Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nforce for Intel announced

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2005 2:02:45 PM

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

AnandTech News: NVIDIA nForce 4 SLI Redefines Digital Media Experience
on Intel-Based PCs
http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=24057

Interesting note, the Nforce 4 SLI for Intel has one more feature than
the original Nforce 4 for AMD, which is a bootable RAID5 feature.

NVIDIA nForce4
http://www.nvidia.com/page/nforce4_family.html

Yousuf Khan

More about : nforce intel announced

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2005 9:58:43 PM

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

YKhan <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>AnandTech News: NVIDIA nForce 4 SLI Redefines Digital Media Experience
>on Intel-Based PCs
>http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=24057
>
>Interesting note, the Nforce 4 SLI for Intel has one more feature than
>the original Nforce 4 for AMD, which is a bootable RAID5 feature.

I wouldn't be surprised if this shows in a new revision of the
nF4/AMD, possibly chipset stepping or new edition (SLI+)?. Heck, it
could even show up as software upgrade, it COULD be that they were
just waiting to get all the software ironed out (case in point: There
are RAID 5 drivers for SIL-3114 out now from some manufacturers now,
and it IS bootable/installable)

HotHardware has more information and a full review of a reference
motherboard against , they've must've worked hard to get it out the
same day, though they "helped" the Intel processors a bit by using a
much cheaper AMD processor than the Intel processor used (925XE vs
nF4/i vs nF4/A, top of the line P4EE's should arguably be benchmarked
against the latest AMD FX model).

http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.cfm?articleid=65...

FiringSquad appears to have similar information and also has some
tests, but only lists P4EE/nF4i scores. This makes it hard to tell
much from them, it might be possible to figure something out by
crossreferencing other earlier tests of other platforms.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_nforce4_inte...

The first results is looking pretty good, especially if they can
deliver on supporting both single and dual-core P4's.

The new Intel chipsets coming might help the Intel chipset side a bit
though, but early indications seems to be not that much difference
from 925XE, at best it might equalize with nF4i (more testing though
than nF4i, so less uncertainty in how much to trust the values).
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 6, 2005 2:01:45 AM

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

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:58:43 +0000, Torbjorn Lindgren wrote:

> YKhan <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I wouldn't be surprised if this shows in a new revision of the
> nF4/AMD, possibly chipset stepping or new edition (SLI+)?. Heck, it
> could even show up as software upgrade, it COULD be that they were
> just waiting to get all the software ironed out (case in point: There
> are RAID 5 drivers for SIL-3114 out now from some manufacturers now,
> and it IS bootable/installable)
>
> HotHardware has more information and a full review of a reference
> motherboard against , they've must've worked hard to get it out the
> same day, though they "helped" the Intel processors a bit by using a
> much cheaper AMD processor than the Intel processor used (925XE vs
> nF4/i vs nF4/A, top of the line P4EE's should arguably be benchmarked
> against the latest AMD FX model).
>
> http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.cfm?articleid=65...
>
> FiringSquad appears to have similar information and also has some
> tests, but only lists P4EE/nF4i scores. This makes it hard to tell
> much from them, it might be possible to figure something out by
> crossreferencing other earlier tests of other platforms.
>
> http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_nforce4_inte...
>
> The first results is looking pretty good, especially if they can
> deliver on supporting both single and dual-core P4's.
>
> The new Intel chipsets coming might help the Intel chipset side a bit
> though, but early indications seems to be not that much difference
> from 925XE, at best it might equalize with nF4i (more testing though
> than nF4i, so less uncertainty in how much to trust the values).

Who is the intended market for these boards, as the articles point out,
the AMD solution is much faster, so a serious gamer would go with AMD. Not
to mention the price performance aspect, heat aspect, everything else. Ok
it might be the fastest Intel solution, the only thing I could see as the
target market is the big OEM's, or those who are Intel only who want a
fast gaming machine.

Gnu-Raiz
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 6, 2005 10:03:11 PM

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

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

In article <1112805180.d899a15a2ca6a449f8db2776b2a4ed78@teranews>,
Gnu_Raiz <Gnu_Raiz@uptime.notlost.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:12:12 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:
>> I don't know about the rest of you, but my interest at the moment lies
>> squarely in dual-core processors. If early rumors are true, then it
>> looks like we'll be waiting a good 6-12 months before we'll get
>> *affordable* dual-core desktop chips from AMD, while Intel is looking
>> to release low-ish cost dual-core chips in the next couple months.
>
>I am excited about dual core too, but I have a hard time living down the
>power requirements of smithfield. I do like the idea that Intel will
>target all markets with its dual core. Since no major software is
>multithreaded the benefits won't show up anytime soon.
>
>I am also glad that Nvidia has such a good chipset, and hope it puts
>pressure on Intel, in all markets. I also think that ATI will not roll
>over and will join in the competition, as it already has a big stake in
>the mobile arena. As far as gaming machines go I really doubt that dual
>core will make a big differene, unless they start making games that are
>multithreaded. Just consider how many games are 64 bit not many, since
>Windows 64 was released to manufacturing, it still up in the air.

There's more to computing than just gaming. Things like video/photo editors
and video encoders tend to be fairly aggressively multithreaded and can make
effective use of as much processor power as you can throw at them. If
you're cleaning up your home videos or archiving TV shows to DVD, a
dual-core processor ought to deliver a decent performance boost.

Even if most of your apps aren't multithreaded, you should still see some
improvement from having a 2nd core on which the scheduler can run processes.
With two cores and two monitors, you could run a FPS full-screen on one
monitor and a videoconference program in a window on the other monitor. You
can taunt your foes as you frag them into oblivion, and the videoconference
program should have minimal (if any) impact on the performance of your game.

(Not that I would waste my time with such an endeavor, but some people
would.)

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCVCRdVgTKos01OwkRAkKPAJ4iTkE2lP05ISjD9Y3L4/0LKojjsQCgrSZ1
rtMpreL7k1of8Zq/W9YEoeA=
=b68M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 6, 2005 11:23:36 PM

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

Bitstring <1112805180.d899a15a2ca6a449f8db2776b2a4ed78@teranews>, from
the wonderful person Gnu_Raiz <Gnu_Raiz@uptime.notlost.net> said
<snip>
> Since no major software is
>multithreaded the benefits won't show up anytime soon.

The OS itself is multithreaded, which means I can have Photoshop image
processing a huge .tif file and still be able to browse the web (subject
to my disk channels not having choked and died).

Actually a lot of software is multithreaded (open up task manager and
look) but usually not designed for proper concurrent thread execution.
Except the stuff I wrote, of course, (for 'flying into' Mandlebrot/Julia
fractals). 4, or 8, or 16 cores? .. bring them on .. as long as they can
do proper (80 bit) floating point at high speed. 8>.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
SC recommends the use of Firefox; Get smart, or get assimilated.
April 7, 2005 7:07:04 AM

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

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:12:12 -0400, Tony Hill
<hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>I don't know about the rest of you, but my interest at the moment lies
>squarely in dual-core processors. If early rumors are true, then it
>looks like we'll be waiting a good 6-12 months before we'll get
>*affordable* dual-core desktop chips from AMD, while Intel is looking
>to release low-ish cost dual-core chips in the next couple months.
....snip...
>-------------
>Tony Hill
>hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
I am under impression that dual-core Opterons are about to be released
not much later than Pentiums, if not earlier. Please don't tell me
that Opteron is *not* a desktop CPU - I have two Opty242 running on
mine, and they together with the motherboard cost me less than top of
the line A64FX/P4EE and LanParty-type board would. These dual core
Opterons are expected to be anything but *affordable* when just
released, but the same is expected of Pentium D-EE, and the board for
it - be it NF4ie or i955X based - will likely cost an arm and a leg.
The cheaper 2.8GHz Pentium D is expected to be released significantly
later, will require the same expensive motherboard as EE, and hardly
will be faster than my year old Opterons. I'd rather wait until the
next speed grade of dual core Opteron 2xx is released - the price on
the original ones will go closer to reasonable level. Hope by that
time there will be the BIOS update for my mobo.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 7, 2005 2:24:43 PM

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

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 19:23:36 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can
<GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:

>Bitstring <1112805180.d899a15a2ca6a449f8db2776b2a4ed78@teranews>, from
>the wonderful person Gnu_Raiz <Gnu_Raiz@uptime.notlost.net> said
><snip>
>> Since no major software is
>>multithreaded the benefits won't show up anytime soon.
>
>The OS itself is multithreaded, which means I can have Photoshop image
>processing a huge .tif file and still be able to browse the web (subject
>to my disk channels not having choked and died).

You bring up an rather interesting point with that disk channel bit.
It would seem that in recent testing, Anandtech found that Native
Command Queuing seems to kind of come into it's own with a dual-core
processor for just this reason:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=238...


-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 7, 2005 2:24:43 PM

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

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 03:07:04 GMT, "nobody@nowhere.net"
<mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:12:12 -0400, Tony Hill
><hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>I don't know about the rest of you, but my interest at the moment lies
>>squarely in dual-core processors. If early rumors are true, then it
>>looks like we'll be waiting a good 6-12 months before we'll get
>>*affordable* dual-core desktop chips from AMD, while Intel is looking
>>to release low-ish cost dual-core chips in the next couple months.
>
>I am under impression that dual-core Opterons are about to be released
>not much later than Pentiums, if not earlier. Please don't tell me
>that Opteron is *not* a desktop CPU - I have two Opty242 running on
>mine, and they together with the motherboard cost me less than top of
>the line A64FX/P4EE and LanParty-type board would.

You're definition of "affordable" is obviously quite different than
mine in this case. Even now you would be looking at about $600 for
just the motherboard and processors for such a setup, plus the extra
cost of using registered memory on top of that. For comparison I can
pick up an Athlon64 3200+ and motherboard for under $300.

> These dual core
>Opterons are expected to be anything but *affordable* when just
>released, but the same is expected of Pentium D-EE, and the board for
>it - be it NF4ie or i955X based - will likely cost an arm and a leg.

Of course, which is why I have absolutely no interest in the Pentium D
Extremely Expensive Edition.

>The cheaper 2.8GHz Pentium D is expected to be released significantly
>later,

My understanding is that Intel plans on releasing these slower speed
Pentium D chips at exactly the same time as the EE chips.

> will require the same expensive motherboard as EE,

They will work just fine on the much lower cost i945 chipsets and
presumable also a much more reasonably priced non-SLI version of the
nForce4 Intel chipset.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 7, 2005 4:25:16 PM

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

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:

>Bitstring <1112805180.d899a15a2ca6a449f8db2776b2a4ed78@teranews>, from
>the wonderful person Gnu_Raiz <Gnu_Raiz@uptime.notlost.net> said
><snip>
>> Since no major software is
>>multithreaded the benefits won't show up anytime soon.
>
>The OS itself is multithreaded, which means I can have Photoshop image
>processing a huge .tif file and still be able to browse the web (subject
>to my disk channels not having choked and died).

Can't we already do that? I've been multitasking since 1985 on Amiga.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2005 1:44:52 AM

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

Bitstring <b6ra5190b0qjftmqq3ik663kkm3l7qtk2p@4ax.com>, from the
wonderful person chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> said
<snip>
>>The OS itself is multithreaded, which means I can have Photoshop image
>>processing a huge .tif file and still be able to browse the web (subject
>>to my disk channels not having choked and died).
>
>Can't we already do that? I've been multitasking since 1985 on Amiga.

No, we can't =reliably= do that yet (and I've been multitasking since
1970, on a Titan) with a PC. There are still too many ways for the
supposed 'background' task to pull the rest of the machine down to
unacceptable crawl (lots, but not all, of which has to do with CPU
loading).

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
SC recommends the use of Firefox; Get smart, or get assimilated.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2005 1:44:53 AM

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

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 21:44:52 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can
<GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:

>Bitstring <b6ra5190b0qjftmqq3ik663kkm3l7qtk2p@4ax.com>, from the
>wonderful person chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> said
><snip>
>>>The OS itself is multithreaded, which means I can have Photoshop image
>>>processing a huge .tif file and still be able to browse the web (subject
>>>to my disk channels not having choked and died).
>>
>>Can't we already do that? I've been multitasking since 1985 on Amiga.
>
>No, we can't =reliably= do that yet (and I've been multitasking since
>1970, on a Titan) with a PC. There are still too many ways for the
>supposed 'background' task to pull the rest of the machine down to
>unacceptable crawl (lots, but not all, of which has to do with CPU
>loading).

Oh, let me be stupid and ask. On the whole, Linux seems to do much
better than Windows. Both seem to get dragged down by "background"
tasks that involve lots of disk activity, and I think the problem is
interrupts. A second CPU is going to help with that?

RM
April 8, 2005 4:07:04 AM

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

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:24:43 -0400, Tony Hill
<hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 03:07:04 GMT, "nobody@nowhere.net"
><mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:12:12 -0400, Tony Hill
>><hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't know about the rest of you, but my interest at the moment lies
>>>squarely in dual-core processors. If early rumors are true, then it
>>>looks like we'll be waiting a good 6-12 months before we'll get
>>>*affordable* dual-core desktop chips from AMD, while Intel is looking
>>>to release low-ish cost dual-core chips in the next couple months.
>>
>>I am under impression that dual-core Opterons are about to be released
>>not much later than Pentiums, if not earlier. Please don't tell me
>>that Opteron is *not* a desktop CPU - I have two Opty242 running on
>>mine, and they together with the motherboard cost me less than top of
>>the line A64FX/P4EE and LanParty-type board would.
>
>You're definition of "affordable" is obviously quite different than
>mine in this case. Even now you would be looking at about $600 for
>just the motherboard and processors for such a setup, plus the extra
>cost of using registered memory on top of that. For comparison I can
>pick up an Athlon64 3200+ and motherboard for under $300.
$600 is about what I paid in May'04. Today it would be (data from
Pricewatch):
MSI MASTER2-FAR board: $209
Opty242(oem) $158 * 2 = $316
---------------------------
Total: $525
Also quite a chunk of change, but not exactly 600. For comparison,
A64 4000+ (not even FX!) alone is listed at more than that - $535. Or
how about the utterly obscene $950 they list P4EE 3.4 GHz for?
>
>> These dual core
>>Opterons are expected to be anything but *affordable* when just
>>released, but the same is expected of Pentium D-EE, and the board for
>>it - be it NF4ie or i955X based - will likely cost an arm and a leg.
>
>Of course, which is why I have absolutely no interest in the Pentium D
>Extremely Expensive Edition.
>
>>The cheaper 2.8GHz Pentium D is expected to be released significantly
>>later,
>
>My understanding is that Intel plans on releasing these slower speed
>Pentium D chips at exactly the same time as the EE chips.
As you said above, "next couple months". My prognosis is that only
Dell will get them right about that time *in quantities*. HP and
other big OEMs probably a few weeks later. To reach retailers, it
would take another few weeks. How *significantly* later it is -
depends on how long one is willing to wait. Also I was under
impression that EE launches first to a drum roll, and lower-priced
parts will quietly follow somewhat later (I may be wrong on this).
>
>> will require the same expensive motherboard as EE,
>
>They will work just fine on the much lower cost i945 chipsets and
>presumable also a much more reasonably priced non-SLI version of the
>nForce4 Intel chipset.
My understanding is that NF4ie will be, at least in the beginning,
only of SLI variety because INTC has no desire to give to NVDA its
market share in midrange boards (could be wrong on this one, too).
>
>-------------
>Tony Hill
>hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2005 4:56:17 PM

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

Bitstring <q3kb51latd6t4nm1a6t1tcgqqr7p3mrruc@4ax.com>, from the
wonderful person Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> said
>On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 21:44:52 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can
><GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Bitstring <b6ra5190b0qjftmqq3ik663kkm3l7qtk2p@4ax.com>, from the
>>wonderful person chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> said
>><snip>
>>>>The OS itself is multithreaded, which means I can have Photoshop image
>>>>processing a huge .tif file and still be able to browse the web (subject
>>>>to my disk channels not having choked and died).
>>>
>>>Can't we already do that? I've been multitasking since 1985 on Amiga.
>>
>>No, we can't =reliably= do that yet (and I've been multitasking since
>>1970, on a Titan) with a PC. There are still too many ways for the
>>supposed 'background' task to pull the rest of the machine down to
>>unacceptable crawl (lots, but not all, of which has to do with CPU
>>loading).
>
>Oh, let me be stupid and ask. On the whole, Linux seems to do much
>better than Windows. Both seem to get dragged down by "background"
>tasks that involve lots of disk activity, and I think the problem is
>interrupts. A second CPU is going to help with that?

The problem appears to be system code (which may indeed be running as a
result of interrupts) and which is run at such high priority that
nothing else gets a look in. The actual interrupt handling these days is
usually very little code - it just queues up something for a WinXP
'service' to handle ASAP. The service is what then chokes the system.

(e.g.) I've got an intermittent problem which seems to be caused by my
USB GPS handset being mis-recognised as a graphics device (possibly
caused by Photoshop Elements service which auto-starts when it thinks it
sees some sort of graphics activity)

Event Type: Error
Event Source: Service Control Manager
Event Category: None
Event ID: 7011
Date: 28/01/2005
Time: 18:53:49
User: N/A
Computer: QUIK5
Description:
Timeout (30000 milliseconds) waiting for a transaction response from the
stisvc service.

After than happens (thankfully rarely) the system runs like a 15Khz
(yes, Khz) cpu, with 100% CPU dedicated to one of the 73 'system'
threads. Not even task manager can get a look in (well, it can, if you
wait 20 minutes! Usually I just hit reset).

That sort of cr&p doesn't usually happen on a dualie.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
SC recommends the use of Firefox; Get smart, or get assimilated.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2005 8:54:51 PM

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

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:56:17 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can
<GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:

>Bitstring <q3kb51latd6t4nm1a6t1tcgqqr7p3mrruc@4ax.com>, from the
>wonderful person Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> said
>>On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 21:44:52 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can
>><GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Bitstring <b6ra5190b0qjftmqq3ik663kkm3l7qtk2p@4ax.com>, from the
>>>wonderful person chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> said
>>><snip>
>>>>>The OS itself is multithreaded, which means I can have Photoshop image
>>>>>processing a huge .tif file and still be able to browse the web (subject
>>>>>to my disk channels not having choked and died).
>>>>
>>>>Can't we already do that? I've been multitasking since 1985 on Amiga.
>>>
>>>No, we can't =reliably= do that yet (and I've been multitasking since
>>>1970, on a Titan) with a PC. There are still too many ways for the
>>>supposed 'background' task to pull the rest of the machine down to
>>>unacceptable crawl (lots, but not all, of which has to do with CPU
>>>loading).
>>
>>Oh, let me be stupid and ask. On the whole, Linux seems to do much
>>better than Windows. Both seem to get dragged down by "background"
>>tasks that involve lots of disk activity, and I think the problem is
>>interrupts. A second CPU is going to help with that?
>
>The problem appears to be system code (which may indeed be running as a
>result of interrupts) and which is run at such high priority that
>nothing else gets a look in. The actual interrupt handling these days is
>usually very little code - it just queues up something for a WinXP
>'service' to handle ASAP. The service is what then chokes the system.
>
>(e.g.) I've got an intermittent problem which seems to be caused by my
>USB GPS handset being mis-recognised as a graphics device (possibly
>caused by Photoshop Elements service which auto-starts when it thinks it
>sees some sort of graphics activity)
>
>Event Type: Error
>Event Source: Service Control Manager
>Event Category: None
>Event ID: 7011
>Date: 28/01/2005
>Time: 18:53:49
>User: N/A
>Computer: QUIK5
>Description:
>Timeout (30000 milliseconds) waiting for a transaction response from the
>stisvc service.
>
>After than happens (thankfully rarely) the system runs like a 15Khz
>(yes, Khz) cpu, with 100% CPU dedicated to one of the 73 'system'
>threads. Not even task manager can get a look in (well, it can, if you
>wait 20 minutes! Usually I just hit reset).
>
>That sort of cr&p doesn't usually happen on a dualie.

So we need dual CPUs to cover the sins of USB? Maybe we do.:-) Personally
I think USB is just broken and will never play right - every USB device I
have misbehaves in one way or another: an HP scanner which worked
wonderfully on WinNT with a SCSI connection; a Logitech joystick which
sometimes doesn't get seen from a cold start; a digital camera "monitor"
which sits in the taskbar instead of just starting as a resident process
(does this on both Win98SE & WinXP). I suspect that the camera monitor is
confused about the Joystick and doesn't complete its startup right.

Then there's all the devices with cautions about this & that USB interface
- hubs which are said to be "incompatible" with the shiney new doo-hickey
you just got. It's a mess.

Have you tried running Taskinfo, at a high priority, before it goes
comatose? Might tell you something and I suspect it'll be the Interrupts
Time Placeholder and DPC Time Placeholder which are hogging the CPU...
though what you'll do about it who knows? At least you might be able to
reboot safely - how convenient!

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 9, 2005 3:12:23 AM

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

Bitstring <7nqd5150nt09pr5ll6itthbioksu2p6ock@4ax.com>, from the
wonderful person George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com>
said
<snip>
>Have you tried running Taskinfo, at a high priority, before it goes
>comatose?

Unfortunately I never remember that there is a 0.5% chance it'll go
comatose until it does. Whatever is looping is doing it at a good high
priority though, judging from the other things that grind to a halt.

> Might tell you something and I suspect it'll be the Interrupts
>Time Placeholder and DPC Time Placeholder which are hogging the CPU...
>though what you'll do about it who knows? At least you might be able to
>reboot safely - how convenient!

Cycling the power works just fine .. at least NTFS has that benefit. 8>.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
SC recommends the use of Firefox; Get smart, or get assimilated.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2005 4:08:33 AM

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

In article <7nqd5150nt09pr5ll6itthbioksu2p6ock@4ax.com>, fammacd=!
SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com says...
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:56:17 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can
> <GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Bitstring <q3kb51latd6t4nm1a6t1tcgqqr7p3mrruc@4ax.com>, from the
> >wonderful person Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> said
> >>On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 21:44:52 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can
> >><GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Bitstring <b6ra5190b0qjftmqq3ik663kkm3l7qtk2p@4ax.com>, from the
> >>>wonderful person chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> said
> >>><snip>
> >>>>>The OS itself is multithreaded, which means I can have Photoshop image
> >>>>>processing a huge .tif file and still be able to browse the web (subject
> >>>>>to my disk channels not having choked and died).
> >>>>
> >>>>Can't we already do that? I've been multitasking since 1985 on Amiga.
> >>>
> >>>No, we can't =reliably= do that yet (and I've been multitasking since
> >>>1970, on a Titan) with a PC. There are still too many ways for the
> >>>supposed 'background' task to pull the rest of the machine down to
> >>>unacceptable crawl (lots, but not all, of which has to do with CPU
> >>>loading).
> >>
> >>Oh, let me be stupid and ask. On the whole, Linux seems to do much
> >>better than Windows. Both seem to get dragged down by "background"
> >>tasks that involve lots of disk activity, and I think the problem is
> >>interrupts. A second CPU is going to help with that?
> >
> >The problem appears to be system code (which may indeed be running as a
> >result of interrupts) and which is run at such high priority that
> >nothing else gets a look in. The actual interrupt handling these days is
> >usually very little code - it just queues up something for a WinXP
> >'service' to handle ASAP. The service is what then chokes the system.
> >
> >(e.g.) I've got an intermittent problem which seems to be caused by my
> >USB GPS handset being mis-recognised as a graphics device (possibly
> >caused by Photoshop Elements service which auto-starts when it thinks it
> >sees some sort of graphics activity)
> >
> >Event Type: Error
> >Event Source: Service Control Manager
> >Event Category: None
> >Event ID: 7011
> >Date: 28/01/2005
> >Time: 18:53:49
> >User: N/A
> >Computer: QUIK5
> >Description:
> >Timeout (30000 milliseconds) waiting for a transaction response from the
> >stisvc service.
> >
> >After than happens (thankfully rarely) the system runs like a 15Khz
> >(yes, Khz) cpu, with 100% CPU dedicated to one of the 73 'system'
> >threads. Not even task manager can get a look in (well, it can, if you
> >wait 20 minutes! Usually I just hit reset).
> >
> >That sort of cr&p doesn't usually happen on a dualie.
>
> So we need dual CPUs to cover the sins of USB? Maybe we do.:-) Personally
> I think USB is just broken and will never play right - every USB device I
> have misbehaves in one way or another: an HP scanner which worked
> wonderfully on WinNT with a SCSI connection; a Logitech joystick which
> sometimes doesn't get seen from a cold start; a digital camera "monitor"
> which sits in the taskbar instead of just starting as a resident process
> (does this on both Win98SE & WinXP). I suspect that the camera monitor is
> confused about the Joystick and doesn't complete its startup right.

I thought USB was "working" these days, at east that's what everyone
tells me. Mine was working, after a fashion, but now it's busted. It
hangs after printing a half page (Epson Photo-R300), the USB stick is
now on a different drive (shows up one-and-a-half times), and forget
the digital camera. To print another half-page I have to install
everything USB and then re-install the drivers. What a PITA!

> Then there's all the devices with cautions about this & that USB interface
> - hubs which are said to be "incompatible" with the shiney new doo-hickey
> you just got. It's a mess.

Wow! I thought it was just me.

> Have you tried running Taskinfo, at a high priority, before it goes
> comatose? Might tell you something and I suspect it'll be the Interrupts
> Time Placeholder and DPC Time Placeholder which are hogging the CPU...
> though what you'll do about it who knows? At least you might be able to
> reboot safely - how convenient!

In may case the CPU is still responsive, just the USB goes comatose.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2005 11:52:41 AM

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

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:08:33 -0400, Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz>
wrote:

>In article <7nqd5150nt09pr5ll6itthbioksu2p6ock@4ax.com>, fammacd=!
>SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com says...

>> So we need dual CPUs to cover the sins of USB? Maybe we do.:-) Personally
>> I think USB is just broken and will never play right - every USB device I
>> have misbehaves in one way or another: an HP scanner which worked
>> wonderfully on WinNT with a SCSI connection; a Logitech joystick which
>> sometimes doesn't get seen from a cold start; a digital camera "monitor"
>> which sits in the taskbar instead of just starting as a resident process
>> (does this on both Win98SE & WinXP). I suspect that the camera monitor is
>> confused about the Joystick and doesn't complete its startup right.
>
>I thought USB was "working" these days, at east that's what everyone
>tells me. Mine was working, after a fashion, but now it's busted. It
>hangs after printing a half page (Epson Photo-R300), the USB stick is
>now on a different drive (shows up one-and-a-half times), and forget
>the digital camera. To print another half-page I have to install
>everything USB and then re-install the drivers. What a PITA!

On my nForce3 mine seems to work most of the time - we'll see when the new
Canon photo printer arrives tomorrow.:-) The scanner above is in the
office; the Nikon Monitor prog which is supposed to see the camera has done
the intermittent "sit in the TaskBar" on two different systems and OSs so
it's not the hardware.

The joystick has been acting better since I did a fiddle on the Antec USB
front panel cable connector, which I found out about in the MSI Forum: the
connector which plugs into the mbrd socket has 9 wires going into it and
pin #9 is suspected to be connected to the case ground at the case end. In
fact it's plugging into the USBOC (over current) pin of the mbrd and while
nobody seemed to have a clue what the consequences *might* be,
disconnecting that 9th pin seemed to help resolve USB probs with even the
rear ports for many folks.

>> Then there's all the devices with cautions about this & that USB interface
>> - hubs which are said to be "incompatible" with the shiney new doo-hickey
>> you just got. It's a mess.
>
>Wow! I thought it was just me.

In the course of a recent scour for my scanner prob, I probed around the HP
Support<snigger> site. Apart from problems with Belkin (and host of other)
hubs, VIA<sigh> chipsets, Asus mbrds, nForce chipsets, [lost count at this
point] they claim it works just fine.:-) With a hope 'n' a prayer, I
downloaded the latest drivers dated Sep 2004 and found that it was
identical to the file I downloaded in 2001.<shrug> No wonder they turned
off their support forum.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2005 12:23:10 PM

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

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:52:41 -0400, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:08:33 -0400, Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <7nqd5150nt09pr5ll6itthbioksu2p6ock@4ax.com>, fammacd=!
>>SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com says...
>
>>> So we need dual CPUs to cover the sins of USB? Maybe we do.:-) Personally
>>> I think USB is just broken and will never play right - every USB device I
>>> have misbehaves in one way or another: an HP scanner which worked
>>> wonderfully on WinNT with a SCSI connection; a Logitech joystick which
>>> sometimes doesn't get seen from a cold start; a digital camera "monitor"
>>> which sits in the taskbar instead of just starting as a resident process
>>> (does this on both Win98SE & WinXP). I suspect that the camera monitor is
>>> confused about the Joystick and doesn't complete its startup right.
>>
>>I thought USB was "working" these days, at east that's what everyone
>>tells me. Mine was working, after a fashion, but now it's busted. It
>>hangs after printing a half page (Epson Photo-R300), the USB stick is
>>now on a different drive (shows up one-and-a-half times), and forget
>>the digital camera. To print another half-page I have to install
>>everything USB and then re-install the drivers. What a PITA!
>
>On my nForce3 mine seems to work most of the time - we'll see when the new
>Canon photo printer arrives tomorrow.:-) The scanner above is in the
>office; the Nikon Monitor prog which is supposed to see the camera has done
>the intermittent "sit in the TaskBar" on two different systems and OSs so
>it's not the hardware.
>
>The joystick has been acting better since I did a fiddle on the Antec USB
>front panel cable connector, which I found out about in the MSI Forum: the
>connector which plugs into the mbrd socket has 9 wires going into it and
>pin #9 is suspected to be connected to the case ground at the case end. In
>fact it's plugging into the USBOC (over current) pin of the mbrd and while
>nobody seemed to have a clue what the consequences *might* be,
>disconnecting that 9th pin seemed to help resolve USB probs with even the
>rear ports for many folks.
>
>>> Then there's all the devices with cautions about this & that USB interface
>>> - hubs which are said to be "incompatible" with the shiney new doo-hickey
>>> you just got. It's a mess.
>>
>>Wow! I thought it was just me.
>
>In the course of a recent scour for my scanner prob, I probed around the HP
>Support<snigger> site. Apart from problems with Belkin (and host of other)
>hubs, VIA<sigh> chipsets, Asus mbrds, nForce chipsets, [lost count at this
>point] they claim it works just fine.:-) With a hope 'n' a prayer, I
>downloaded the latest drivers dated Sep 2004 and found that it was
>identical to the file I downloaded in 2001.<shrug> No wonder they turned
>off their support forum.

This is all going to get better with multi-core CPU's and more SMP.
Right?

Of course, if you stuck with products from a reliable manufacturer...

I kind of like this SuperMicro Server Board. I should probably find
and plug in a second CPU before they become unobtainable.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 14, 2005 4:06:17 AM

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

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:23:10 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:52:41 -0400, George Macdonald
><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
>>In the course of a recent scour for my scanner prob, I probed around the HP
>>Support<snigger> site. Apart from problems with Belkin (and host of other)
>>hubs, VIA<sigh> chipsets, Asus mbrds, nForce chipsets, [lost count at this
>>point] they claim it works just fine.:-) With a hope 'n' a prayer, I
>>downloaded the latest drivers dated Sep 2004 and found that it was
>>identical to the file I downloaded in 2001.<shrug> No wonder they turned
>>off their support forum.
>
>This is all going to get better with multi-core CPU's and more SMP.
>Right?

Somebody else suggested that - not me. As for HP, in particular, things
could barely get worse... though I have serious doubts that "better" is
part of their lexicon.

As for USB, it was an ill-conceived, half-assed attempt to dry-gulch
IEEE1394 before it caught on... as part of the plans to proprietarize the
PC architecture. Its introductory speed was a joke and a fraud. It does
not work! As evidence: try to find serious video capture software which
uses USB to interface to a video-cam; try to find a hub which works with
every device on the market. How many years is it now - 8, 9? Remember USB
err, "cascading"?

>Of course, if you stuck with products from a reliable manufacturer...

Oh you mean like Dell?<guffaw> I think, if you really look, you'll find
that USB probs are universal. There's a reason the mfrs don't say: "our
printer/scanner/hub etc. is incompatible with the Intel chipset/mbrd";
doesn't mean it ain't so.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 14, 2005 8:40:41 AM

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

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in
message news:5amr511nfpqguf18tuli3e6vrg8on144sh@4ax.com...
>
> Oh you mean like Dell?<guffaw> I think, if you really look, you'll
find
> that USB probs are universal. There's a reason the mfrs don't say:
"our
> printer/scanner/hub etc. is incompatible with the Intel
chipset/mbrd";
> doesn't mean it ain't so.

George, I was thinking of buying a USB printer as my next purchase
instead of a parallel interface. Are you seriously saying I should
avoid USB (only) printers?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 14, 2005 12:43:11 PM

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

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 04:40:41 GMT, "Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net>
wrote:

>"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in
>message news:5amr511nfpqguf18tuli3e6vrg8on144sh@4ax.com...
>>
>> Oh you mean like Dell?<guffaw> I think, if you really look, you'll
>find
>> that USB probs are universal. There's a reason the mfrs don't say:
>"our
>> printer/scanner/hub etc. is incompatible with the Intel
>chipset/mbrd";
>> doesn't mean it ain't so.
>
>George, I was thinking of buying a USB printer as my next purchase
>instead of a parallel interface. Are you seriously saying I should
>avoid USB (only) printers?

Well USB in printers is pretty much standard fare now and maybe even
difficult to do otherwise. From what I see, if you want a printer which
has enhanced functions through bi-directional communication, it's also
pretty much mandatory - even the mfr supplied external print servers lose
functionality with a LAN interface, though the internal print servers may
be OK.

Things have also improved with the devices I guess - the scanner I'm
talking about has been around for 7 years or so and has no power switch...
and the joystick about 5 years. A printer is also not going to need power
over the USB and I tend to switch such things off when not in use. In that
respect, many of the USB probs are due to devices which are connected (and
powered, through USB or not) but not detected properly on a cold start...
or the software is confused about device status on a startup.

In fact I just got a new USB printer yesterday so maybe I'll change my
opinion somewhat:-), though I still think that IEEE1394 was the way to go
for all this stuff. FWIW, I got a Canon PIXMA iP5000 and it hooked up
easily and the photo prints are just amazing; the PIXMA iP4000R has a
Wi-Fi/wired Ethernet internal server but I don't know if it loses bi-di
functionality in that mode. I wanted the better photo specs of the iP5000
anyway so I'll have to live with USB.:-)

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
!