AMD/Intel hybrid motherboard

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

An ECS motherboard that can take either a P4 S775 or an Athlon 64 S939!

Yousuf Khan

HEXUS.net : Review : CEBIT 2005: AMD or Intel? Same Motherboard! : Page
- 1/1
http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD0xMDM2
12 answers Last reply
More about intel hybrid motherboard
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > An ECS motherboard that can take either a P4 S775 or an Athlon 64 S939!
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
    >
    > HEXUS.net : Review : CEBIT 2005: AMD or Intel? Same Motherboard! : Page
    > - 1/1
    > http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD0xMDM2

    That kind of thing is rarely cost-effective or optimal w.r.t. performance.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    news:4233A678.5000008@prodigy.net...

    > That kind of thing is rarely cost-effective or optimal w.r.t. performance.

    I agree. I'd be very suspicious. But, on the other hand, with
    potentially twice the market of a motherboard targetted at just one CPU, the
    economies of scale could make it cost-effective. But it would definitely be
    hard to 'do it right' for both CPUs.

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

    On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 20:09:56 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

    >An ECS motherboard that can take either a P4 S775 or an Athlon 64 S939!
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
    >
    >HEXUS.net : Review : CEBIT 2005: AMD or Intel? Same Motherboard! : Page
    >- 1/1
    >http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD0xMDM2

    Well it *is* a separate riser for the Athlon64... though I still can't
    figure why I might want it. Here's another weirdo:
    http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/mainboard/mbd/pro_mbd_detail.php?UID=642
    - a socket 754 with a PCIe x16 and a "AGR" which takes a limited sub-set of
    AGP cards. What the hell am I going to use it for?

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

    George Macdonald wrote:
    > Well it *is* a separate riser for the Athlon64... though I still can't
    > figure why I might want it. Here's another weirdo:
    > http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/mainboard/mbd/pro_mbd_detail.php?UID=642
    > - a socket 754 with a PCIe x16 and a "AGR" which takes a limited sub-set of
    > AGP cards. What the hell am I going to use it for?

    Actually, it looks like this isn't as limited a subset as you think. It
    looks like supports almost all AGP video cards since the AGP-4X days.
    This might be the answer people are looking for, if they just bought a
    high-end AGP video card just recently, then they can continue to use it
    here, until they are ready to go with a PCIE card.

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

    Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > George Macdonald wrote:
    >
    >>Well it *is* a separate riser for the Athlon64... though I still can't
    >>figure why I might want it. Here's another weirdo:
    >>http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/mainboard/mbd/pro_mbd_detail.php?UID=642
    >>- a socket 754 with a PCIe x16 and a "AGR" which takes a limited sub-set of
    >>AGP cards. What the hell am I going to use it for?
    >
    >
    > Actually, it looks like this isn't as limited a subset as you think. It
    > looks like supports almost all AGP video cards since the AGP-4X days.
    > This might be the answer people are looking for, if they just bought a
    > high-end AGP video card just recently, then they can continue to use it
    > here, until they are ready to go with a PCIE card.
    >

    I read elsewhere that "AGR" is the term MSI is using when an AGP
    slot has been bridged to a PCI-E bus, as opposed to a "true" AGP
    slot on a genuine AGP bus to the chipset.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

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

    > I read elsewhere that "AGR" is the term MSI is using
    > when an AGP slot has been bridged to a PCI-E bus, as
    > opposed to a "true" AGP slot on a genuine AGP bus to
    > the chipset.

    I wonder how many PCIe lanes these rigs will use.

    And then insert a "new" AGP card that is actually a
    native PCIe chipset bridged back to AGP, and the end-
    user ends up with impressive latencies.

    I suspect that anything "AGP" and/or "bridged" are
    quickly going to become anathema to enthusiasts.
    But will the general public catch on?

    --
    Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name@ispname.tld
    http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
    NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Rob Stow wrote:
    > I read elsewhere that "AGR" is the term MSI is using when an AGP slot
    > has been bridged to a PCI-E bus, as opposed to a "true" AGP slot on a
    > genuine AGP bus to the chipset.

    Yeah, that would be how I'd look at it too. Might add a very tiny amount
    of additional latency but the bandwidth should be the same.

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

    Bob Niland wrote:
    > I suspect that anything "AGP" and/or "bridged" are
    > quickly going to become anathema to enthusiasts.
    > But will the general public catch on?

    Can't see why anyone would care, as it now stands most of the work is
    done within the graphics cards themselves, and the only time major
    amounts of data passes between the graphics and the rest of the system
    are for non-accelerated graphics.

    Besides 8X AGP is well below the speed of 16X PCIE. I think 16X PCIE is
    approximately equal to 32X AGP, so plugging an AGP card into a PCIE
    bridge would still leave quite a bit of headroom.

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

    Bob Niland wrote:
    >>Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I read elsewhere that "AGR" is the term MSI is using
    >>when an AGP slot has been bridged to a PCI-E bus, as
    >>opposed to a "true" AGP slot on a genuine AGP bus to
    >>the chipset.
    >
    >
    > I wonder how many PCIe lanes these rigs will use.

    I would assume they are bridged off of the 16 lane slot for a
    PCI-E video card. I didn't read the specs too closely, but I
    would expect that putting a card in the AGP slot will either
    prevent use of the 16 lane slot or reduce it to 8 lanes.

    The latter would be comparable to most motherboards that have
    what on the surface seems to be a pair 16 lane PCI-E slots, but
    in reality they share only 16 lanes between them. If cards are
    inserted into both slots, the slots revert to 8 lanes each.

    >
    > And then insert a "new" AGP card that is actually a
    > native PCIe chipset bridged back to AGP, and the end-
    > user ends up with impressive latencies.

    I'm not sure if that will be much of an issue: if you have one
    of these motherboards, then you don't buy a "new" AGP card - you
    buy a PCI-E card.

    These kinds of motherboards are perhaps targetted at guys who
    might want to upgrade their motherboard but either can't afford
    to simultaneously replace their AGP card or want to wait for
    prices on PCI-E cards to come down.

    >
    > I suspect that anything "AGP" and/or "bridged" are
    > quickly going to become anathema to enthusiasts.
    > But will the general public catch on?
    >
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:13:44 GMT, Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:

    >Bob Niland wrote:
    >>>Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I read elsewhere that "AGR" is the term MSI is using
    >>>when an AGP slot has been bridged to a PCI-E bus, as
    >>>opposed to a "true" AGP slot on a genuine AGP bus to
    >>>the chipset.
    >>
    >>
    >> I wonder how many PCIe lanes these rigs will use.
    >
    >I would assume they are bridged off of the 16 lane slot for a
    >PCI-E video card. I didn't read the specs too closely, but I
    >would expect that putting a card in the AGP slot will either
    >prevent use of the 16 lane slot or reduce it to 8 lanes.
    >
    >The latter would be comparable to most motherboards that have
    >what on the surface seems to be a pair 16 lane PCI-E slots, but
    >in reality they share only 16 lanes between them. If cards are
    >inserted into both slots, the slots revert to 8 lanes each.

    I have seen boards with a x16 connector with the full sixteen lanes, and
    another x16 connector with 8 lanes. The lanes aren't shared in any physical
    sense - they can't be, by rule and physics.

    What might happen would be the x16 dropping down to x8 if both were plugged.
    But that better be strictly for SLI, and not something that happens even if
    one of the slots was plugged with a quad gigabit nic...

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

    On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 12:46:05 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

    >George Macdonald wrote:
    >> Well it *is* a separate riser for the Athlon64... though I still can't
    >> figure why I might want it. Here's another weirdo:
    >> http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/mainboard/mbd/pro_mbd_detail.php?UID=642
    >> - a socket 754 with a PCIe x16 and a "AGR" which takes a limited sub-set of
    >> AGP cards. What the hell am I going to use it for?
    >
    >Actually, it looks like this isn't as limited a subset as you think. It
    >looks like supports almost all AGP video cards since the AGP-4X days.
    >This might be the answer people are looking for, if they just bought a
    >high-end AGP video card just recently, then they can continue to use it
    >here, until they are ready to go with a PCIE card.

    Yeah that is the obvious target but it's been my impression that many of
    the people with such a valuable, high end video card have money burning a
    hole in their pockets.:-)

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

    George Macdonald wrote:
    >>Actually, it looks like this isn't as limited a subset as you think. It
    >>looks like supports almost all AGP video cards since the AGP-4X days.
    >>This might be the answer people are looking for, if they just bought a
    >>high-end AGP video card just recently, then they can continue to use it
    >>here, until they are ready to go with a PCIE card.
    >
    >
    > Yeah that is the obvious target but it's been my impression that many of
    > the people with such a valuable, high end video card have money burning a
    > hole in their pockets.:-)

    Actually, they don't even have to be that high-end. I know I'd feel
    extremely pissed off having to replace a $200 card after only a year. In
    my case, I haven't upgraded my video card in about four years, I got a
    GeForce 2GTS, so I'm more than willing to upgrade the video at the same
    time as I potentially upgrade my mobo/processor. I had a friend who had
    to upgrade video cards even though he had an AGP, but it was a 2X card,
    and the mobo he got (need to replace one that died) had a 4X+ AGP slot,
    which was not compatible with the old 2X card.

    Yousuf Khan
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Intel Motherboards AMD Product