    >
    > http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx.html
    >
    > http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/amd-hammer-1.ars
    >
    > http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/pentium-1.ars
    >
    > Umm.. that should at least get you started! There are LOTS of others
    > though, it just depends on what specific sort of info you're looking
    > for.
    >
    > The long-story short though is that both companies make good
    > processors that are plenty fast for the vast majority of what people
    > do. Ohh, that and in almost all cases the processor is a HIGHLY
    > overrated component when it comes to determining the quality and speed
    > of a system.
    >
    > -------------
    > Tony Hill
    > hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

    hi Tony,
    i realize that the question is *broad* however if i mention that i want to
    put together an intel-based (p4) system, i keep hearing that amd is better
    and i would like to know in what?
    i appreciate the links, they are interesting and helpful!

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

    YKhan wrote:

    > Is your goal to build a system or systems for yourself from scratch, or
    > to simply buy ready-built systems with these processors on it? Or maybe
    > to upgrade an existing system with one of these processors?
    >
    > Yousuf Khan

    hi
    i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
    i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
    missing something
    thanks
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tanya wrote:

    >hi
    >i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
    >i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
    >missing something
    >thanks

    Most everyone in this group will tell you that AMD is the better
    choice, at this point in time. See my "Okay AMD lovers" thread (only
    a few days old) for the system that I just built.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    chrisv wrote:
    > Tanya wrote:
    >
    >
    >>hi
    >>i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
    >>i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
    >>missing something
    >>thanks
    >
    >
    > Most everyone in this group will tell you that AMD is the better
    > choice, at this point in time. See my "Okay AMD lovers" thread (only
    > a few days old) for the system that I just built.
    >

    And chrisv was one of the hardest ones to convince too.

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

    Tanya wrote:
    > hi
    > i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
    > i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
    > missing something
    > thanks

    These days there's no reason to not consider AMD, but that applies
    equally back to Intel. At one time, people who were looking to put
    together a system on a budget used to look automatically to AMD,
    nowadays some of Intel's high-end chips are as cheap as AMD's mid-price
    chips. In fact, I'd say the Intels are a good bargain these days.

    Also, you might have to do more research when building an AMD system
    because there are often a bewildering array of choices for almost
    everything. Not only would you have choices of motherboard makers (Asus,
    Abit, ECS, MSI, Gigabyte, etc., etc.), but each motherboard maker might
    have several similar models using a different chipset (VIA, Nvidia, SIS,
    etc.). Also with AMD's new-found prestige, it's now catering to many
    different markets all at once, with at least three different
    socket-types depending on the performance you're looking for: value,
    high-end, extremely high-end.

    Intel on the other hand, doesn't have so many choices. You buy
    somebody's motherboard with an Intel chipset, or you buy somebody else's
    motherboard with the same Intel chipset. Makes it a little bit easier.
    There was a recent socket change for Intels, but the new socket
    basically erases from existence the older one. Celerons and Pentium 4's
    are basically fitting into the same sockets again.

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

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:48:42 -0500, Tanya
    <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:

    >Tony Hill wrote:
    >
    >> The long-story short though is that both companies make good
    >> processors that are plenty fast for the vast majority of what people
    >> do. Ohh, that and in almost all cases the processor is a HIGHLY
    >> overrated component when it comes to determining the quality and speed
    >> of a system.
    >>
    >hi Tony,
    >i realize that the question is *broad* however if i mention that i want to
    >put together an intel-based (p4) system, i keep hearing that amd is better
    >and i would like to know in what?
    >i appreciate the links, they are interesting and helpful!

    No problem! First off, as I mentioned above, both Intel and AMD make
    very good chips and they're both available for pretty reasonable
    prices, so it's tough to go too wrong with either one. However for
    either situation it pays to spend a little bit of time looking into
    some options and potential gotchas.

    I know that a few others have mentioned motherboard chipsets, and I
    would definitely second that. For Intel processors you have the
    choice of Intel, VIA, ATi and SiS chipsets (and possibly a few other
    niche players), but the vast bulk of people stick with Intel chipsets.
    For AMD processors the selection is similar but the spread is a bit
    more even. Not surprisingly Intel does not make chipsets for AMD, but
    VIA, ATi and SiS do, as do ALi (aka ULi) and nVidia (AMD also makes
    their own chipsets, but only for high-end workstations and servers).
    Each of these companies have a variety of chipsets that have a range
    of features and come in at different price-points. The end result can
    be a bit of a mess, but it's probably the best place to start since
    the motherboard and it's chipset pretty much for the base of
    everything in the computer.


    Personally if it were me that were building the system, I would look
    either towards an Intel P4 sitting in an Intel i915(G) chipset or an
    AMD Athlon64 sitting in an nForce4 chipset. These two seem to be
    hitting a good price/performance point these days with decent feature
    sets, so they would probably be good starting points if you're looking
    into things.

    A couple things to look into for motherboards these days include:

    1. AGP vs. PCI-Express graphics slot

    PCI-Express is the new replacement for AGP and is quickly becoming the
    norm for video cards. While PCI-E boards might be a bit more
    expensive, often they can use cheaper video cards which nullifies this
    price difference. What's more, PCI-E is definitely the way things are
    going, so I would generally recommend against getting an AGP board
    unless you've already got a decent AGP graphics card to drop in the
    system.


    2. Integrated graphics vs. discrete graphics

    Keeping with the graphics theme, there is the choice of getting a
    board with built-in graphics or an add-in graphics card. Most people
    here are rather opposed to integrated graphics because they really
    don't do so good at computer games. They can also lower overall
    system performance by a bit, though these days the difference is
    pretty small. In many cases going for an integrated graphics solution
    can save you quite a bit of money and you can even get boards with
    AGP/PCI-Express slot for the later addition of an add-in card if you
    so desire. One downside to AMD systems is that there isn't much in
    the way of decent integrated graphics solutions available, while for
    Intel chipsets they are quite common.


    3. Number of ATA and SATA connectors

    One of the real downsides, IMO, of Intel's i9xx series chipsets is
    that they dropped one of the ATA controllers, leaving you with a
    maximum of 2 ATA devices (ie hard drives and CD-ROMs). Now in theory
    hard drives are moving towards the newer SATA standard, and you should
    definitely get a board with at least a handful of SATA controllers,
    however SATA CD drives (including DVDs, CD-RW, etc.) are almost
    non-existent. In my system I've currently got 3 ATA drives (2 hard
    drives and a CD-ROM), so I'd already be over the limit of Intel's new
    chipsets. Fortunately many boards built using these new i9xx series
    chipsets do include secondary ATA controllers on-board, though these
    do complicate things slightly.


    4. Dual vs. single channel memory, memory sockets and max memory

    Many boards these days use dual-channel memory, ie they take their
    memory in matched pairs. Here AMD and Intel do differ somewhat in
    that AMD has their memory controller built right into the processor
    while for Intel the memory controller is off on the chipset. For AMD
    chips, any of their Athlon64s that fit into Socket 939 are
    dual-channel, regardless of the chipset used, while those that fit
    into Socket 754 are single channel. For Intel it's a little bit more
    complicated in that, for example, the i915 is dual channel but the
    i910 is single channel. Generally speaking, dual-channel is better
    for performance and shouldn't change the price much, but you do have
    to remember to add memory in matched pairs, which can complicate
    upgrades slightly. For example, a dual-channel motherboard might have
    4 memory sockets, but after you drop the first two sticks in you've
    only got room for one more matched pair of memory to upgrade with down
    the road. Keep in mind that two or three years after you get your
    computer, upgrading the memory is almost always the best bang/buck
    upgrade you can get.


    Well, that should give you a bit of food for thought! Good luck!

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

    hi Tony,
    thanks again for replying!
    [...below...]

    Tony Hill wrote:

    > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:48:42 -0500, Tanya
    > <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
    >
    > >Tony Hill wrote:
    > >
    > >> The long-story short though is that both companies make good
    > >> processors that are plenty fast for the vast majority of what people
    > >> do. Ohh, that and in almost all cases the processor is a HIGHLY
    > >> overrated component when it comes to determining the quality and speed
    > >> of a system.
    > >>
    > >hi Tony,
    > >i realize that the question is *broad* however if i mention that i want to
    > >put together an intel-based (p4) system, i keep hearing that amd is better
    > >and i would like to know in what?
    > >i appreciate the links, they are interesting and helpful!
    >
    > No problem! First off, as I mentioned above, both Intel and AMD make
    > very good chips and they're both available for pretty reasonable
    > prices, so it's tough to go too wrong with either one. However for
    > either situation it pays to spend a little bit of time looking into
    > some options and potential gotchas.

    actually i have spent a bit of time (but only on intel so far)

    > I know that a few others have mentioned motherboard chipsets, and I
    > would definitely second that. For Intel processors you have the
    > choice of Intel, VIA, ATi and SiS chipsets (and possibly a few other
    > niche players), but the vast bulk of people stick with Intel chipsets.
    > For AMD processors the selection is similar but the spread is a bit
    > more even. Not surprisingly Intel does not make chipsets for AMD, but
    > VIA, ATi and SiS do, as do ALi (aka ULi) and nVidia (AMD also makes
    > their own chipsets, but only for high-end workstations and servers).
    > Each of these companies have a variety of chipsets that have a range
    > of features and come in at different price-points. The end result can
    > be a bit of a mess, but it's probably the best place to start since
    > the motherboard and it's chipset pretty much for the base of
    > everything in the computer.

    i am strongly considering an asus board (p5gdc-v/dx) with the i915g chipset (as
    opposed to i925xe chipset) and would like to know the operating difference
    between the i915g and the i925xe chipsets
    (from what i see, the i925xe is the only one to support the 1066 fsb) not sure
    whether there are other differences

    > Personally if it were me that were building the system, I would look
    > either towards an Intel P4 sitting in an Intel i915(G) chipset or an
    > AMD Athlon64 sitting in an nForce4 chipset. These two seem to be
    > hitting a good price/performance point these days with decent feature
    > sets, so they would probably be good starting points if you're looking
    > into things.

    thanks very much for posting the amd info (i have something to go on now)
    i read a review on intel boards:
    the asus p5gdc-vdx is compared to others with i925xe's and rates highly
    (apparently has something to do with dissipating heat)
    (it is socket 775))

    > A couple things to look into for motherboards these days include:
    >
    > 1. AGP vs. PCI-Express graphics slot

    this has onBoard (but also does have pci express x 16) and i could get the card
    later (if needed or wanted)

    > PCI-Express is the new replacement for AGP and is quickly becoming the
    > norm for video cards. While PCI-E boards might be a bit more
    > expensive, often they can use cheaper video cards which nullifies this
    > price difference. What's more, PCI-E is definitely the way things are
    > going, so I would generally recommend against getting an AGP board
    > unless you've already got a decent AGP graphics card to drop in the
    > system.

    there's no mention of agp

    > 2. Integrated graphics vs. discrete graphics
    >
    > Keeping with the graphics theme, there is the choice of getting a
    > board with built-in graphics or an add-in graphics card. Most people
    > here are rather opposed to integrated graphics because they really
    > don't do so good at computer games.

    won't be using it for games -- i think that the video memory is 32 mbs (iirc)
    apparently, the onBoard video is not great for gaming -- however that does not
    affect me)

    > They can also lower overall
    > system performance by a bit, though these days the difference is
    > pretty small. In many cases going for an integrated graphics solution
    > can save you quite a bit of money and you can even get boards with
    > AGP/PCI-Express slot for the later addition of an add-in card if you
    > so desire.

    via a pci slot?

    > One downside to AMD systems is that there isn't much in
    > the way of decent integrated graphics solutions available, while for
    > Intel chipsets they are quite common.
    >
    > 3. Number of ATA and SATA connectors

    this is what it has:
    slots: 1x pci-ex16, 2x pci-ex1, 3x pci.
    ide: 1x ata 100 (up to 2 devices)
    2x ata 133 (up to 4 devices with raid 0/1/0 +1 by ite 8212f)

    sata/raid: 4x sata by ich6r with raid 0/1

    > One of the real downsides, IMO, of Intel's i9xx series chipsets is
    > that they dropped one of the ATA controllers, leaving you with a
    > maximum of 2 ATA devices (ie hard drives and CD-ROMs). Now in theory
    > hard drives are moving towards the newer SATA standard, and you should
    > definitely get a board with at least a handful of SATA controllers,
    > however SATA CD drives (including DVDs, CD-RW, etc.) are almost
    > non-existent. In my system I've currently got 3 ATA drives (2 hard
    > drives and a CD-ROM), so I'd already be over the limit of Intel's new
    > chipsets. Fortunately many boards built using these new i9xx series
    > chipsets do include secondary ATA controllers on-board, though these
    > do complicate things slightly.

    the above controllers should be okay shouldn't they?
    (i could use the ata 100 for a cd-rw -- or 2:-)
    and the sata/raid for hdd?

    > 4. Dual vs. single channel memory, memory sockets and max memory
    >
    > Many boards these days use dual-channel memory, ie they take their
    > memory in matched pairs. Here AMD and Intel do differ somewhat in
    > that AMD has their memory controller built right into the processor

    having it built into the chip -- is this better? (rather than having the
    controller on the chipset)?

    > while for Intel the memory controller is off on the chipset. For AMD
    > chips, any of their Athlon64s that fit into Socket 939 are
    > dual-channel, regardless of the chipset used, while those that fit
    > into Socket 754 are single channel. For Intel it's a little bit more
    > complicated in that, for example, the i915 is dual channel but the
    > i910 is single channel. Generally speaking, dual-channel is better
    > for performance and shouldn't change the price much, but you do have
    > to remember to add memory in matched pairs, which can complicate
    > upgrades slightly. For example, a dual-channel motherboard might have
    > 4 memory sockets, but after you drop the first two sticks in you've
    > only got room for one more matched pair of memory to upgrade with down
    > the road. Keep in mind that two or three years after you get your
    > computer, upgrading the memory is almost always the best bang/buck
    > upgrade you can get.

    there are 4 sockets...
    this board supports either ddr or ddr2 (it states [under the specs] that it
    supports dual, single (perhaps the ddr2 will not require dual?))
    i'd be using ddr initially
    also the max is 4 gb

    > Well, that should give you a bit of food for thought! Good luck!
    >
    > -------------
    > Tony Hill
    > hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

    with respect to the amd-based boards:
    there are 3 categories; (on motherboards.org site)
    (i realize that one cannot compare apples to oranges however which group would
    be comparable [closest] to s775?)
    socket a
    socket 754, 939, 940
    socket 939 (64-bit)

    1 concern:
    i've heard that the prescott series generates xs heat.
    is this unavoidable?
    thanks again for the reply!
    i appreciate it
    sincerely
    Tanya
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    chrisv wrote:

    > Tanya wrote:
    >
    > >hi
    > >i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
    > >i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
    > >missing something
    > >thanks
    >
    > Most everyone in this group will tell you that AMD is the better
    > choice, at this point in time. See my "Okay AMD lovers" thread (only
    > a few days old) for the system that I just built.

    i'm reading it...
    thank you for pointing it out
    sincerely
    Tanya
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    hi Yousuf,
    thanks for the reply...
    [...below...]

    Yousuf Khan wrote:

    > Tanya wrote:
    > > hi
    > > i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
    > > i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
    > > missing something
    > > thanks
    >
    > These days there's no reason to not consider AMD, but that applies
    > equally back to Intel. At one time, people who were looking to put
    > together a system on a budget used to look automatically to AMD,
    > nowadays some of Intel's high-end chips are as cheap as AMD's mid-price
    > chips. In fact, I'd say the Intels are a good bargain these days.

    i've only owned intels (and find them reliable)
    i heard somewhere that amd is not as reliable....

    > Also, you might have to do more research when building an AMD system
    > because there are often a bewildering array of choices for almost
    > everything. Not only would you have choices of motherboard makers (Asus,
    > Abit, ECS, MSI, Gigabyte, etc., etc.), but each motherboard maker might
    > have several similar models using a different chipset (VIA, Nvidia, SIS,
    > etc.). Also with AMD's new-found prestige, it's now catering to many
    > different markets all at once, with at least three different
    > socket-types depending on the performance you're looking for: value,
    > high-end, extremely high-end.

    maybe you can explain this: the categories (of ranking amds) are socket a;
    socket 754, 939, 940; and socket 939)
    which would be *comparible* to the lga 775 socket?

    > Intel on the other hand, doesn't have so many choices. You buy
    > somebody's motherboard with an Intel chipset, or you buy somebody else's
    > motherboard with the same Intel chipset. Makes it a little bit easier.
    > There was a recent socket change for Intels, but the new socket
    > basically erases from existence the older one. Celerons and Pentium 4's
    > are basically fitting into the same sockets again.

    i see that for socket 478 but not 775.

    > Yousuf Khan

    thank you,
    sincerely
    Tanya
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Hi,

    Hope this can help you some more....

    For games then Intel has to be serious choice though AMD can't be ruled
    out because of its relatively cheap price, however... for offive based
    applications etc then AMD becomes the favoured choice as its a HELL of
    a lot cheaper than Intel and the functionality of the chips are
    slightly better than Intel.

    Hope this was helpful...!!

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

    On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:21:54 -0500, Tanya wrote:

    > hi Yousuf,
    > thanks for the reply...
    > [...below...]
    >
    > Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >
    >> Tanya wrote:
    >> > hi
    >> > i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
    >> > i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
    >> > missing something
    >> > thanks
    >>
    >> These days there's no reason to not consider AMD, but that applies
    >> equally back to Intel. At one time, people who were looking to put
    >> together a system on a budget used to look automatically to AMD,
    >> nowadays some of Intel's high-end chips are as cheap as AMD's mid-price
    >> chips. In fact, I'd say the Intels are a good bargain these days.
    >
    > i've only owned intels (and find them reliable)
    > i heard somewhere that amd is not as reliable....

    You heard wrong, though FUD has been the rule in this business since its
    conception.

    >> Also, you might have to do more research when building an AMD system
    >> because there are often a bewildering array of choices for almost
    >> everything. Not only would you have choices of motherboard makers (Asus,
    >> Abit, ECS, MSI, Gigabyte, etc., etc.), but each motherboard maker might
    >> have several similar models using a different chipset (VIA, Nvidia, SIS,
    >> etc.). Also with AMD's new-found prestige, it's now catering to many
    >> different markets all at once, with at least three different
    >> socket-types depending on the performance you're looking for: value,
    >> high-end, extremely high-end.
    >
    > maybe you can explain this: the categories (of ranking amds) are socket a;
    > socket 754, 939, 940; and socket 939)
    > which would be *comparible* to the lga 775 socket?

    It depends on what you mean by "comparable". We've had the LGA discussion
    here before. I'm not a fan of LGAs in this market at all. They're great
    if the chip is permanently mounted, but call me skeptical of LGA sockets.

    Socket-939 is likely the best choice for a "performance" system now.
    Socket-940 requires registered DRAM, which is somewhat more expensive and
    a (very) little lower performance. Socket-940 is really intended for
    servers. IMO, socket-754 is dead-end and I don't see any reason to go
    there. Socket-A is used for Athlons and a good choice for "value" systems.

    One can build a rather impressive socket-A system on the cheap. I built
    quite an impressive system for a friend for $400 (display, keyboard, and
    OS recycled from one that had the magic smoke let out).

    The big advantage AMD has (sockets 939 and 940) is the memory
    architecture. The integrated DRAM controllers (vs. controller on the
    northbridge) are a performance advantage, but also cost a lot of pins on
    the processor chip.

    >> Intel on the other hand, doesn't have so many choices. You buy
    >> somebody's motherboard with an Intel chipset, or you buy somebody else's
    >> motherboard with the same Intel chipset. Makes it a little bit easier.
    >> There was a recent socket change for Intels, but the new socket
    >> basically erases from existence the older one. Celerons and Pentium 4's
    >> are basically fitting into the same sockets again.
    >
    > i see that for socket 478 but not 775.

    In short, I'd go with a P4 if I were going to do a lot of streaming video,
    P3M for a laptop, and Athlon64 for everything else. I do "everything
    else" so have an Opteron (socket-940), which I bought before 939 was
    generally available).

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

    On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:20:17 -0500, Tanya
    <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
    >> I know that a few others have mentioned motherboard chipsets, and I
    >> would definitely second that. For Intel processors you have the
    >> choice of Intel, VIA, ATi and SiS chipsets (and possibly a few other
    >> niche players), but the vast bulk of people stick with Intel chipsets.
    >> For AMD processors the selection is similar but the spread is a bit
    >> more even. Not surprisingly Intel does not make chipsets for AMD, but
    >> VIA, ATi and SiS do, as do ALi (aka ULi) and nVidia (AMD also makes
    >> their own chipsets, but only for high-end workstations and servers).
    >> Each of these companies have a variety of chipsets that have a range
    >> of features and come in at different price-points. The end result can
    >> be a bit of a mess, but it's probably the best place to start since
    >> the motherboard and it's chipset pretty much for the base of
    >> everything in the computer.
    >
    >i am strongly considering an asus board (p5gdc-v/dx) with the i915g chipset (as
    >opposed to i925xe chipset) and would like to know the operating difference
    >between the i915g and the i925xe chipsets
    >(from what i see, the i925xe is the only one to support the 1066 fsb) not sure
    >whether there are other differences

    The i925XE chipset adds support for the 1066MT/s processor bus, but
    drops support for DDR memory in favor of DDR2. It also adds a good
    $100+ to the price tag of the board. All else being equal, an i925XE
    chipset should also be a tiny bit faster than an i915G chipset, but
    the difference is quite small and, IMO, not worthwhile.

    >> A couple things to look into for motherboards these days include:
    >>
    >> 1. AGP vs. PCI-Express graphics slot
    >
    >this has onBoard (but also does have pci express x 16) and i could get the card
    >later (if needed or wanted)
    >
    >> PCI-Express is the new replacement for AGP and is quickly becoming the
    >> norm for video cards. While PCI-E boards might be a bit more
    >> expensive, often they can use cheaper video cards which nullifies this
    >> price difference. What's more, PCI-E is definitely the way things are
    >> going, so I would generally recommend against getting an AGP board
    >> unless you've already got a decent AGP graphics card to drop in the
    >> system.
    >
    >there's no mention of agp

    None of the i9xx series of chipsets support AGP. Not really a big
    loss unless you've already got an old AGP card you want to bring over
    to the new system.

    >> 2. Integrated graphics vs. discrete graphics
    >>
    >> Keeping with the graphics theme, there is the choice of getting a
    >> board with built-in graphics or an add-in graphics card. Most people
    >> here are rather opposed to integrated graphics because they really
    >> don't do so good at computer games.
    >
    >won't be using it for games -- i think that the video memory is 32 mbs (iirc)
    >apparently, the onBoard video is not great for gaming -- however that does not
    >affect me)

    The integrated video of the i915G is actually quite decent. Beyond
    gaming, the only other sorts of applications where it really flops are
    things like high-end graphics and CAD applications (particularly if
    you're doing any sort of 3D CAD).

    >> They can also lower overall
    >> system performance by a bit, though these days the difference is
    >> pretty small. In many cases going for an integrated graphics solution
    >> can save you quite a bit of money and you can even get boards with
    >> AGP/PCI-Express slot for the later addition of an add-in card if you
    >> so desire.
    >
    >via a pci slot?

    PCI-Express slot... Or PCI I guess, though it doesn't make much sense
    to use that if you've got a PCI-Express 16x slot.

    >> One downside to AMD systems is that there isn't much in
    >> the way of decent integrated graphics solutions available, while for
    >> Intel chipsets they are quite common.
    >>
    >> 3. Number of ATA and SATA connectors
    >
    >this is what it has:
    >slots: 1x pci-ex16, 2x pci-ex1, 3x pci.
    >ide: 1x ata 100 (up to 2 devices)

    This connector will be the one connected directly to the chipset and
    is the only ATA connector you can use to initially load your operating
    system with.

    >2x ata 133 (up to 4 devices with raid 0/1/0 +1 by ite 8212f)

    These would be fine once Windows is loaded, but won't work for loading
    the OS.

    >sata/raid: 4x sata by ich6r with raid 0/1

    This is where the important stuff is. Most likely you'll want to get
    an SATA hard drive and throw it on one of these connectors. You
    should be able to load the OS with no trouble on these. At least in
    theory, SATA should be a bit faster than ATA as well.

    >> One of the real downsides, IMO, of Intel's i9xx series chipsets is
    >> that they dropped one of the ATA controllers, leaving you with a
    >> maximum of 2 ATA devices (ie hard drives and CD-ROMs). Now in theory
    >> hard drives are moving towards the newer SATA standard, and you should
    >> definitely get a board with at least a handful of SATA controllers,
    >> however SATA CD drives (including DVDs, CD-RW, etc.) are almost
    >> non-existent. In my system I've currently got 3 ATA drives (2 hard
    >> drives and a CD-ROM), so I'd already be over the limit of Intel's new
    >> chipsets. Fortunately many boards built using these new i9xx series
    >> chipsets do include secondary ATA controllers on-board, though these
    >> do complicate things slightly.
    >
    >the above controllers should be okay shouldn't they?
    >(i could use the ata 100 for a cd-rw -- or 2:-)
    >and the sata/raid for hdd?

    Yup, should be plenty. Asus has decided to include a secondary ATA
    controller on-board (the ITE one). As mentioned above, you can't
    really use that until your OS is loaded, but that shouldn't be a big
    worry, you just need a single hard drive (ATA or SATA) and a single
    CD-ROM to load the OS. Additional devices can be left until later.

    >> 4. Dual vs. single channel memory, memory sockets and max memory
    >>
    >> Many boards these days use dual-channel memory, ie they take their
    >> memory in matched pairs. Here AMD and Intel do differ somewhat in
    >> that AMD has their memory controller built right into the processor
    >
    >having it built into the chip -- is this better? (rather than having the
    >controller on the chipset)?

    Putting the memory controller on-chip reduces the time it takes to get
    data to/from main memory by about 30%. This translates into about a
    10-20% improvement in overall system performance and is one of the key
    reasons why 2.0GHz Athlon64 chips are often faster than 3.0GHz P4
    chips. Basically everyone in the chip-making business other than
    Intel has decided the integrated memory controllers are the way to go.

    Beyond performance though, it shouldn't change things much.

    >> while for Intel the memory controller is off on the chipset. For AMD
    >> chips, any of their Athlon64s that fit into Socket 939 are
    >> dual-channel, regardless of the chipset used, while those that fit
    >> into Socket 754 are single channel. For Intel it's a little bit more
    >> complicated in that, for example, the i915 is dual channel but the
    >> i910 is single channel. Generally speaking, dual-channel is better
    >> for performance and shouldn't change the price much, but you do have
    >> to remember to add memory in matched pairs, which can complicate
    >> upgrades slightly. For example, a dual-channel motherboard might have
    >> 4 memory sockets, but after you drop the first two sticks in you've
    >> only got room for one more matched pair of memory to upgrade with down
    >> the road. Keep in mind that two or three years after you get your
    >> computer, upgrading the memory is almost always the best bang/buck
    >> upgrade you can get.
    >
    >there are 4 sockets...
    >this board supports either ddr or ddr2 (it states [under the specs] that it
    >supports dual, single (perhaps the ddr2 will not require dual?))
    >i'd be using ddr initially
    >also the max is 4 gb

    From the specs I can see there are 4 DDR sockets and 2 DDR2 sockets on
    this board. Both DDR and DDR2 are best used in a dual-channel setup,
    though sometimes it is possible to use a single-channel setup with
    about a 10% performance loss, ie not a very good setup.

    Note that even though this board supports both DDR and DDR2, it almost
    certainly does NOT support both at the same time, it's one or the
    other.

    >with respect to the amd-based boards:
    >there are 3 categories; (on motherboards.org site)
    >(i realize that one cannot compare apples to oranges however which group would
    >be comparable [closest] to s775?)
    >socket a

    Socket A is rather dated these days and is in the process of being
    EOLed. It's had a good life (it was first introduced in late 2000 or
    early 2001 if my memory serves me correctly) and can still be used for
    a great low-budget system. However for the most part you can ignore
    this one.

    >socket 754, 939, 940

    This is where the magic is happening for AMD systems.

    Socket 754 - Older (single-channel memory) Athlon64 chips and Sempron
    chips. Mainly a low-cost solution these days.

    Socket 940 - Used pretty much exclusively for the AMD Opteron for
    servers and workstations. This socket includes support for large
    amounts of memory and multiple processors, but probably not of much
    interest for most home users (err.. except for Keith, but he doesn't
    count :> ). Socket 940 would be AMD's equivalent to Intel's Socket
    604 for their Xeon processors.

    Socket 939 - This is definitely the closest equivalent to Intel's
    Socket 775 and would be what you would probably want to concentrate on
    when looking at AMD-based systems. It is used for pretty much all the
    new AMD Athlon64 based systems. It adds dual-channel memory when
    compared to Socket 754 and lower costs when compared to Socket 940.

    >socket 939 (64-bit)

    This one hasn't exactly showed up yet, but it's expected to replace
    Socket 754 for low-cost systems eventually.

    >1 concern:
    >i've heard that the prescott series generates xs heat.
    >is this unavoidable?

    It does generate a fair bit of heat, though the new 600 series P4
    chips have made some improvements in this regard. Generally speaking
    it is unavoidable, though a good heatsink and decent airflow in your
    case can take care of it.

    Speaking of those 600 series P4 chips, I would HIGHLY recommend
    getting one of those if you're looking at a P4 system. Performance
    should be about the same as a 500 series P4 of one higher model number
    (ie the P4 640/3.2GHz should perform about the same as a 550/3.4GHz
    chip). On top of that they do reduce the power consumption with a few
    new tricks, but most importantly, they add 64-bit support. While
    Microsoft still hasn't quite got around to releasing 64-bit Windows
    (1.5 years late and counting) it is coming and this is going to be the
    standard going forward.

    For AMD Athlon64 chips you've already got 64-bit support and better
    power consumption than any of the Pentium4 chips, so not such a big
    worry.

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

    tartan_martin wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > Hope this can help you some more....
    >
    > For games then Intel has to be serious choice though AMD can't be ruled
    > out because of its relatively cheap price, however... for offive based
    > applications etc then AMD becomes the favoured choice as its a HELL of
    > a lot cheaper than Intel and the functionality of the chips are
    > slightly better than Intel.
    >
    > Hope this was helpful...!!

    I doubt it would help her, because that advice is two years out of date.
    These days the games are AMD's domain, and actually you might find that
    the Intel's are the cheaper choice.

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

    On 26 Feb 2005 10:26:23 -0800, "tartan_martin" <m_forbes2005@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >Hi,
    >
    >Hope this can help you some more....
    >
    >For games then Intel has to be serious choice though AMD can't be ruled
    >out because of its relatively cheap price, however... for offive based
    >applications etc then AMD becomes the favoured choice as its a HELL of
    >a lot cheaper than Intel and the functionality of the chips are
    >slightly better than Intel.

    Huh? Have you looked at performance recently? Intel CPUs are rarely even
    close to the top end Athlon64s in most games - even the "mid-range" Athlon
    64 3500+ does well when compared with the top Intel CPUs - games "like" low
    latency for many of their ops. About the only place that Intel really
    scores is on video processing and some other streaming apps where the HT
    helps -- it *can* make things worse in some situations -- and where
    agressive memory->cache pre-fetching is a benefit.

    Oh and AMD is not a lot cheaper any longer... though some of the recent
    Intel-based mbrds are getting pricey.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Just an additional data point on heat generation issue...
    Athlon 64 winchester (90nm) is pretty unbelievable when it
    comes to heat generation/ power consumption. It generates
    even less heat than old athlon xp (thoroughbred B). Figures:

    Idle K7burn
    3GHz P4 Prescott D0: 30W 90W
    3GHz P4 Northwood: 18W 70W
    2GHz AXP Barton: 38W 60W
    2GHz A64 Newcastle: 15W 55W
    2GHz A64 Winchester: <10W 30W

    I have athlon 64 3000+, and I am often amazed that cpu fan
    is at dead stop and hardly stirs even while after I've been
    playing UT2004 for a while. And to confirm, yes the heat sink
    is barely warm to touch, which is unbelievable for cpu of
    this performance category.

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

    hi Martin,
    thank you for the reply and advice...

    tartan_martin wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > Hope this can help you some more....
    >
    > For games then Intel has to be serious choice though AMD can't be ruled
    > out because of its relatively cheap price, however... for offive based
    > applications etc then AMD becomes the favoured choice as its a HELL of
    > a lot cheaper than Intel and the functionality of the chips are
    > slightly better than Intel.

    wherever i ask, amd seems to be a better choice (for anything / everything
    :-)
    i guess i'll try it...
    thanks for the info!
    sincerely
    Tanya

    >
    >
    > Hope this was helpful...!!
    >
    > Martin
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    hi Tony,
    thanks again for replying and for providing the information!
    [...below...]

    Tony Hill wrote:
    <snip>

    > >i am strongly considering an asus board (p5gdc-v/dx) with the i915g chipset (as
    > >opposed to i925xe chipset) and would like to know the operating difference
    > >between the i915g and the i925xe chipsets
    > >(from what i see, the i925xe is the only one to support the 1066 fsb) not sure
    > >whether there are other differences
    >
    > The i925XE chipset adds support for the 1066MT/s processor bus, but
    > drops support for DDR memory in favor of DDR2. It also adds a good
    > $100+ to the price tag of the board. All else being equal, an i925XE
    > chipset should also be a tiny bit faster than an i915G chipset, but
    > the difference is quite small and, IMO, not worthwhile.

    getting more confused:)
    read that a main determinant of performance is the "clock speed" (states that this
    is not the same as operating frequency of the cpu (but is related)) and is a
    function of the motherboard bus (however the only speeds on the motherboards seem to
    be memory speeds...)
    i was looking at the abit fatl1ty and the asus p5ad2-e (both supporting 1066 fsb
    speed but only ddr2 (and more expen$ive) (chipset i925xe))

    > >> A couple things to look into for motherboards these days include:
    > >>
    > >> 1. AGP vs. PCI-Express graphics slot

    <snip>

    > >there's no mention of agp
    >
    > None of the i9xx series of chipsets support AGP. Not really a big
    > loss unless you've already got an old AGP card you want to bring over
    > to the new system.

    (i guess they are slower ...)

    > >> 2. Integrated graphics vs. discrete graphics

    <snip>

    > >won't be using it for games -- i think that the video memory is 32 mbs (iirc)
    > >apparently, the onBoard video is not great for gaming -- however that does not
    > >affect me)
    >
    > The integrated video of the i915G is actually quite decent. Beyond
    > gaming, the only other sorts of applications where it really flops are
    > things like high-end graphics and CAD applications (particularly if
    > you're doing any sort of 3D CAD).
    >
    > >> They can also lower overall
    > >> system performance by a bit,

    i would assume that if i bought a pci-express graphics card, the overall performance
    would not be adversely affected (if it had been affected with the onBoard chip) ?

    > though these days the difference is
    > >> pretty small. In many cases going for an integrated graphics solution
    > >> can save you quite a bit of money and you can even get boards with
    > >> AGP/PCI-Express slot for the later addition of an add-in card if you
    > >> so desire.
    > >
    > >via a pci slot?
    >
    > PCI-Express slot... Or PCI I guess, though it doesn't make much sense
    > to use that if you've got a PCI-Express 16x slot.
    >
    > >> One downside to AMD systems is that there isn't much in
    > >> the way of decent integrated graphics solutions available,

    <snip>

    > >> 3. Number of ATA and SATA connectors
    > >
    > >this is what it has:
    > >slots: 1x pci-ex16, 2x pci-ex1, 3x pci.
    > >ide: 1x ata 100 (up to 2 devices)
    >
    > This connector will be the one connected directly to the chipset and
    > is the only ATA connector you can use to initially load your operating
    > system with.
    >
    > >2x ata 133 (up to 4 devices with raid 0/1/0 +1 by ite 8212f)
    >
    > These would be fine once Windows is loaded, but won't work for loading
    > the OS.
    >
    > >sata/raid: 4x sata by ich6r with raid 0/1
    >
    > This is where the important stuff is. Most likely you'll want to get
    > an SATA hard drive and throw it on one of these connectors. You
    > should be able to load the OS with no trouble on these. At least in
    > theory, SATA should be a bit faster than ATA as well.

    yes, plan on sata / raid drive

    > >> One of the real downsides, IMO, of Intel's i9xx series chipsets is
    > >> that they dropped one of the ATA controllers, leaving you with a
    > >> maximum of 2 ATA devices (ie hard drives and CD-ROMs). Now in theory
    > >> hard drives are moving towards the newer SATA standard, and you should
    > >> definitely get a board with at least a handful of SATA controllers,
    > >> however SATA CD drives (including DVDs, CD-RW, etc.) are almost
    > >> non-existent. In my system I've currently got 3 ATA drives (2 hard
    > >> drives and a CD-ROM), so I'd already be over the limit of Intel's new
    > >> chipsets. Fortunately many boards built using these new i9xx series
    > >> chipsets do include secondary ATA controllers on-board, though these
    > >> do complicate things slightly.
    > >
    > >the above controllers should be okay shouldn't they?
    > >(i could use the ata 100 for a cd-rw -- or 2:-)
    > >and the sata/raid for hdd?
    >
    > Yup, should be plenty. Asus has decided to include a secondary ATA
    > controller on-board (the ITE one). As mentioned above, you can't
    > really use that until your OS is loaded, but that shouldn't be a big
    > worry, you just need a single hard drive (ATA or SATA) and a single
    > CD-ROM to load the OS. Additional devices can be left until later.
    >
    > >> 4. Dual vs. single channel memory, memory sockets and max memory
    > >>
    > >> Many boards these days use dual-channel memory, ie they take their
    > >> memory in matched pairs. Here AMD and Intel do differ somewhat in
    > >> that AMD has their memory controller built right into the processor
    > >
    > >having it built into the chip -- is this better? (rather than having the
    > >controller on the chipset)?
    >
    > Putting the memory controller on-chip reduces the time it takes to get
    > data to/from main memory by about 30%. This translates into about a
    > 10-20% improvement in overall system performance and is one of the key
    > reasons why 2.0GHz Athlon64 chips are often faster than 3.0GHz P4
    > chips. Basically everyone in the chip-making business other than
    > Intel has decided the integrated memory controllers are the way to go.

    not related to l2 cache (better to get a cpu with the l2 cache *built in* (vs. on
    the board))?
    and the memory controller being on the chip, is this why the l2 cache and the total
    system mem are less than p4's?

    > Beyond performance though, it shouldn't change things much.

    > >> while for Intel the memory controller is off on the chipset. For AMD
    > >> chips, any of their Athlon64s that fit into Socket 939 are
    > >> dual-channel, regardless of the chipset used, while those that fit
    > >> into Socket 754 are single channel. For Intel it's a little bit more
    > >> complicated in that, for example, the i915 is dual channel but the
    > >> i910 is single channel. Generally speaking, dual-channel is better
    > >> for performance and shouldn't change the price much, but you do have
    > >> to remember to add memory in matched pairs, which can complicate
    > >> upgrades slightly. For example, a dual-channel motherboard might have
    > >> 4 memory sockets, but after you drop the first two sticks in you've
    > >> only got room for one more matched pair of memory to upgrade with down
    > >> the road. Keep in mind that two or three years after you get your
    > >> computer, upgrading the memory is almost always the best bang/buck
    > >> upgrade you can get.
    > >
    > >there are 4 sockets...
    > >this board supports either ddr or ddr2 (it states [under the specs] that it
    > >supports dual, single (perhaps the ddr2 will not require dual?))
    > >i'd be using ddr initially
    > >also the max is 4 gb
    >
    > From the specs I can see there are 4 DDR sockets and 2 DDR2 sockets on
    > this board. Both DDR and DDR2 are best used in a dual-channel setup,
    > though sometimes it is possible to use a single-channel setup with
    > about a 10% performance loss, ie not a very good setup.

    > Note that even though this board supports both DDR and DDR2, it almost
    > certainly does NOT support both at the same time, it's one or the
    > other.

    not sure whether 2 ddr2 chips are enough?
    (i also found that it supports 2*ddr2 OR up to 4*ddr)

    > >with respect to the amd-based boards:
    > >there are 3 categories; (on motherboards.org site)
    > >(i realize that one cannot compare apples to oranges however which group would
    > >be comparable [closest] to s775?)
    > >socket a
    >
    > Socket A is rather dated these days and is in the process of being
    > EOLed. It's had a good life (it was first introduced in late 2000 or
    > early 2001 if my memory serves me correctly) and can still be used for
    > a great low-budget system. However for the most part you can ignore
    > this one.
    >
    > >socket 754, 939, 940
    >
    > This is where the magic is happening for AMD systems.
    >
    > Socket 754 - Older (single-channel memory) Athlon64 chips and Sempron
    > chips. Mainly a low-cost solution these days.
    >
    > Socket 940 - Used pretty much exclusively for the AMD Opteron for
    > servers and workstations. This socket includes support for large
    > amounts of memory and multiple processors, but probably not of much
    > interest for most home users (err.. except for Keith, but he doesn't
    > count :> ). Socket 940 would be AMD's equivalent to Intel's Socket
    > 604 for their Xeon processors.
    >
    > Socket 939 - This is definitely the closest equivalent to Intel's
    > Socket 775 and would be what you would probably want to concentrate on
    > when looking at AMD-based systems. It is used for pretty much all the
    > new AMD Athlon64 based systems. It adds dual-channel memory when
    > compared to Socket 754 and lower costs when compared to Socket 940.
    >
    > >socket 939 (64-bit)
    >
    > This one hasn't exactly showed up yet, but it's expected to replace
    > Socket 754 for low-cost systems eventually.

    thanks for the above...i'll look into the socket 939......

    > >1 concern:
    > >i've heard that the prescott series generates xs heat.
    > >is this unavoidable?
    >
    > It does generate a fair bit of heat, though the new 600 series P4
    > chips have made some improvements in this regard. Generally speaking
    > it is unavoidable, though a good heatsink and decent airflow in your
    > case can take care of it.
    >
    > Speaking of those 600 series P4 chips, I would HIGHLY recommend
    > getting one of those if you're looking at a P4 system. Performance
    > should be about the same as a 500 series P4 of one higher model number
    > (ie the P4 640/3.2GHz should perform about the same as a 550/3.4GHz
    > chip). On top of that they do reduce the power consumption with a few
    > new tricks, but most importantly, they add 64-bit support. While
    > Microsoft still hasn't quite got around to releasing 64-bit Windows
    > (1.5 years late and counting) it is coming and this is going to be the
    > standard going forward.

    aren't these the ones that have the 1066 mhz front side bus speed?
    if they are not, i could still get the i915g board.......


    > For AMD Athlon64 chips you've already got 64-bit support and better
    > power consumption than any of the Pentium4 chips, so not such a big
    > worry.

    thanks a lot again!
    very much appreciated!
    sincerely
    Tanya

    >

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

    hi Kieth, thanks for replying...
    confused but...

    keith wrote:

    > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:21:54 -0500, Tanya wrote:
    >
    > > hi Yousuf,
    > > thanks for the reply...
    > > [...below...]
    > >
    > > Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > >
    > >> Tanya wrote:
    > >> > hi
    > >> > i'm building a system (pentium 4 based) from scratch
    > >> > i keep hearing how great amds are and want to make sure that i am not
    > >> > missing something
    > >> > thanks
    > >>
    > >> These days there's no reason to not consider AMD, but that applies
    > >> equally back to Intel. At one time, people who were looking to put
    > >> together a system on a budget used to look automatically to AMD,
    > >> nowadays some of Intel's high-end chips are as cheap as AMD's mid-price
    > >> chips. In fact, I'd say the Intels are a good bargain these days.
    > >
    > > i've only owned intels (and find them reliable)
    > > i heard somewhere that amd is not as reliable....
    >
    > You heard wrong, though FUD has been the rule in this business since its
    > conception.
    >
    > >> Also, you might have to do more research when building an AMD system
    > >> because there are often a bewildering array of choices for almost
    > >> everything. Not only would you have choices of motherboard makers (Asus,
    > >> Abit, ECS, MSI, Gigabyte, etc., etc.), but each motherboard maker might
    > >> have several similar models using a different chipset (VIA, Nvidia, SIS,
    > >> etc.). Also with AMD's new-found prestige, it's now catering to many
    > >> different markets all at once, with at least three different
    > >> socket-types depending on the performance you're looking for: value,
    > >> high-end, extremely high-end.
    > >
    > > maybe you can explain this: the categories (of ranking amds) are socket a;
    > > socket 754, 939, 940; and socket 939)
    > > which would be *comparible* to the lga 775 socket?
    >
    > It depends on what you mean by "comparable". We've had the LGA discussion
    > here before. I'm not a fan of LGAs in this market at all. They're great
    > if the chip is permanently mounted, but call me skeptical of LGA sockets.

    comparable i guess is not possible... from what i've read, the operating
    frequency, the fsb speed and the l2 cache size are the important determinants
    (the amd is less in each category) HOWEVER, i read on amd's Web site that the
    amd does more per cycle than the pentium also they (the amd Web site) compares a
    p4 with an amd and the "overall performance" is better for the amd (i don't know
    what they mean by overall performance.)


    > Socket-939 is likely the best choice for a "performance" system now.
    > Socket-940 requires registered DRAM, which is somewhat more expensive and
    > a (very) little lower performance. Socket-940 is really intended for
    > servers. IMO, socket-754 is dead-end and I don't see any reason to go
    > there. Socket-A is used for Athlons and a good choice for "value" systems.
    >
    > One can build a rather impressive socket-A system on the cheap. I built
    > quite an impressive system for a friend for $400 (display, keyboard, and
    > OS recycled from one that had the magic smoke let out).
    >
    > The big advantage AMD has (sockets 939 and 940) is the memory
    > architecture. The integrated DRAM controllers (vs. controller on the
    > northbridge) are a performance advantage, but also cost a lot of pins on the
    > processor chip.

    is that why the boards hold less ram? and why the cpu performs better even with
    a smaller l2 cache?

    i appreciate the above info about the sockets a lot -- thanks

    > >> Intel on the other hand, doesn't have so many choices. You buy
    > >> somebody's motherboard with an Intel chipset, or you buy somebody else's
    > >> motherboard with the same Intel chipset. Makes it a little bit easier.
    > >> There was a recent socket change for Intels, but the new socket
    > >> basically erases from existence the older one. Celerons and Pentium 4's
    > >> are basically fitting into the same sockets again.
    > >
    > > i see that for socket 478 but not 775.
    >
    > In short, I'd go with a P4 if I were going to do a lot of streaming video,
    > P3M for a laptop, and Athlon64 for everything else. I do "everything
    > else" so have an Opteron (socket-940), which I bought before 939 was
    > generally available).

    even though the *numbers* (values) don't add up, (i.e. lower fsb speed, l2
    cache, operating freq) your (and others) opinion are helpful -- i appreciate it
    and now will look at (learn about) amd's.


    > --
    > Keith

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

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:21:34 -0800, xtive_ax wrote:

    > Just an additional data point on heat generation issue...
    > Athlon 64 winchester (90nm) is pretty unbelievable when it
    > comes to heat generation/ power consumption. It generates
    > even less heat than old athlon xp (thoroughbred B). Figures:
    >
    > Idle K7burn
    > 3GHz P4 Prescott D0: 30W 90W
    > 3GHz P4 Northwood: 18W 70W
    > 2GHz AXP Barton: 38W 60W
    > 2GHz A64 Newcastle: 15W 55W
    > 2GHz A64 Winchester: <10W 30W

    Interesting. Do you have benchmarks for these. Say, Widget-ops/watt?

    > I have athlon 64 3000+, and I am often amazed that cpu fan
    > is at dead stop and hardly stirs even while after I've been
    > playing UT2004 for a while. And to confirm, yes the heat sink
    > is barely warm to touch, which is unbelievable for cpu of
    > this performance category.

    I find this amazing too.

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

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:39:21 -0500, Tanya wrote:

    > hi Tony,
    > thanks again for replying and for providing the information!
    > [...below...]
    >
    > Tony Hill wrote:
    > <snip>
    >
    >> >i am strongly considering an asus board (p5gdc-v/dx) with the i915g chipset (as
    >> >opposed to i925xe chipset) and would like to know the operating difference
    >> >between the i915g and the i925xe chipsets
    >> >(from what i see, the i925xe is the only one to support the 1066 fsb) not sure
    >> >whether there are other differences
    >>
    >> The i925XE chipset adds support for the 1066MT/s processor bus, but
    >> drops support for DDR memory in favor of DDR2. It also adds a good
    >> $100+ to the price tag of the board. All else being equal, an i925XE
    >> chipset should also be a tiny bit faster than an i915G chipset, but
    >> the difference is quite small and, IMO, not worthwhile.
    >
    > getting more confused:)
    > read that a main determinant of performance is the "clock speed" (states that this
    > is not the same as operating frequency of the cpu (but is related)) and is a
    > function of the motherboard bus (however the only speeds on the motherboards seem to
    > be memory speeds...)

    Oh, no! Clock speed is only important when comparing (very) like
    processors. A 2GHz Opteron will choke a 3GHz P4 in almost any test you
    wish to throw at it (video encoding is the possible exception).

    I'm not sure what you mean by "operating frequency". The "front-side bus"
    frequency matters, though not so much with the AMD64s because they don't
    use the FSB for memory. The memory controller is integrated into the
    processor so the "bus" is only for I/O stuff (on a single processor system).

    > i was looking at the abit fatl1ty and the asus p5ad2-e (both supporting
    > 1066 fsb speed but only ddr2 (and more expen$ive) (chipset i925xe))

    DDR2 is a waste of money. You'll do *much* better with an AMD processor
    with its integrated memory controller and DDR400, or some such. As has
    been suggested here before PCI-E is a good idea, if only because AGP has
    died an early death. A *very* surprising event, IMO.

    >> >> A couple things to look into for motherboards these days
    include:
    >> >>
    >> >> 1. AGP vs. PCI-Express graphics slot
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >> >there's no mention of agp
    >>
    >> None of the i9xx series of chipsets support AGP. Not really a big loss
    >> unless you've already got an old AGP card you want to bring over to the
    >> new system.
    >
    > (i guess they are slower ...)

    A newer graphics card will likely be faster. The difference between AGP
    and PCI-E will likly never be seen. Given that PCI-E has rather quicly
    swept AGP under the door-mat, it's the way to go.

    >> >> 2. Integrated graphics vs.
    discrete graphics
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >> >won't be using it for games -- i think that the video memory is 32 mbs
    >> >(iirc) apparently, the onBoard video is not great for gaming --
    >> >however that does not affect me)
    >>
    >> The integrated video of the i915G is actually quite decent. Beyond
    >> gaming, the only other sorts of applications where it really flops are
    >> things like high-end graphics and CAD applications (particularly if
    >> you're doing any sort of 3D CAD).
    >>
    >> >> They can also lower overall
    >> >> system performance by a bit,
    >
    > i would assume that if i bought a pci-express graphics card, the overall
    > performance would not be adversely affected (if it had been affected
    > with the onBoard chip) ?

    The integrated graphics controller can be disabled, or used to drive
    another monitor. Dual monitors are the way to go, IMO (productivity
    gains are incredible). Though most decent graphics cards support them
    natively.


    > <snip>
    ^
    +--- Good idea!


    >> >sata/raid: 4x sata by ich6r with raid 0/1
    >>
    >> This is where the important stuff is. Most likely you'll want to get
    >> an SATA hard drive and throw it on one of these connectors. You should
    >> be able to load the OS with no trouble on these. At least in theory,
    >> SATA should be a bit faster than ATA as well.
    >
    > yes, plan on sata / raid drive

    I've been burnt. Software RAID doesn't really interest me (went through
    these exercises moons ago when the Promise controllers hit the market).
    SATA seemed like a good idea, and is. ...in the long run. I'd gladly trade
    my SATA drive for a pATA. It's been doing nothing for almost a year.
    Again, in the long run...

    <good grief gert! some snippage is in order!>


    >> Putting the memory controller on-chip reduces the time it takes to get
    >> data to/from main memory by about 30%. This translates into about a
    >> 10-20% improvement in overall system performance and is one of the key
    >> reasons why 2.0GHz Athlon64 chips are often faster than 3.0GHz P4
    >> chips. Basically everyone in the chip-making business other than Intel
    >> has decided the integrated memory controllers are the way to go.
    >
    > not related to l2 cache (better to get a cpu with the l2 cache *built
    > in* (vs. on the board))?

    No L2's are on-board anymore. They're all integrated into the processor.
    That said, the integrated DRAM controller is still very important. I
    find it amazing that AMD still is the only one (in this market) who's
    figured this out.

    > and the memory controller being on the chip, is this why the l2 cache
    > and the total system mem are less than p4's?

    You'd better look at your figures again. I'm not sure where you're
    getting this information from.

    <more snippage>

    >> Note that even though this board supports both DDR and DDR2, it almost
    >> certainly does NOT support both at the same time, it's one or the
    >> other.
    >
    > not sure whether 2 ddr2 chips are enough? (i also found that it supports
    > 2*ddr2 OR up to 4*ddr)

    Why are you concerned with DDR2? It's a waste of money. Don't go there.


    > thanks for the above...i'll look into the socket 939......

    DO it! You won't be dissapointed. Were it available last year I'd have
    gone that way.

    >> >1 concern:
    >> >i've heard that the prescott series generates xs heat. is this
    >> >unavoidable?
    >>
    >> It does generate a fair bit of heat, though the new 600 series P4 chips
    >> have made some improvements in this regard. Generally speaking it is
    >> unavoidable, though a good heatsink and decent airflow in your case can
    >> take care of it.
    >>
    >> Speaking of those 600 series P4 chips, I would HIGHLY recommend getting
    >> one of those if you're looking at a P4 system. Performance should be
    >> about the same as a 500 series P4 of one higher model number (ie the P4
    >> 640/3.2GHz should perform about the same as a 550/3.4GHz chip). On top
    >> of that they do reduce the power consumption with a few new tricks, but
    >> most importantly, they add 64-bit support. While Microsoft still
    >> hasn't quite got around to releasing 64-bit Windows (1.5 years late and
    >> counting) it is coming and this is going to be the standard going
    >> forward.
    >
    > aren't these the ones that have the 1066 mhz front side bus speed? if
    > they are not, i could still get the i915g board.......

    The FSB speed is next to irrelevant if system memory isn't forced to hang
    off it. ;-)

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

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:42:46 -0500, Tanya wrote:

    > hi Kieth, thanks for replying...
    > confused but...

    Fire away! BS about differing processors/systems is what we do here. ;-)

    <snip>

    >> It depends on what you mean by "comparable". We've had the LGA discussion
    >> here before. I'm not a fan of LGAs in this market at all. They're great
    >> if the chip is permanently mounted, but call me skeptical of LGA sockets.
    >
    > comparable i guess is not possible... from what i've read, the operating
    > frequency, the fsb speed and the l2 cache size are the important determinants
    > (the amd is less in each category)

    Have you looked at the D and I caches on the P4? The cache latencies?
    No, like life, it's not the size that's important, but what you do with it.
    ;-)

    Frequency is next to irrelevant for processors with differing
    micro-architectures.

    > HOWEVER, i read on amd's Web site that the
    > amd does more per cycle than the pentium also they (the amd Web site)
    > compares a p4 with an amd and the "overall performance" is better for
    > the amd (i don't know what they mean by overall performance.)

    Benchmarks. YEs, AMD has regularly kicked Intel's but in instructions per
    clock. The P4 is particularly bad in this regard, as AMD will gladly
    point out. IMO, the P4 was a horrible design, not suited for the market
    it ended up in. The P3 is a better choice and AMD out-does even that.

    >> Socket-939 is likely the best choice for a "performance" system now.
    >> Socket-940 requires registered DRAM, which is somewhat more expensive
    >> and a (very) little lower performance. Socket-940 is really intended
    >> for servers. IMO, socket-754 is dead-end and I don't see any reason to
    >> go there. Socket-A is used for Athlons and a good choice for "value"
    >> systems.
    >>
    >> One can build a rather impressive socket-A system on the cheap. I
    >> built quite an impressive system for a friend for $400 (display,
    >> keyboard, and OS recycled from one that had the magic smoke let out).
    >>
    >> The big advantage AMD has (sockets 939 and 940) is the memory
    >> architecture. The integrated DRAM controllers (vs. controller on the
    >> northbridge) are a performance advantage, but also cost a lot of pins
    >> on the processor chip.
    >
    > is that why the boards hold less ram? and why the cpu performs better
    > even with a smaller l2 cache?

    Less RAM? My Opteron has 1.5GB and it (as opposed to my CFO) would easily
    go to 8GB, which would be a problem on any P4. ;-)

    > i appreciate the above info about the sockets a lot -- thanks

    Hang around. Lots of fun stuff happens around here. ;-)


    >> >> Intel on the other hand, doesn't have so many choices. You buy
    >> >> somebody's motherboard with an Intel chipset, or you buy somebody
    >> >> else's motherboard with the same Intel chipset. Makes it a little
    >> >> bit easier. There was a recent socket change for Intels, but the new
    >> >> socket basically erases from existence the older one. Celerons and
    >> >> Pentium 4's are basically fitting into the same sockets again.
    >> >
    >> > i see that for socket 478 but not 775.
    >>
    >> In short, I'd go with a P4 if I were going to do a lot of streaming
    >> video, P3M for a laptop, and Athlon64 for everything else. I do
    >> "everything else" so have an Opteron (socket-940), which I bought
    >> before 939 was generally available).
    >
    > even though the *numbers* (values) don't add up, (i.e. lower fsb speed,
    > l2 cache, operating freq) your (and others) opinion are helpful -- i
    > appreciate it and now will look at (learn about) amd's.

    The FSB is meaningless when comparing the Intel and AMD offerings. I'd
    like to see what L2's you're comparing. ...notto mention the L1s, whichh
    I believe you're ignoring. The bottom line is that you have to compare
    *performance*. The microarchitectures of modern processors are just too
    different to compare raw numbers.

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

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:38:29 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

    >On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:42:46 -0500, Tanya wrote:
    >> even though the *numbers* (values) don't add up, (i.e. lower fsb speed,
    >> l2 cache, operating freq) your (and others) opinion are helpful -- i
    >> appreciate it and now will look at (learn about) amd's.
    >
    >The FSB is meaningless when comparing the Intel and AMD offerings. I'd
    >like to see what L2's you're comparing. ...notto mention the L1s, whichh
    >I believe you're ignoring. The bottom line is that you have to compare
    >*performance*. The microarchitectures of modern processors are just too
    >different to compare raw numbers.

    I think she means the larger L2 cache in P4s - the 600s have 2MB... the
    message being that Intel had to go there to err, catch up and try to hide
    its latency... with umm, bandwidth?<titter>

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:39:21 -0500, Tanya
    <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:

    >> The i925XE chipset adds support for the 1066MT/s processor bus, but
    >> drops support for DDR memory in favor of DDR2. It also adds a good
    >> $100+ to the price tag of the board. All else being equal, an i925XE
    >> chipset should also be a tiny bit faster than an i915G chipset, but
    >> the difference is quite small and, IMO, not worthwhile.
    >
    >getting more confused:)
    >read that a main determinant of performance is the "clock speed" (states that this
    >is not the same as operating frequency of the cpu (but is related)) and is a
    >function of the motherboard bus (however the only speeds on the motherboards seem to
    >be memory speeds...)

    Sadly there are MANY factors that can improve performance, so we can't
    just throw one number at them and have it explain everything.

    The i925XE chipset does include some slightly better timings when it
    comes to the memory controller, so it can very slightly reduce the
    memory latency when compared to the i915. How much does this amount
    to? Typically it's a question of a clock cycle or two here and there
    and it works out to about 0-2% overall system performance.

    For the extra $100 that the motherboards cost an average improvement
    of only about 1% really isn't worth IMO.

    >> None of the i9xx series of chipsets support AGP. Not really a big
    >> loss unless you've already got an old AGP card you want to bring over
    >> to the new system.
    >
    >(i guess they are slower ...)

    Somewhat, though it's more a question of cost. In theory PCI-Express
    is the One Bus to Unit Them All, which should reduce the cost. With
    some older systems you could easily have 4 or 5 different buses for a
    variety of different cards and connectors. Supporting extra buses
    means more connectors, more wires, more transistors and just generally
    more $$$. Dropping support for AGP cuts the costs of a fairly
    expensive bus that can most easily be replaced. As such, it was one
    of the first to hit the chopping block (ACR, CNR and CSA also aren't
    likely to make the cut, but they were rather obscure to begin with and
    can safely be ignored).

    >> >> 2. Integrated graphics vs. discrete graphics
    >
    ><snip>
    >
    >> >won't be using it for games -- i think that the video memory is 32 mbs (iirc)
    >> >apparently, the onBoard video is not great for gaming -- however that does not
    >> >affect me)
    >>
    >> The integrated video of the i915G is actually quite decent. Beyond
    >> gaming, the only other sorts of applications where it really flops are
    >> things like high-end graphics and CAD applications (particularly if
    >> you're doing any sort of 3D CAD).
    >>
    >> >> They can also lower overall
    >> >> system performance by a bit,
    >
    >i would assume that if i bought a pci-express graphics card, the overall performance
    >would not be adversely affected (if it had been affected with the onBoard chip) ?

    That is correct. I wouldn't sweat any performance loss due to the
    on-board chip either, it's really quite minimal these days. 5 years
    ago it was quite a different story, but these days the performance
    difference is mostly lost in the noise (ie less than 2%).

    >> This is where the important stuff is. Most likely you'll want to get
    >> an SATA hard drive and throw it on one of these connectors. You
    >> should be able to load the OS with no trouble on these. At least in
    >> theory, SATA should be a bit faster than ATA as well.
    >
    >yes, plan on sata / raid drive

    Sounds like a good plan, though RAID can be a whole other can of
    worms. My personally opinion on it is to stick with RAID-1
    (mirroring) due to reliability concerns. I've seen just WAY too many
    hard drives die to consider RAID-0 (stripping).

    >> Putting the memory controller on-chip reduces the time it takes to get
    >> data to/from main memory by about 30%. This translates into about a
    >> 10-20% improvement in overall system performance and is one of the key
    >> reasons why 2.0GHz Athlon64 chips are often faster than 3.0GHz P4
    >> chips. Basically everyone in the chip-making business other than
    >> Intel has decided the integrated memory controllers are the way to go.
    >
    >not related to l2 cache (better to get a cpu with the l2 cache *built in* (vs. on
    >the board))?

    Similar idea, though you'll have a HELL of time finding any chip that
    doesn't have L2 cache built-in. The last x86 chips I know of that
    used external L2 cache were the original Athlon chips, discontinued in
    late 2000, and these chips had their L2 in a little cartridge
    alongside the processor, not on the system board.

    All current processors have their L2 cache on-chip.

    >and the memory controller being on the chip, is this why the l2 cache and the total
    >system mem are less than p4's?

    They are partly related, though it's a bit more complicated than that.
    The integrated memory controller and lower memory latency time of the
    Athlon64 mean that it's less dependant on getting data from it's L2
    cache, so it can get by with less cache (or conversely, the higher
    memory latency of the P4 means that it's more dependent on L2).

    As for total system memory, there isn't much reason why that should
    change one way or the other. Actually the Athlon64 supports MORE
    memory than the P4 (8GB vs. 4GB), but in practical purposes the
    difference doesn't amount to much.

    >> >there are 4 sockets...
    >> >this board supports either ddr or ddr2 (it states [under the specs] that it
    >> >supports dual, single (perhaps the ddr2 will not require dual?))
    >> >i'd be using ddr initially
    >> >also the max is 4 gb
    >>
    >> From the specs I can see there are 4 DDR sockets and 2 DDR2 sockets on
    >> this board. Both DDR and DDR2 are best used in a dual-channel setup,
    >> though sometimes it is possible to use a single-channel setup with
    >> about a 10% performance loss, ie not a very good setup.
    >
    >> Note that even though this board supports both DDR and DDR2, it almost
    >> certainly does NOT support both at the same time, it's one or the
    >> other.
    >
    >not sure whether 2 ddr2 chips are enough?
    >(i also found that it supports 2*ddr2 OR up to 4*ddr)

    Probably. DDR2 still hasn't really made a big impact on things and
    likely isn't going to for a while yet. Personally I would mostly just
    ignore the DDR2 for the time-being, it costs more but is no faster and
    DDR will be widely available for a long time (in computer terms, ie
    3-5 years) to come.

    >> It does generate a fair bit of heat, though the new 600 series P4
    >> chips have made some improvements in this regard. Generally speaking
    >> it is unavoidable, though a good heatsink and decent airflow in your
    >> case can take care of it.
    >>
    >> Speaking of those 600 series P4 chips, I would HIGHLY recommend
    >> getting one of those if you're looking at a P4 system. Performance
    >> should be about the same as a 500 series P4 of one higher model number
    >> (ie the P4 640/3.2GHz should perform about the same as a 550/3.4GHz
    >> chip). On top of that they do reduce the power consumption with a few
    >> new tricks, but most importantly, they add 64-bit support. While
    >> Microsoft still hasn't quite got around to releasing 64-bit Windows
    >> (1.5 years late and counting) it is coming and this is going to be the
    >> standard going forward.
    >
    >aren't these the ones that have the 1066 mhz front side bus speed?
    >if they are not, i could still get the i915g board.......

    Nope, the only chips with the 1066MT/s bus speed are the P4 Extremely
    Expensive Edition chips. The 600 series P4 chips have the same
    800MT/s bus speeds as the older 500 series P4 chips before them. they
    should work on most/all i915G boards. They definitely will work on
    that Asus board you had mentioned earlier.

    Ohh.. speaking of that board, the Asus P5GDC-V Deluxe (I think that
    was the one you were thinking of?) does NOT support integrated video.
    Even though it comes up under their i915G chipsets, it's actually
    using the i915P chipset. I don't know if this is a flaw in their
    website or just the way they have things setup, just a word of warning
    though. It's rather confusing and I definitely missed this one the
    first read through it.

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

    keith wrote:
    > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:21:34 -0800, xtive_ax wrote:
    >
    > > Just an additional data point on heat generation issue...
    > > Athlon 64 winchester (90nm) is pretty unbelievable when it
    > > comes to heat generation/ power consumption. It generates
    > > even less heat than old athlon xp (thoroughbred B). Figures:
    > >
    > > Idle K7burn
    > > 3GHz P4 Prescott D0: 30W 90W
    > > 3GHz P4 Northwood: 18W 70W
    > > 2GHz AXP Barton: 38W 60W
    > > 2GHz A64 Newcastle: 15W 55W
    > > 2GHz A64 Winchester: <10W 30W
    >
    > Interesting. Do you have benchmarks for these. Say,
    Widget-ops/watt?
    >
    > > I have athlon 64 3000+, and I am often amazed that cpu fan
    > > is at dead stop and hardly stirs even while after I've been
    > > playing UT2004 for a while. And to confirm, yes the heat sink
    > > is barely warm to touch, which is unbelievable for cpu of
    > > this performance category.
    >
    > I find this amazing too.
    >
    > --
    > Keith

    Another good comparison of power consumption is given by anandtech:

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2275&p=13

    Under load (media encoder 9 test which stress cpu sub-system mostly),
    3.0 ghz p4 530 consumes 81 watts more than athlon 64 winchester 3500+.
    3.8 ghz p4 570 consumes 111 watts more than athlon 64 3500+. So the
    actual difference in athlon 64 winchester vs. p4 power consumptions may
    be even more exaggerated than the k7burn figures given above.

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

    xtive_ax@hotmail.com wrote:
    > keith wrote:
    >
    >>On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:21:34 -0800, xtive_ax wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Just an additional data point on heat generation issue...
    >>>Athlon 64 winchester (90nm) is pretty unbelievable when it
    >>>comes to heat generation/ power consumption. It generates
    >>>even less heat than old athlon xp (thoroughbred B). Figures:
    >>>
    >>> Idle K7burn
    >>>3GHz P4 Prescott D0: 30W 90W
    >>>3GHz P4 Northwood: 18W 70W
    >>>2GHz AXP Barton: 38W 60W
    >>>2GHz A64 Newcastle: 15W 55W
    >>>2GHz A64 Winchester: <10W 30W
    >>
    >>Interesting. Do you have benchmarks for these. Say,
    >
    > Widget-ops/watt?
    >
    >>>I have athlon 64 3000+, and I am often amazed that cpu fan
    >>>is at dead stop and hardly stirs even while after I've been
    >>>playing UT2004 for a while. And to confirm, yes the heat sink
    >>>is barely warm to touch, which is unbelievable for cpu of
    >>>this performance category.
    >>
    >>I find this amazing too.
    >>
    >>--
    >> Keith
    >
    >
    > Another good comparison of power consumption is given by anandtech:
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2275&p=13
    >
    > Under load (media encoder 9 test which stress cpu sub-system mostly),
    > 3.0 ghz p4 530 consumes 81 watts more than athlon 64 winchester 3500+.
    > 3.8 ghz p4 570 consumes 111 watts more than athlon 64 3500+. So the
    > actual difference in athlon 64 winchester vs. p4 power consumptions may
    > be even more exaggerated than the k7burn figures given above.
    >

    A point AMD recently made about power consumption comparisons is
    that the AMD64 processors have an integrated memory controller.
    By not having to also be memory controllers, chipsets for AMD64
    apparently save about 20W over chipsets for Intel.

    So if your AMD64 cpu saves you 29 W (29 W makes the math easy
    below ) and your NF4 chipset saves you 20W, and if you have a
    great PSU with 70% efficiency, then your actual saving at the
    wall outlet should be along the lines of
    (29W + 20W)/0.70 = 70 Watts
    which compares reasonably well with the AnandTech numbers.

    --
    Every cloud has a silver lining, even if you sometimes
    have to drop a little acid before you can see it.
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:06:33 +0000, Rob Stow wrote:

    > xtive_ax@hotmail.com wrote:
    >> keith wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:21:34 -0800, xtive_ax wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Just an additional data point on heat generation issue...
    >>>>Athlon 64 winchester (90nm) is pretty unbelievable when it
    >>>>comes to heat generation/ power consumption. It generates
    >>>>even less heat than old athlon xp (thoroughbred B). Figures:
    >>>>
    >>>> Idle K7burn
    >>>>3GHz P4 Prescott D0: 30W 90W
    >>>>3GHz P4 Northwood: 18W 70W
    >>>>2GHz AXP Barton: 38W 60W
    >>>>2GHz A64 Newcastle: 15W 55W
    >>>>2GHz A64 Winchester: <10W 30W
    >>>
    >>>Interesting. Do you have benchmarks for these. Say,
    >>
    >> Widget-ops/watt?
    >>
    >>>>I have athlon 64 3000+, and I am often amazed that cpu fan
    >>>>is at dead stop and hardly stirs even while after I've been
    >>>>playing UT2004 for a while. And to confirm, yes the heat sink
    >>>>is barely warm to touch, which is unbelievable for cpu of
    >>>>this performance category.
    >>>
    >>>I find this amazing too.
    >>>
    >>>--
    >>> Keith
    >>
    >>
    >> Another good comparison of power consumption is given by anandtech:
    >>
    >> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2275&p=13
    >>
    >> Under load (media encoder 9 test which stress cpu sub-system mostly),
    >> 3.0 ghz p4 530 consumes 81 watts more than athlon 64 winchester 3500+.
    >> 3.8 ghz p4 570 consumes 111 watts more than athlon 64 3500+. So the
    >> actual difference in athlon 64 winchester vs. p4 power consumptions may
    >> be even more exaggerated than the k7burn figures given above.
    >>
    >
    > A point AMD recently made about power consumption comparisons is
    > that the AMD64 processors have an integrated memory controller.
    > By not having to also be memory controllers, chipsets for AMD64
    > apparently save about 20W over chipsets for Intel.
    >
    > So if your AMD64 cpu saves you 29 W (29 W makes the math easy
    > below ) and your NF4 chipset saves you 20W, and if you have a
    > great PSU with 70% efficiency, then your actual saving at the
    > wall outlet should be along the lines of
    > (29W + 20W)/0.70 = 70 Watts
    > which compares reasonably well with the AnandTech numbers.

    20W seems high to me for just the memory controller, but it's a very good
    point.

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

    Rob Stow wrote:
    > xtive_ax@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > keith wrote:
    > >
    > >>On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:21:34 -0800, xtive_ax wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>Just an additional data point on heat generation issue...
    > >>>Athlon 64 winchester (90nm) is pretty unbelievable when it
    > >>>comes to heat generation/ power consumption. It generates
    > >>>even less heat than old athlon xp (thoroughbred B). Figures:
    > >>>
    > >>> Idle K7burn
    > >>>3GHz P4 Prescott D0: 30W 90W
    > >>>3GHz P4 Northwood: 18W 70W
    > >>>2GHz AXP Barton: 38W 60W
    > >>>2GHz A64 Newcastle: 15W 55W
    > >>>2GHz A64 Winchester: <10W 30W
    > >>
    > >>Interesting. Do you have benchmarks for these. Say,
    > >
    > > Widget-ops/watt?
    > >
    > >>>I have athlon 64 3000+, and I am often amazed that cpu fan
    > >>>is at dead stop and hardly stirs even while after I've been
    > >>>playing UT2004 for a while. And to confirm, yes the heat sink
    > >>>is barely warm to touch, which is unbelievable for cpu of
    > >>>this performance category.
    > >>
    > >>I find this amazing too.
    > >>
    > >>--
    > >> Keith
    > >
    > >
    > > Another good comparison of power consumption is given by anandtech:
    > >
    > > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2275&p=13
    > >
    > > Under load (media encoder 9 test which stress cpu sub-system
    mostly),
    > > 3.0 ghz p4 530 consumes 81 watts more than athlon 64 winchester
    3500+.
    > > 3.8 ghz p4 570 consumes 111 watts more than athlon 64 3500+. So
    the
    > > actual difference in athlon 64 winchester vs. p4 power consumptions
    may
    > > be even more exaggerated than the k7burn figures given above.
    > >
    >
    > A point AMD recently made about power consumption comparisons is
    > that the AMD64 processors have an integrated memory controller.
    > By not having to also be memory controllers, chipsets for AMD64
    > apparently save about 20W over chipsets for Intel.
    >
    > So if your AMD64 cpu saves you 29 W (29 W makes the math easy
    > below ) and your NF4 chipset saves you 20W, and if you have a
    > great PSU with 70% efficiency, then your actual saving at the
    > wall outlet should be along the lines of
    > (29W + 20W)/0.70 = 70 Watts
    > which compares reasonably well with the AnandTech numbers.
    >

    That's a good point about external memory controllers. But
    according to some direct cpu power consumption measurements,
    70 Watts seem to be the actual power savings of athlon 64 winchester
    over p4 prescott, and are more in line with anandtech numbers:

    power consumption of a64 winchester range from 40watts ~ 51 watts under
    load:
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-90nm_5.html

    power consumption of prescott under load range from 97 watts ~ 118
    watts:
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-570_4.html

    These measurements were currents of 12 volts line supplying the cpu,
    so there is no PSU power conversion factor involved. If, as you
    mentioned athlon 64 processors add additional 20W of power savings to
    account for external memory controller for prescott, overall power
    savings would be as large as 90 Watts which is huge difference. After
    PSU inefficiency, of course, it would be even bigger, up to numbers
    mentioned from anandtech article.

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

    hi and thanks again for answering!
    [...below...]

    keith wrote:

    > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:39:21 -0500, Tanya wrote:
    >
    > > Tony Hill wrote:
    > > <snip>
    > >
    > >> >i am strongly considering an asus board (p5gdc-v/dx) with the i915g chipset (as
    > >> >opposed to i925xe chipset) and would like to know the operating difference
    > >> >between the i915g and the i925xe chipsets
    > >> >(from what i see, the i925xe is the only one to support the 1066 fsb) not sure
    > >> >whether there are other differences
    > >>
    > > read that a main determinant of performance is the "clock speed"

    <snip>
    sorry -- read further that the internal architecture of a cpu is a major determinant of
    speed (as you mention)

    > Oh, no! Clock speed is only important when comparing (very) like
    > processors. A 2GHz Opteron will choke a 3GHz P4 in almost any test you
    > wish to throw at it (video encoding is the possible exception).
    >
    > I'm not sure what you mean by "operating frequency".

    what i mean is the number of ghz. eg. p4 (@ 2.8 ghz); amd (@2 ghz)

    > The "front-side bus"
    > frequency matters, though not so much with the AMD64s because they don't
    > use the FSB for memory. The memory controller is integrated into the
    > processor so the "bus" is only for I/O stuff (on a single processor system).

    (isn't the communication between the cpu and memory (which is determined via the memory
    controller (integrated for amd; onMotherBoard for pentium4) called the fsb? i.e. the
    "path" : cpu <-> memory))
    (i.e. the mem controller determines what to get for the cpu -- right? well doesn't the
    memory need to get to the cpu? (it is still on the motherboard so needs a bus to get to
    the cpu?)
    ?

    > > i was looking at the abit fatl1ty and the asus p5ad2-e (both supporting
    > > 1066 fsb speed but only ddr2 (and more expen$ive) (chipset i925xe))
    >
    > DDR2 is a waste of money.

    i hear that plus there's a relatively long latency...

    > You'll do *much* better with an AMD processor
    > with its integrated memory controller and DDR400, or some such. As has
    > been suggested here before PCI-E is a good idea

    <snip>
    i am convinced of the above :)

    > >> >> A couple things to look into for motherboards these days
    > include:
    > >> >>
    > >> >> 1. AGP vs. PCI-Express graphics slot

    <snip>

    > > (i guess they are slower ...)
    >
    > A newer graphics card will likely be faster. The difference between AGP
    > and PCI-E will likly never be seen. Given that PCI-E has rather quicly
    > swept AGP under the door-mat, it's the way to go.

    isn't it more expen$ive?

    > >> >> 2. Integrated graphics vs.
    > discrete graphics
    > >
    > > <snip>
    > >
    > >> >won't be using it for games -- i think that the video memory is 32 mbs

    <snip>

    > >> >> They can also lower overall
    > >> >> system performance by a bit,
    > >
    > > i would assume that if i bought a pci-express graphics card, the overall
    > > performance would not be adversely affected (if it had been affected
    > > with the onBoard chip) ?
    >
    > The integrated graphics controller can be disabled, or used to drive
    > another monitor. Dual monitors are the way to go, IMO (productivity
    > gains are incredible). Though most decent graphics cards support them
    > natively.

    i wouldn't even know what to use dual monitors for (this is where the human bottleneck is
    having to look at 2 monitors simultaneously <ASAP> <lol>)

    > > <snip>
    > ^
    > +--- Good idea!
    >
    > >> >sata/raid: 4x sata by ich6r with raid 0/1
    > >>
    > >> This is where the important stuff is. Most likely you'll want to get
    > >> an SATA hard drive and throw it on one of these connectors. You should
    > >> be able to load the OS with no trouble on these. At least in theory,
    > >> SATA should be a bit faster than ATA as well.
    > >
    > > yes, plan on sata / raid drive
    >
    > I've been burnt. Software RAID doesn't really interest me (went through
    > these exercises moons ago when the Promise controllers hit the market).

    i got a question here (i cannot find the article though -- i read that there are several
    raid levels and some are great in keeping *copies* soToSpeak of the drive's data...)

    > SATA seemed like a good idea, and is. ...in the long run. I'd gladly trade
    > my SATA drive for a pATA.

    <snip>

    > <good grief gert! some snippage is in order!>
    >
    > >> Putting the memory controller on-chip reduces the time it takes to get
    > >> data to/from main memory by about 30%. This translates into about a
    > >> 10-20% improvement in overall system performance and is one of the key
    > >> reasons why 2.0GHz Athlon64 chips are often faster than 3.0GHz P4
    > >> chips. Basically everyone in the chip-making business other than Intel
    > >> has decided the integrated memory controllers are the way to go.
    > >
    > > not related to l2 cache (better to get a cpu with the l2 cache *built
    > > in* (vs. on the board))?
    >
    > No L2's are on-board anymore. They're all integrated into the processor.
    > That said, the integrated DRAM controller is still very important.

    i believe that it would be. the way i understand it (which is likely more fiction:) is
    that it calls data from ram as per the cpu's direction HOWEVER if it is integrated it can
    *arrange* to get / send memory data on it's own being the cpu???)

    > I
    > find it amazing that AMD still is the only one (in this market) who's
    > figured this out.

    i actually asked amd for some tech articles on why their cpu is <almost> always
    recommended / preferred and i have some interesting info from them which definitely
    prooves their cpus are better performers.
    i believe that amd is not in <as much> flux (at least not as much as intel is) i.e. is not
    between chip architecture -- i still like intel however, their 1066 mhz fsb is new (and
    EXPEN$IVE) and likely needs fine tuning --

    > > and the memory controller being on the chip, is this why the l2 cache
    > > and the total system mem are less than p4's?
    >
    > You'd better look at your figures again. I'm not sure where you're
    > getting this information from.

    i'm getting the "max memory" from amd-based motherboards: for example: aopen n250a-fr "max
    mem" 3 gb.
    asus k8n-e dx "max mem" 3gb.
    msi k8n neo ms7030 "max mem" 3 gb
    but for other boards i see 4 gb max............

    > <more snippage>

    <even more snipped>

    > Why are you concerned with DDR2? It's a waste of money. Don't go there.

    when i was considering an intel-based system with support for 1066 mhz fsb speed... WAY
    back...
    :)

    > > thanks for the above...i'll look into the socket 939......
    >
    > DO it! You won't be dissapointed. Were it available last year I'd have
    > gone that way.

    only 1 problem: which board??? and i guess the nforce4 chipset... is asus good? (it is
    supposed to be for p4 systems.)
    <snip>

    > The FSB speed is next to irrelevant if system memory isn't forced to hang
    > off it. ;-)

    <above>

    > Keith

    thank you
    sincerely
    Tanya

    p.s. 1 more question: i read an article on cpu's (in general) which states that the more
    transistors, the better (they list intel based cpus) in some of the info on amd's site,
    the amd athlon 64 has 105.9 * 10^6 and the p4 has 125 * 10^6
    perhaps it is the way transistors are used not their absolute number?
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    hi Tony,
    thanks for the response!
    [...below...]

    Tony Hill wrote:

    > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:39:21 -0500, Tanya
    > <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net> wrote:
    >
    > >> The i925XE chipset adds support for the 1066MT/s processor bus, but
    > >> drops support for DDR memory in favor of DDR2. It also adds a good
    > >> $100+ to the price tag of the board. All else being equal, an i925XE
    > >> chipset should also be a tiny bit faster than an i915G chipset, but
    > >> the difference is quite small and, IMO, not worthwhile.
    > >
    > >getting more confused:)
    > >read that a main determinant of performance is the "clock speed" (states that this
    > >is not the same as operating frequency of the cpu (but is related)) and is a
    > >function of the motherboard bus (however the only speeds on the motherboards seem to
    > >be memory speeds...)
    >
    > Sadly there are MANY factors that can improve performance, so we can't
    > just throw one number at them and have it explain everything.

    even in an article that defines clock speed it states that given the same clock speed 2
    cpu's of differing architecture will perform differently.

    > The i925XE chipset does include some slightly better timings when it
    > comes to the memory controller, so it can very slightly reduce the
    > memory latency when compared to the i915. How much does this amount
    > to? Typically it's a question of a clock cycle or two here and there
    > and it works out to about 0-2% overall system performance.
    >
    > For the extra $100 that the motherboards cost an average improvement
    > of only about 1% really isn't worth IMO.

    and i'm realizing that amd might be the best choice for now -- i like intel however, they
    are just introducing the p4 (with the 1066 mhz fsb speed) so they're expensive and
    possibly have issues that'll need to be cleared up...

    > >> None of the i9xx series of chipsets support AGP. Not really a big
    > >> loss unless you've already got an old AGP card you want to bring over
    > >> to the new system.
    > >
    > >(i guess they are slower ...)
    >
    > Somewhat, though it's more a question of cost. In theory PCI-Express
    > is the One Bus to Unit Them All, which should reduce the cost. With
    > some older systems you could easily have 4 or 5 different buses for a
    > variety of different cards and connectors.

    i'd read that there is 1 speed for the pci bus, and the agp is 2* the pci bus (this is an
    older article) i don't know whether isa had its own bus speed?

    > Supporting extra buses
    > means more connectors, more wires, more transistors and just generally
    > more $$$. Dropping support for AGP cuts the costs of a fairly
    > expensive bus that can most easily be replaced. As such, it was one
    > of the first to hit the chopping block (ACR, CNR and CSA also aren't
    > likely to make the cut, but they were rather obscure to begin with and
    > can safely be ignored).
    >
    > >> >> 2. Integrated graphics vs. discrete graphics
    > >
    > ><snip>

    <snip>

    > >i would assume that if i bought a pci-express graphics card, the overall performance
    > >would not be adversely affected (if it had been affected with the onBoard chip) ?
    >
    > That is correct. I wouldn't sweat any performance loss due to the
    > on-board chip either, it's really quite minimal these days. 5 years
    > ago it was quite a different story, but these days the performance
    > difference is mostly lost in the noise (ie less than 2%).
    >
    > >> This is where the important stuff is. Most likely you'll want to get
    > >> an SATA hard drive and throw it on one of these connectors. You
    > >> should be able to load the OS with no trouble on these. At least in
    > >> theory, SATA should be a bit faster than ATA as well.
    > >
    > >yes, plan on sata / raid drive
    >
    > Sounds like a good plan, though RAID can be a whole other can of
    > worms. My personally opinion on it is to stick with RAID-1
    > (mirroring) due to reliability concerns. I've seen just WAY too many
    > hard drives die to consider RAID-0 (stripping).

    read that the raid levels are what are important...for example level 5 (block interleaved
    distributed parity) is supposed to be the best

    > >> Putting the memory controller on-chip reduces the time it takes to get
    > >> data to/from main memory by about 30%.

    isn't the time it takes memory data <-> cpu the same (same bus speed) but the total time
    is reduced b/c the controller is in the cpu and likely *knows* what the cpu will need /
    send reducing the time of cpu-controller communication....i hope this is the case:)

    > This translates into about a
    > >> 10-20% improvement in overall system performance and is one of the key
    > >> reasons why 2.0GHz Athlon64 chips are often faster than 3.0GHz P4
    > >> chips.
    > >
    > >not related to l2 cache (better to get a cpu with the l2 cache *built in* (vs. on
    > >the board))?
    >
    > Similar idea, though you'll have a HELL of time finding any chip that
    > doesn't have L2 cache built-in.

    except for my house:)
    (256 kb cache ram)

    > The last x86 chips I know of that
    > used external L2 cache were the original Athlon chips, discontinued in
    > late 2000, and these chips had their L2 in a little cartridge
    > alongside the processor, not on the system board.
    >
    > All current processors have their L2 cache on-chip.
    >
    > >and the memory controller being on the chip, is this why the l2 cache and the total
    > >system mem are less than p4's?
    >
    > They are partly related, though it's a bit more complicated than that.
    > The integrated memory controller and lower memory latency time of the
    > Athlon64 mean that it's less dependant on getting data from it's L2
    > cache, so it can get by with less cache (or conversely, the higher
    > memory latency of the P4 means that it's more dependent on L2).
    >
    > As for total system memory, there isn't much reason why that should
    > change one way or the other. Actually the Athlon64 supports MORE
    > memory than the P4 (8GB vs. 4GB), but in practical purposes the
    > difference doesn't amount to much.

    the ones i read about (nforce3) hold max 3 gbs...


    > >> >this board supports either ddr or ddr2 (it states [under the specs] that it
    > >> >supports dual, single )
    > >> >i'd be using ddr initially
    > >> >also the max is 4 gb
    >
    > >not sure whether 2 ddr2 chips are enough?
    > >(i also found that it supports 2*ddr2 OR up to 4*ddr)
    >
    > Probably. DDR2 still hasn't really made a big impact on things and
    > likely isn't going to for a while yet. Personally I would mostly just
    > ignore the DDR2 for the time-being, it costs more but is no faster and
    > DDR will be widely available for a long time (in computer terms, ie
    > 3-5 years) to come.
    >
    > >> It does generate a fair bit of heat, though the new 600 series P4
    > >> chips have made some improvements in this regard. Generally speaking
    > >> it is unavoidable, though a good heatsink and decent airflow in your
    > >> case can take care of it.
    > >>
    > >> Speaking of those 600 series P4 chips, I would HIGHLY recommend
    > >> getting one of those if you're looking at a P4 system. Performance
    > >> should be about the same as a 500 series P4 of one higher model number
    > >> (ie the P4 640/3.2GHz should perform about the same as a 550/3.4GHz
    > >> chip). On top of that they do reduce the power consumption with a few
    > >> new tricks, but most importantly, they add 64-bit support. While
    > >> Microsoft still hasn't quite got around to releasing 64-bit Windows
    > >> (1.5 years late and counting) it is coming and this is going to be the
    > >> standard going forward.
    > >
    > >aren't these the ones that have the 1066 mhz front side bus speed?
    > >if they are not, i could still get the i915g board.......
    >
    > Nope, the only chips with the 1066MT/s bus speed are the P4 Extremely
    > Expensive Edition chips. The 600 series P4 chips have the same
    > 800MT/s bus speeds as the older 500 series P4 chips before them. they
    > should work on most/all i915G boards. They definitely will work on
    > that Asus board you had mentioned earlier.

    i'll look at them...

    > Ohh.. speaking of that board, the Asus P5GDC-V Deluxe (I think that
    > was the one you were thinking of?) does NOT support integrated video.
    > Even though it comes up under their i915G chipsets, it's actually
    > using the i915P chipset. I don't know if this is a flaw in their
    > website or just the way they have things setup, just a word of warning
    > though. It's rather confusing and I definitely missed this one the
    > first read through it.

    all the reviews i've read state it has onBoard video chip...

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

    thanks very much again for answering and for the info!
    sincerely
    Tanya
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    hi keith,
    [...below...]

    keith wrote:

    > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:42:46 -0500, Tanya wrote:
    >
    >
    > Fire away! BS about differing processors/systems is what we do here. ;-)
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > >> It depends on what you mean by "comparable". We've had the LGA discussion
    > >> here before. I'm not a fan of LGAs in this market at all. They're great
    > >> if the chip is permanently mounted, but call me skeptical of LGA sockets.
    > >
    > > comparable i guess is not possible... from what i've read, the operating
    > > frequency, the fsb speed and the l2 cache size are the important determinants
    > > (the amd is less in each category)
    >
    > Have you looked at the D and I caches on the P4? The cache latencies?
    > No, like life, it's not the size that's important, but what you do with it.
    > ;-)

    no i have not...are you talking about the l1 instruction cache and the l1 data
    cache?

    > Frequency is next to irrelevant for processors with differing
    > micro-architectures.

    i now know that......

    > > HOWEVER, i read on amd's Web site that the
    > > amd does more per cycle than the pentium also they (the amd Web site)
    > > compares a p4 with an amd and the "overall performance" is better for
    > > the amd (i don't know what they mean by overall performance.)
    >
    > Benchmarks. YEs, AMD has regularly kicked Intel's but in instructions per
    > clock. The P4 is particularly bad in this regard, as AMD will gladly
    > point out. IMO, the P4 was a horrible design, not suited for the market
    > it ended up in. The P3 is a better choice and AMD out-does even that.

    <snip>

    > >>
    > >> The big advantage AMD has (sockets 939 and 940) is the memory
    > >> architecture. The integrated DRAM controllers (vs. controller on the
    > >> northbridge) are a performance advantage, but also cost a lot of pins
    > >> on the processor chip.
    > >
    > > is that why the boards hold less ram? and why the cpu performs better
    > > even with a smaller l2 cache?
    >
    > Less RAM? My Opteron has 1.5GB and it (as opposed to my CFO) would easily
    > go to 8GB, which would be a problem on any P4. ;-)

    i posted what i read in the other post... which board(s) hold the 8gb?

    > > i appreciate the above info about the sockets a lot -- thanks
    >
    > Hang around. Lots of fun stuff happens around here. ;-)
    >
    > >> >> Intel on the other hand, doesn't have so many choices. You buy
    > >> >> somebody's motherboard with an Intel chipset, or you buy somebody
    > >> >> else's motherboard with the same Intel chipset. Makes it a little
    > >> >> bit easier. There was a recent socket change for Intels, but the new
    > >> >> socket basically erases from existence the older one. Celerons and
    > >> >> Pentium 4's are basically fitting into the same sockets again.
    > >> >
    > >> > i see that for socket 478 but not 775.
    > >>
    > >> In short, I'd go with a P4 if I were going to do a lot of streaming
    > >> video, P3M for a laptop, and Athlon64 for everything else. I do
    > >> "everything else" so have an Opteron (socket-940), which I bought
    > >> before 939 was generally available).
    > >
    > > even though the *numbers* (values) don't add up, (i.e. lower fsb speed,
    > > l2 cache, operating freq) your (and others) opinion are helpful -- i
    > > appreciate it and now will look at (learn about) amd's.
    >
    > The FSB is meaningless when comparing the Intel and AMD offerings. I'd
    > like to see what L2's you're comparing. ...notto mention the L1s, whichh
    > I believe you're ignoring.

    i stopped ignoring them however i still don't understand why the integration of the
    mem controller reduces the need for cached mem... (i won't repeat the question but
    basically, since the ram is in the board, the data from ram still needs to get to
    the cpu -- (i.e. it is still separate from the processor).

    > The bottom line is that you have to compare
    > *performance*. The microarchitectures of modern processors are just too
    > different to compare raw numbers.
    >
    > --
    > Keith

    thanks alot,
    sincerely
    Tanya
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    hi George
    [...below...]

    George Macdonald wrote:

    > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:38:29 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >
    > >On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:42:46 -0500, Tanya wrote:
    > >> even though the *numbers* (values) don't add up, (i.e. lower fsb speed,
    > >> l2 cache, operating freq) your (and others) opinion are helpful -- i
    > >> appreciate it and now will look at (learn about) amd's.
    > >
    > >The FSB is meaningless when comparing the Intel and AMD offerings. I'd
    > >like to see what L2's you're comparing. ...notto mention the L1s, whichh
    > >I believe you're ignoring. The bottom line is that you have to compare
    > >*performance*. The microarchitectures of modern processors are just too
    > >different to compare raw numbers.
    >
    > I think she means the larger L2 cache in P4s - the 600s have 2MB... the
    > message being that Intel had to go there to err, catch up and try to hide
    > its latency... with umm, bandwidth?<titter>

    i do mean that
    i read that amd's have larger bandwidth; also that amd's use hyperTransport (up
    to 2000mhz (system bus technology) (which is compared to the p4's fsb speed

    > --
    > Rgds, George Macdonald

    thanks,
    sincerely
    Tanya
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 21:27:35 -0500, Tanya <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net>
    wrote:

    >hi George
    >[...below...]
    >
    >George Macdonald wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:38:29 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >>
    >> >On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:42:46 -0500, Tanya wrote:
    >> >> even though the *numbers* (values) don't add up, (i.e. lower fsb speed,
    >> >> l2 cache, operating freq) your (and others) opinion are helpful -- i
    >> >> appreciate it and now will look at (learn about) amd's.
    >> >
    >> >The FSB is meaningless when comparing the Intel and AMD offerings. I'd
    >> >like to see what L2's you're comparing. ...notto mention the L1s, whichh
    >> >I believe you're ignoring. The bottom line is that you have to compare
    >> >*performance*. The microarchitectures of modern processors are just too
    >> >different to compare raw numbers.
    >>
    >> I think she means the larger L2 cache in P4s - the 600s have 2MB... the
    >> message being that Intel had to go there to err, catch up and try to hide
    >> its latency... with umm, bandwidth?<titter>
    >
    >i do mean that
    >i read that amd's have larger bandwidth; also that amd's use hyperTransport (up
    >to 2000mhz (system bus technology) (which is compared to the p4's fsb speed

    Well the Hypertransport speed is not really comparable to Intel's FSB as to
    the data carried on them in a uniprocessor system. In an Intel system, the
    FSB is only a "bus" in that it can have more than one CPU on it in a
    multiprocessor system and it connects the CPU(s) to the MCH (Memory
    Controller HUB... what we used to call the North Bridge); the MCH in turn
    connects to the memory channel, to fast I/O devices, namely PCI Express and
    to the ICH (IO Controller Hub) which handles all the other I/O devices.

    Since the AMD Athlon64 systems have the Memory Controller on the CPU die,
    CPU <-> Memory transfers do not have to travel on the Hypertransport Bus
    *but* all I/O device <-> memory transfers do. Hypertransport is really two
    buses twinned together, one for the up-stream and the other with the
    down-stream; with current clock speeds, their aggregate bandwidth is close
    to the same as Intel's FSB.

    Take a look at the Data Sheets from both Intel and AMD - you'll find some
    diagrams which illustrate how the data lanes fan out system-wise better
    than any description I can give.

    There are pros & cons to both ways of doing things but the big gain for AMD
    is in the low latency access to main memory since addresses/data don't have
    to cross external clock domains through an MCH. Intel tries to get around
    this with their Hyper Threading and by agressive prefetching of data from
    memory to the CPU's (usually larger) L2 Cache The bottom line is that in
    overall system performance you're not going to see a lot of difference -
    some apps wll favor one approach and others the alternative method. If you
    get a decent system with either CPU -- I usually buy one notch down from
    the leading/bleeding edge -- you're not going to fret over the difference,
    which in most cases will be barely measurable.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <4227C733.B51B7B35@attglobal.net>,
    tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net says...
    > hi and thanks again for answering!
    > [...below...]
    >
    > keith wrote:
    >
    > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:39:21 -0500, Tanya wrote:

    <snip clock speed stuff>

    > > The "front-side bus"
    > > frequency matters, though not so much with the AMD64s because they don't
    > > use the FSB for memory. The memory controller is integrated into the
    > > processor so the "bus" is only for I/O stuff (on a single processor system).
    >
    > (isn't the communication between the cpu and memory (which is determined via the memory
    > controller (integrated for amd; onMotherBoard for pentium4) called the fsb? i.e. the
    > "path" : cpu <-> memory))
    > (i.e. the mem controller determines what to get for the cpu -- right? well doesn't the
    > memory need to get to the cpu? (it is still on the motherboard so needs a bus to get to
    > the cpu?)
    > ?

    The classical definition of the front-side bus is the bus from the
    processor to the north-bridge (chipset). It became known as the FSB
    when the L2 cache was removed from the processor bus and moved to the
    "back-side" of the processor.

    Since the AMD64 processors have integrated memory controllers the
    concept of the "north-bridge" and "front-side bus" is a little muddled.
    There really isn't a northbridge or FSB, as such. The AMD 64
    processors have the memory bus tied directly to the processor, where
    Intel and earlier AMD processors have the memory bus tied to the
    chipset (northbridge-half) and the front-side bus connects the
    northbridge to the processor. In an Intel system the memory traverses
    the FSB, thus its performance is important. In an AMD (uni-processor)
    system it's less important since it isn't in the memory path. AMD64
    multi-processors do have to use the bus(ses) (hypertransport) to access
    memory on the other processor(s), so hypertransport isn't a slouch.

    The main point here being that AMD64 processors have a memory latency
    advantage because they don't have the extra trip over the FSB and
    through the northbridge. System memory is hooked directly to the
    processor.

    > > > i was looking at the abit fatl1ty and the asus p5ad2-e (both supporting
    > > > 1066 fsb speed but only ddr2 (and more expen$ive) (chipset i925xe))
    > >
    > > DDR2 is a waste of money.
    >
    > i hear that plus there's a relatively long latency...

    Which is why it's a waste of money. ;-)

    <snip>
    >
    > > > (i guess they are slower ...)
    > >
    > > A newer graphics card will likely be faster. The difference between AGP
    > > and PCI-E will likly never be seen. Given that PCI-E has rather quicly
    > > swept AGP under the door-mat, it's the way to go.
    >
    > isn't it more expen$ive?

    George MacDonald tells us that PCI-E cards are cheaper (I.e. AGP has
    already seen the other end of the bathtub). I don't do 3D games so
    don't much care about either. ;-)

    > > > i would assume that if i bought a pci-express graphics card, the overall
    > > > performance would not be adversely affected (if it had been affected
    > > > with the onBoard chip) ?
    > >
    > > The integrated graphics controller can be disabled, or used to drive
    > > another monitor. Dual monitors are the way to go, IMO (productivity
    > > gains are incredible). Though most decent graphics cards support them
    > > natively.
    >
    > i wouldn't even know what to use dual monitors for (this is where the human bottleneck is
    > having to look at 2 monitors simultaneously <ASAP> <lol>)

    You have two eyes don't you? ;-)

    Seriously, I use two monitors both at work and home. Actually I have
    three monitors in front of me now. One of the monitors is connected to
    a RISC box, but I'd find room for a few more if I could. Big desktops
    are very nice. Be warned though, once you try it you won't go back!

    > > > <snip>
    > > ^
    > > +--- Good idea!
    > >
    > > >> >sata/raid: 4x sata by ich6r with raid 0/1
    > > >>
    > > >> This is where the important stuff is. Most likely you'll want to get
    > > >> an SATA hard drive and throw it on one of these connectors. You should
    > > >> be able to load the OS with no trouble on these. At least in theory,
    > > >> SATA should be a bit faster than ATA as well.
    > > >
    > > > yes, plan on sata / raid drive
    > >
    > > I've been burnt. Software RAID doesn't really interest me (went through
    > > these exercises moons ago when the Promise controllers hit the market).
    >
    > i got a question here (i cannot find the article though -- i read that there are several
    > raid levels and some are great in keeping *copies* soToSpeak of the drive's data...)

    Sure, but none will protect you against the biggest source of data
    loss; the loose nut behind the keyboard. RAID only protects against
    one source of data loss - the hard disk itself.

    > > No L2's are on-board anymore. They're all integrated into the processor.
    > > That said, the integrated DRAM controller is still very important.
    >
    > i believe that it would be. the way i understand it (which is likely more fiction:) is
    > that it calls data from ram as per the cpu's direction HOWEVER if it is integrated it can
    > *arrange* to get / send memory data on it's own being the cpu???)

    The request doesn't have to go from the processor, over the FSB,
    through the northbridge, to the DRAM, and back. The FSB and
    northbridge are eliminated.

    > > I
    > > find it amazing that AMD still is the only one (in this market) who's
    > > figured this out.
    >
    > i actually asked amd for some tech articles on why their cpu is <almost> always
    > recommended / preferred and i have some interesting info from them which definitely
    > prooves their cpus are better performers.
    > i believe that amd is not in <as much> flux (at least not as much as intel is) i.e. is not
    > between chip architecture -- i still like intel however, their 1066 mhz fsb is new (and
    > EXPEN$IVE) and likely needs fine tuning --

    AMDs FSB is *infinitely* fast. ;-)

    > > > and the memory controller being on the chip, is this why the l2 cache
    > > > and the total system mem are less than p4's?
    > >
    > > You'd better look at your figures again. I'm not sure where you're
    > > getting this information from.
    >
    > i'm getting the "max memory" from amd-based motherboards: for example: aopen n250a-fr "max
    > mem" 3 gb.
    > asus k8n-e dx "max mem" 3gb.
    > msi k8n neo ms7030 "max mem" 3 gb
    > but for other boards i see 4 gb max............

    How about: http://www.tyan.com/products/html/matrix.html

    Is 32GB enough? ;-) Seriously, that's for a (serious) 4-processor
    board, but others are 8GB per processor too. 2GB per stick, four
    slots...

    > > DO it! You won't be dissapointed. Were it available last year I'd have
    > > gone that way.
    >
    > only 1 problem: which board??? and i guess the nforce4 chipset... is asus good? (it is
    > supposed to be for p4 systems.)

    Ah, there's the $64,000 question. Asus has a good reputation and I've
    built several systems with them. I prefer Tyan these days, but don't
    pretend they're the only manufacturer out there.

    > p.s. 1 more question: i read an article on cpu's (in general) which states that the more
    > transistors, the better (they list intel based cpus) in some of the info on amd's site,
    > the amd athlon 64 has 105.9 * 10^6 and the p4 has 125 * 10^6
    > perhaps it is the way transistors are used not their absolute number?

    It's like the "23 jewel" watch a friend once showed me. It was a
    standard 17 jewel swiss movement with six jewels taped inside the back
    cover.

    Of course more transistors isn't better. They cost (small) money to
    make and they dissipate power. If they're used for something useful
    they may be interesting though. Using your example above, it seems
    that the P4 has ~20E6 transistors taped inside the case. ...maybe
    that's what they really meant by having "taped out". ;-)

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

    In article <4227C786.E683B4C6@attglobal.net>,
    tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net says...
    > hi keith,
    > [...below...]
    >
    > keith wrote:
    >
    > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:42:46 -0500, Tanya wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > Fire away! BS about differing processors/systems is what we do here. ;-)
    > >
    > > <snip>
    > >
    > > >> It depends on what you mean by "comparable". We've had the LGA discussion
    > > >> here before. I'm not a fan of LGAs in this market at all. They're great
    > > >> if the chip is permanently mounted, but call me skeptical of LGA sockets.
    > > >
    > > > comparable i guess is not possible... from what i've read, the operating
    > > > frequency, the fsb speed and the l2 cache size are the important determinants
    > > > (the amd is less in each category)
    > >
    > > Have you looked at the D and I caches on the P4? The cache latencies?
    > > No, like life, it's not the size that's important, but what you do with it.
    > > ;-)
    >
    > no i have not...are you talking about the l1 instruction cache and the l1 data
    > cache?

    Yes. The P4 has an interesting Icache, but it's tiny. You really have
    to crawl through each cache to see what's going on. Like processor
    clock frequency, just the size alone doesn't mean much.

    > > Less RAM? My Opteron has 1.5GB and it (as opposed to my CFO) would easily
    > > go to 8GB, which would be a problem on any P4. ;-)
    >
    > i posted what i read in the other post... which board(s) hold the 8gb?

    Perhaps one has to go to socket-940 (registered memory) to get to 8GB.
    THe Asus socket-939 boards apparently do 4GB.

    http://usa.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=A8V-E%20Deluxe&langs=09


    > > The FSB is meaningless when comparing the Intel and AMD offerings. I'd
    > > like to see what L2's you're comparing. ...notto mention the L1s, whichh
    > > I believe you're ignoring.
    >
    > i stopped ignoring them however i still don't understand why the integration of the
    > mem controller reduces the need for cached mem... (i won't repeat the question but
    > basically, since the ram is in the board, the data from ram still needs to get to
    > the cpu -- (i.e. it is still separate from the processor).

    Look at it another way; to make up for the longer latency of an
    external memory controller intel had to add more cache. You can try to
    hide latency, but that's all you can do - try.

    > (i won't repeat the question but
    > basically, since the ram is in the board, the data from ram still needs to get to
    > the cpu -- (i.e. it is still separate from the processor).

    With an external controller the data has to make four hops rather than
    two.

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

    On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 08:48:57 -0500, Keith R. Williams wrote:

    > In article <4227C733.B51B7B35@attglobal.net>,
    > tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net says...
    >> hi and thanks again for answering!
    >> [...below...]
    >>
    >> keith wrote:
    >>
    >> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:39:21 -0500, Tanya wrote:
    >
    > <snip clock speed stuff>
    >
    >
    ><major snip>

    >> i wouldn't even know what to use dual monitors for (this is where the human bottleneck is
    >> having to look at 2 monitors simultaneously <ASAP> <lol>)
    >
    > You have two eyes don't you? ;-)
    >
    > Seriously, I use two monitors both at work and home. Actually I have
    > three monitors in front of me now. One of the monitors is connected to
    > a RISC box, but I'd find room for a few more if I could. Big desktops
    > are very nice. Be warned though, once you try it you won't go back!
    >
    >> > > <snip>
    >> > ^
    >> > +--- Good idea!
    >> >

    And I thought that I was the only one who advocates dual monitors, I have
    been telling my friends for a long time the virtues of dual monitors. At
    one time you could buy a couple of 19" monitors for about the same cost of
    a good LCD screen. Whats even more great is Gnu/Linux use of user
    desktops, now every time I use a Windows box I get frustrated because I
    have to minimize everything I use. Its so nice to just click or use the
    mouse wheel to change desktops, each desktop is used for a different
    purpose, one is sound, one is browser, one is system stats, one is Email
    its really nice.

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

    On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:10:50 -0600, Gnu_Raiz wrote:

    > On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 08:48:57 -0500, Keith R. Williams wrote:
    >
    >> In article <4227C733.B51B7B35@attglobal.net>,
    >> tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net says...
    >>> hi and thanks again for answering!
    >>> [...below...]
    >>>
    >>> keith wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:39:21 -0500, Tanya wrote:
    >>
    >> <snip clock speed stuff>
    >>
    >>
    >><major snip>
    >
    >>> i wouldn't even know what to use dual monitors for (this is where the human bottleneck is
    >>> having to look at 2 monitors simultaneously <ASAP> <lol>)
    >>
    >> You have two eyes don't you? ;-)
    >>
    >> Seriously, I use two monitors both at work and home. Actually I have
    >> three monitors in front of me now. One of the monitors is connected to
    >> a RISC box, but I'd find room for a few more if I could. Big desktops
    >> are very nice. Be warned though, once you try it you won't go back!
    >>
    >>> > > <snip>
    >>> > ^
    >>> > +--- Good idea!
    >>> >
    >
    > And I thought that I was the only one who advocates dual monitors, I have
    > been telling my friends for a long time the virtues of dual monitors. At
    > one time you could buy a couple of 19" monitors for about the same cost of
    > a good LCD screen. Whats even more great is Gnu/Linux use of user
    > desktops, now every time I use a Windows box I get frustrated because I
    > have to minimize everything I use. Its so nice to just click or use the
    > mouse wheel to change desktops, each desktop is used for a different
    > purpose, one is sound, one is browser, one is system stats, one is Email
    > its really nice.

    Even WinBoxes like dual monitors. My work laptop is W2K and it's been
    fine, though I have to have a seperate card in the dock to get it to play
    nice. I wouldn't have (have the card) under Win98 or XP, but the add-in
    card is the less painfull option.

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

    Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >> i posted what i read in the other post... which board(s) hold the 8gb?
    >
    >Perhaps one has to go to socket-940 (registered memory) to get to 8GB.
    >THe Asus socket-939 boards apparently do 4GB.
    >
    >http://usa.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=A8V-E%20Deluxe&langs=09

    All socket 939 motherboards I've seen have 4 DDR sockets (2x2), and
    the biggest "unbuffered" (normal) memory I've seen is 1 GB, hence 4 GB
    max. Well, really 4 GB per CPU, but 939 doesn't support more than one
    CPU either.

    If you look at the Socket 754 motherboards you'll see that many of
    them have 3 sockets, but note that in many circumstance it'll reduce
    the memory speed if you have anything in the third one (to PC2700 or
    PC1600!). I'd suspect that these limitations is why the don't bother
    putting 6 DDR sockets on the 939 motherboards, although it's not
    completely impossible that AMD removed that for the 2-channel
    versions.

    There ARE 2 GB memory sticks, but they're registered and hence
    requires a 940 socket processor (or for Intel a server chipset which
    requires registered memory). ASUS has two socket 940 motherboards (1
    CPU), both have 4 sockets and list 8 GB as the limit as expected.

    This could be because they don't see a market for it (yet), OR it
    could be that it REQUIRES too many chips using the currently available
    memory densities, and hence needs the buffering that registered memory
    sticks have (to avoid to high capacitance probably)...

    If it's the later it might be doable once denser memory modules
    becomes available, but that will also depend on whether the Athlon64
    memory controller supports that memory layout (with denser memory it
    might not "look" like the current registered 2 GB modules, so that
    doesn't prove it will be supported).

    AFAIK this is the reason why the Intel 440BX chipset couldn't handle
    512MB sticks (built using newer more denser memory chips).

    Example:
    http://www.crucial.com/store/listmodule.asp?module=DDR+PC3200&Attrib=Package&cat=RAM
    http://www.crucial.com/store/listmodule.asp?module=DDR2+PC2-3200&Attrib=Package&cat=RAM
    http://www.corsairmicro.com/corsair/servers.html
    http://www.corsairmicro.com/corsair/valueselect.html
    http://www.corsairmicro.com/corsair/xms.html
    http://www.corsairmicro.com/corsair/xms2.html

    Kingston doesn't include the search term in the URL, but it looks
    similar. Some unregistered "2GB Kit", ie 2x1024MB, but the only 2GB
    memory sticks are registered (DDR, no 2GB DDR2 yet that I could find).
  43. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 02:22:31 GMT, Torbjorn Lindgren <tl@none.invalid>
    wrote:

    >Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >>> i posted what i read in the other post... which board(s) hold the 8gb?
    >>
    >>Perhaps one has to go to socket-940 (registered memory) to get to 8GB.
    >>THe Asus socket-939 boards apparently do 4GB.
    >>
    >>http://usa.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=A8V-E%20Deluxe&langs=09
    >
    >All socket 939 motherboards I've seen have 4 DDR sockets (2x2), and
    >the biggest "unbuffered" (normal) memory I've seen is 1 GB, hence 4 GB
    >max. Well, really 4 GB per CPU, but 939 doesn't support more than one
    >CPU either.
    >
    >If you look at the Socket 754 motherboards you'll see that many of
    >them have 3 sockets, but note that in many circumstance it'll reduce
    >the memory speed if you have anything in the third one (to PC2700 or
    >PC1600!). I'd suspect that these limitations is why the don't bother
    >putting 6 DDR sockets on the 939 motherboards, although it's not
    >completely impossible that AMD removed that for the 2-channel
    >versions.

    The dual channel S939 CPUs do not support 4 ranks of memory without
    dropping the clock speed too, though some of the review sites claim to have
    made that work by setting memory timings manually. There's also another
    issue here with the 1/2T timing spec, where 2T waits an extra clock cycle
    from Chip Select before a command is sent... compensates for increased bus
    load and has quite a drastic effect on max memory bandwidth. Memory for
    the Athlon64s has to be selected with great care.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  44. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    hi and thanks again, Keith
    [...below...]

    "Keith R. Williams" wrote:

    > In article <4227C733.B51B7B35@attglobal.net>,
    > tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net says...
    > > hi and thanks again for answering!
    > > [...below...]
    > >
    > > keith wrote:
    > >
    > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:39:21 -0500, Tanya wrote:

    <snip>

    > The classical definition of the front-side bus is the bus from the
    > processor to the north-bridge (chipset). It became known as the FSB
    > when the L2 cache was removed from the processor bus and moved to the
    > "back-side" of the processor.
    >
    > Since the AMD64 processors have integrated memory controllers the
    > concept of the "north-bridge" and "front-side bus" is a little muddled.
    > There really isn't a northbridge or FSB, as such. The AMD 64
    > processors have the memory bus tied directly to the processor, where
    > Intel and earlier AMD processors have the memory bus tied to the
    > chipset (northbridge-half) and the front-side bus connects the
    > northbridge to the processor. In an Intel system the memory traverses
    > the FSB, thus its performance is important. In an AMD (uni-processor)
    > system it's less important since it isn't in the memory path. AMD64
    > multi-processors do have to use the bus(ses) (hypertransport) to access
    > memory on the other processor(s), so hypertransport isn't a slouch.
    >
    > The main point here being that AMD64 processors have a memory latency
    > advantage because they don't have the extra trip over the FSB and
    > through the northbridge. System memory is hooked directly to the
    > processor.

    <snip>
    i accept this now:)

    > <snip>
    > >
    > > > > (i guess they are slower ...)
    > > >
    > > > A newer graphics card will likely be faster. The difference between AGP
    > > > and PCI-E will likly never be seen. Given that PCI-E has rather quicly
    > > > swept AGP under the door-mat, it's the way to go.
    > >
    > > isn't it more expen$ive?
    >
    > George MacDonald tells us that PCI-E cards are cheaper (I.e. AGP has
    > already seen the other end of the bathtub). I don't do 3D games so
    > don't much care about either. ;-)

    actually i heard this somewhere else as well (that agp was >$)
    <snip>

    > > i wouldn't even know what to use dual monitors for (this is where the human bottleneck is
    > > having to look at 2 monitors simultaneously <ASAP> <lol>)
    >
    > You have two eyes don't you? ;-)

    (between the eyes is missing:)

    > Seriously, I use two monitors both at work and home. Actually I have
    > three monitors in front of me now. One of the monitors is connected to
    > a RISC box, but I'd find room for a few more if I could. Big desktops
    > are very nice. Be warned though, once you try it you won't go back!
    >
    > > > > <snip>
    > > > ^
    > > > +--- Good idea!
    > > >
    > > > >> >sata/raid: 4x sata by ich6r with raid 0/1
    > > > >>
    > > > >> This is where the important stuff is. Most likely you'll want to get
    > > > >> an SATA hard drive and throw it on one of these connectors. You should
    > > > >> be able to load the OS with no trouble on these. At least in theory,
    > > > >> SATA should be a bit faster than ATA as well.
    > > > >
    > > > > yes, plan on sata / raid drive
    > > >
    > > > I've been burnt. Software RAID doesn't really interest me (went through
    > > > these exercises moons ago when the Promise controllers hit the market).
    > >
    > > i got a question here (i cannot find the article though -- i read that there are several
    > > raid levels and some are great in keeping *copies* soToSpeak of the drive's data...)
    >
    > Sure, but none will protect you against the biggest source of data
    > loss; the loose nut behind the keyboard. RAID only protects against
    > one source of data loss - the hard disk itself.

    however, say that the kb user is *conscious* if there was a hd (mechanica)l failure wouldn't
    raid (level 4 for ex) be useful?

    > > > No L2's are on-board anymore. They're all integrated into the processor.
    > > > That said, the integrated DRAM controller is still very important.
    > >
    > > i believe that it would be. the way i understand it (which is likely more fiction:) is
    > > that it calls data from ram as per the cpu's direction HOWEVER if it is integrated it can
    > > *arrange* to get / send memory data on it's own being the cpu???)
    >
    > The request doesn't have to go from the processor, over the FSB,
    > through the northbridge, to the DRAM, and back. The FSB and
    > northbridge are eliminated.
    >
    > > > I
    > > > find it amazing that AMD still is the only one (in this market) who's
    > > > figured this out.
    > >
    > > i actually asked amd for some tech articles on why their cpu is <almost> always
    > > recommended / preferred and i have some interesting info from them which definitely
    > > prooves their cpus are better performers.
    > > i believe that amd is not in <as much> flux (at least not as much as intel is) i.e. is not
    > > between chip architecture -- i still like intel however, their 1066 mhz fsb is new (and
    > > EXPEN$IVE) and likely needs fine tuning --
    >
    > AMDs FSB is *infinitely* fast. ;-)
    >
    > > > > and the memory controller being on the chip, is this why the l2 cache
    > > > > and the total system mem are less than p4's?
    > > >
    > > > You'd better look at your figures again. I'm not sure where you're
    > > > getting this information from.
    > >
    > > i'm getting the "max memory" from amd-based motherboards: for example: aopen n250a-fr "max
    > > mem" 3 gb.
    > > asus k8n-e dx "max mem" 3gb.
    > > msi k8n neo ms7030 "max mem" 3 gb
    > > but for other boards i see 4 gb max............
    >
    > How about: http://www.tyan.com/products/html/matrix.html
    >
    > Is 32GB enough? ;-) Seriously, that's for a (serious) 4-processor
    > board, but others are 8GB per processor too. 2GB per stick, four
    > slots...

    actually i read that > 4 gbs is not supported unless one has windows xp with 64 bit support.
    (and in any case even 3 gb's would be great.!)

    > > > DO it! You won't be dissapointed. Were it available last year I'd have
    > > > gone that way.
    > >
    > > only 1 problem: which board??? and i guess the nforce4 chipset... is asus good? (it is
    > > supposed to be for p4 systems.)
    >
    > Ah, there's the $64,000 question. Asus has a good reputation and I've
    > built several systems with them. I prefer Tyan these days, but don't
    > pretend they're the only manufacturer out there.

    you posted a link -- other post with an asus board that looks great HOWEVER, it does not have
    the nforce4 chipset and users' comments mentioned this (i have to look for one (preferably asus)
    with the nforce4 chipset unless they don't make this?)

    > > p.s. 1 more question: i read an article on cpu's (in general) which states that the more
    > > transistors, the better

    <snip>

    > It's like the "23 jewel" watch a friend once showed me. It was a
    > standard 17 jewel swiss movement with six jewels taped inside the back
    > cover.
    >
    > Of course more transistors isn't better. They cost (small) money to
    > make and they dissipate power. If they're used for something useful
    > they may be interesting though. Using your example above, it seems
    > that the P4 has ~20E6 transistors taped inside the case. ...maybe
    > that's what they really meant by having "taped out". ;-)
    >
    > --
    > Keith

    i guess intel cannot win can it?
    <lol>
    thanks, Keith!
  45. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    hi George,
    thanks for the reply...
    [...below...]

    George Macdonald wrote:

    > On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 21:27:35 -0500, Tanya <tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net>

    <snip>

    > >i do mean that
    > >i read that amd's have larger bandwidth; also that amd's use hyperTransport (up
    > >to 2000mhz (system bus technology) (which is compared to the p4's fsb speed
    >
    > Well the Hypertransport speed is not really comparable to Intel's FSB as to
    > the data carried on them in a uniprocessor system. In an Intel system, the
    > FSB is only a "bus" in that it can have more than one CPU on it in a
    > multiprocessor system and it connects the CPU(s) to the MCH (Memory
    > Controller HUB... what we used to call the North Bridge); the MCH in turn
    > connects to the memory channel, to fast I/O devices, namely PCI Express and
    > to the ICH (IO Controller Hub) which handles all the other I/O devices.
    >
    > Since the AMD Athlon64 systems have the Memory Controller on the CPU die,
    > CPU <-> Memory transfers do not have to travel on the Hypertransport Bus
    > *but* all I/O device <-> memory transfers do. Hypertransport is really two
    > buses twinned together, one for the up-stream and the other with the
    > down-stream; with current clock speeds, their aggregate bandwidth is close
    > to the same as Intel's FSB.
    >
    > Take a look at the Data Sheets from both Intel and AMD - you'll find some
    > diagrams which illustrate how the data lanes fan out system-wise better
    > than any description I can give.

    i have seen quite a few (data sheets) now and i am convinced that amd is a better
    performer (i asked however the retailer where i want to purcha$e parts) and they
    state that intel is better for raw data processing (dataBases, video...) and amd is
    better for gaming which unfortunately i do not do...


    > There are pros & cons to both ways of doing things but the big gain for AMD
    > is in the low latency access to main memory since addresses/data don't have
    > to cross external clock domains through an MCH. Intel tries to get around
    > this with their Hyper Threading and by agressive prefetching of data from
    > memory to the CPU's (usually larger) L2 Cache The bottom line is that in
    > overall system performance you're not going to see a lot of difference -
    > some apps wll favor one approach and others the alternative method. If you
    > get a decent system with either CPU -- I usually buy one notch down from
    > the leading/bleeding edge -- you're not going to fret over the difference,
    > which in most cases will be barely measurable.

    that is what i chose (the p4 520 2.8 ghz) (it is certainly not their best) and i
    want to choose the equivalent (wrt amd -- i.e. not their (amd's) best but a good
    cpu) not to compare w/ intel but to compare with their (amd's) other cpus.

    > --
    > Rgds, George Macdonald

    thanks,
    sincerely
    Tanya
  46. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    hi Keith,
    thanks for replying...
    [...below...]

    "Keith R. Williams" wrote:
    <snip>

    > > > Have you looked at the D and I caches on the P4? The cache latencies?
    > > > No, like life, it's not the size that's important, but what you do with it.
    > > > ;-)
    > >
    > > no i have not...are you talking about the l1 instruction cache and the l1 data
    > > cache?
    >
    > Yes. The P4 has an interesting Icache, but it's tiny. You really have
    > to crawl through each cache to see what's going on.

    i cannot even find reference to the i and d cache for the p4 so i guess they're really
    small?
    :)

    > Like processor
    > clock frequency, just the size alone doesn't mean much.
    >
    > > > Less RAM? My Opteron has 1.5GB and it (as opposed to my CFO) would easily
    > > > go to 8GB, which would be a problem on any P4. ;-)
    > >
    > > i posted what i read in the other post... which board(s) hold the 8gb?

    (in case you don't see the other post -- i read that windowsxp -- 64 bit support will
    support > 4gb however xp will not at this time...)

    > Perhaps one has to go to socket-940 (registered memory) to get to 8GB.
    > THe Asus socket-939 boards apparently do 4GB.

    registered is very expen$ive isn't it?
    also read that if the board supports this type of ram (registered), one HAS TO use it
    (this is not rambus memory is it)


    > http://usa.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=A8V-E%20Deluxe&langs=09

    do you know of an asus board with nforce4 chipset? (i find nforce3)
    and what cpu?
    (also places $ell cpu-board combos -- are these the <a> way to go?)


    > > > The FSB is meaningless when comparing the Intel and AMD offerings. I'd
    > > > like to see what L2's you're comparing. ...notto mention the L1s, whichh
    > > > I believe you're ignoring.
    > >
    > > i stopped ignoring them however i still don't understand why the integration of the
    > > mem controller reduces the need for cached mem... (i won't repeat the question but
    > > basically, since the ram is in the board, the data from ram still needs to get to
    > > the cpu -- (i.e. it is still separate from the processor).
    >
    > Look at it another way; to make up for the longer latency of an
    > external memory controller intel had to add more cache. You can try to
    > hide latency, but that's all you can do - try.
    >
    > > (i won't repeat the question but
    > > basically, since the ram is in the board, the data from ram still needs to get to
    > > the cpu -- (i.e. it is still separate from the processor).
    >
    > With an external controller the data has to make four hops rather than
    > two.

    i am convinced...

    > --
    > Keith

    thanks,
    sincerely
    Tanya
  47. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    hi Torbjorn,
    [...below...]

    Torbjorn Lindgren wrote:

    > Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    > >> i posted what i read in the other post... which board(s) hold the 8gb?
    > >
    > >Perhaps one has to go to socket-940 (registered memory) to get to 8GB.
    > >THe Asus socket-939 boards apparently do 4GB.
    > >
    > >http://usa.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=A8V-E%20Deluxe&langs=09
    >
    > All socket 939 motherboards I've seen have 4 DDR sockets (2x2), and
    > the biggest "unbuffered" (normal) memory I've seen is 1 GB, hence 4 GB
    > max. Well, really 4 GB per CPU, but 939 doesn't support more than one
    > CPU either.
    >
    > If you look at the Socket 754 motherboards you'll see that many of
    > them have 3 sockets, but note that in many circumstance it'll reduce
    > the memory speed if you have anything in the third one (to PC2700 or
    > PC1600!). I'd suspect that these limitations is why the don't bother
    > putting 6 DDR sockets on the 939 motherboards, although it's not
    > completely impossible that AMD removed that for the 2-channel
    > versions.
    >
    > There ARE 2 GB memory sticks, but they're registered and hence
    > requires a 940 socket processor (or for Intel a server chipset which
    > requires registered memory). ASUS has two socket 940 motherboards (1
    > CPU), both have 4 sockets and list 8 GB as the limit as expected.
    >
    > This could be because they don't see a market for it (yet), OR it
    > could be that it REQUIRES too many chips using the currently available
    > memory densities, and hence needs the buffering that registered memory
    > sticks have (to avoid to high capacitance probably)...
    >
    > If it's the later it might be doable once denser memory modules
    > becomes available, but that will also depend on whether the Athlon64
    > memory controller supports that memory layout (with denser memory it
    > might not "look" like the current registered 2 GB modules, so that
    > doesn't prove it will be supported).
    >
    > AFAIK this is the reason why the Intel 440BX chipset couldn't handle
    > 512MB sticks (built using newer more denser memory chips).

    what about rambus ram?
    (i did read that current os (except for linux) does not support > 4 gb but the 64-bit os
    will in the future) -- currently my *fastest* pc has 128 MEGAbytes so even ONE gb with a p4
    or an amd athlon 64 will be noticed very easily!
    thanks,
    sincerely
    Tanya

    >
    >
    > Example:
    > http://www.crucial.com/store/listmodule.asp?module=DDR+PC3200&Attrib=Package&cat=RAM
    > http://www.crucial.com/store/listmodule.asp?module=DDR2+PC2-3200&Attrib=Package&cat=RAM
    > http://www.corsairmicro.com/corsair/servers.html
    > http://www.corsairmicro.com/corsair/valueselect.html
    > http://www.corsairmicro.com/corsair/xms.html
    > http://www.corsairmicro.com/corsair/xms2.html
    >
    > Kingston doesn't include the search term in the URL, but it looks
    > similar. Some unregistered "2GB Kit", ie 2x1024MB, but the only 2GB
    > memory sticks are registered (DDR, no 2GB DDR2 yet that I could find).
  48. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    George Macdonald wrote:

    > On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 02:22:31 GMT, Torbjorn Lindgren <tl@none.invalid>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    > >>> i posted what i read in the other post... which board(s) hold the 8gb?
    > >>
    > >>Perhaps one has to go to socket-940 (registered memory) to get to 8GB.
    > >>THe Asus socket-939 boards apparently do 4GB.
    > >>
    > >>http://usa.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=A8V-E%20Deluxe&langs=09
    > >
    > >All socket 939 motherboards I've seen have 4 DDR sockets (2x2), and
    > >the biggest "unbuffered" (normal) memory I've seen is 1 GB, hence 4 GB
    > >max. Well, really 4 GB per CPU, but 939 doesn't support more than one
    > >CPU either.
    > >
    > >If you look at the Socket 754 motherboards you'll see that many of
    > >them have 3 sockets, but note that in many circumstance it'll reduce
    > >the memory speed if you have anything in the third one (to PC2700 or
    > >PC1600!). I'd suspect that these limitations is why the don't bother
    > >putting 6 DDR sockets on the 939 motherboards, although it's not
    > >completely impossible that AMD removed that for the 2-channel
    > >versions.
    >
    > The dual channel S939 CPUs do not support 4 ranks of memory without
    > dropping the clock speed too, though some of the review sites claim to have
    > made that work by setting memory timings manually. There's also another
    > issue here with the 1/2T timing spec, where 2T waits an extra clock cycle
    > from Chip Select before a command is sent... compensates for increased bus
    > load and has quite a drastic effect on max memory bandwidth. Memory for
    > the Athlon64s has to be selected with great care.

    ok i don't understand this: can i not use the same ram (type size) in a p4 as
    in an amd athlon 64 (being that i currently am using 128 mb's of pc100(?) as
    the "fastest")
    (for ex if i want to 'build' an intel - based AND an amd athlon 64-based pc i
    could get a $ deal if i order the same mem for each.)
    thanks!

    > --
    > Rgds, George Macdonald
  49. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <422C8CA5.9F3D988E@attglobal.net>,
    tjtmdREMOVE_THIS@attglobal.net says...

    <snip>

    > > > i wouldn't even know what to use dual monitors for (this is where the human bottleneck is
    > > > having to look at 2 monitors simultaneously <ASAP> <lol>)
    > >
    > > You have two eyes don't you? ;-)
    >
    > (between the eyes is missing:)

    Ah, you have no nose. I hope you have perfect vision, or you're going
    to be in real trouble. ;-)

    > > > > I've been burnt. Software RAID doesn't really interest me (went through
    > > > > these exercises moons ago when the Promise controllers hit the market).
    > > >
    > > > i got a question here (i cannot find the article though -- i read that there are several
    > > > raid levels and some are great in keeping *copies* soToSpeak of the drive's data...)
    > >
    > > Sure, but none will protect you against the biggest source of data
    > > loss; the loose nut behind the keyboard. RAID only protects against
    > > one source of data loss - the hard disk itself.
    >
    > however, say that the kb user is *conscious* if there was a hd (mechanica)l failure wouldn't
    > raid (level 4 for ex) be useful?

    Sure, RAID (except for RAID0) will help one recover after a *disk*
    hardware failure. While this isn't rare it's not the most common cause
    of data loss. It is usually a massive loss when it happens though. A
    decent backup strategy would be better, in most cases. Ok, no one uses
    such a strategy... ;-)

    The disadvantage of RAID is that it takes CPU cycles somewhere. The
    more complicated the RAID system the more cycles. Software RAID (like
    what you're normally going to find on PC motherboards) takes those
    cycles from the main processor. RAID 0 and RAID 1 use relatively few
    cycles, so that's what you're going to get (perhaps RAID10) in PC class
    systems.

    RAID isn't the solution to all problems.

    <snip>

    > > How about: http://www.tyan.com/products/html/matrix.html
    > >
    > > Is 32GB enough? ;-) Seriously, that's for a (serious) 4-processor
    > > board, but others are 8GB per processor too. 2GB per stick, four
    > > slots...
    >
    > actually i read that > 4 gbs is not supported unless one has windows xp with 64 bit support.
    > (and in any case even 3 gb's would be great.!)

    Even 4GB isn't supported under XP. IIRC it'll support "only" 3GB
    because it uses 1GB virtual address space for itself and I/O. Since
    virtual address range = real address range on an x86, this 1GB must be
    subtracted from the maximum real memory.

    > > Ah, there's the $64,000 question. Asus has a good reputation and I've
    > > built several systems with them. I prefer Tyan these days, but don't
    > > pretend they're the only manufacturer out there.
    >
    > you posted a link -- other post with an asus board that looks great HOWEVER, it does not have
    > the nforce4 chipset and users' comments mentioned this (i have to look for one (preferably asus)
    > with the nforce4 chipset unless they don't make this?)

    I believe the nForce4 is relatively new, so Asus may not have theirs
    out yet. I'm not one to say whether it's worth waiting for though.

    > > > p.s. 1 more question: i read an article on cpu's (in general) which states that the more
    > > > transistors, the better
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > > It's like the "23 jewel" watch a friend once showed me. It was a
    > > standard 17 jewel swiss movement with six jewels taped inside the back
    > > cover.
    > >
    > > Of course more transistors isn't better. They cost (small) money to
    > > make and they dissipate power. If they're used for something useful
    > > they may be interesting though. Using your example above, it seems
    > > that the P4 has ~20E6 transistors taped inside the case. ...maybe
    > > that's what they really meant by having "taped out". ;-)
    > >
    > > --
    > > Keith
    >
    > i guess intel cannot win can it?
    > <lol>

    "We" like it that way. ;-)

    --
    Keith
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Hardware AMD Intel