Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Pentium-D 820 not compatible with 3rd party chipsets

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 24, 2005 1:04:00 PM

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

Strangely, it's only the low-speed 2.8Ghz model 820 that's incompatible
in dual-core mode. Ironically, higher speed Pentium-D's are compatible.
Hard to say what could be so different between the low-speed and
high-speed P-D's.

X-bit labs - Hardware news - Intel Pentium D 820 Incompatible with
Third Party Chipsets.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20050524054105...

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 25, 2005 5:33:37 AM

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

On 24 May 2005 09:04:00 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>Strangely, it's only the low-speed 2.8Ghz model 820 that's incompatible
>in dual-core mode. Ironically, higher speed Pentium-D's are compatible.
>Hard to say what could be so different between the low-speed and
>high-speed P-D's.
>
>X-bit labs - Hardware news - Intel Pentium D 820 Incompatible with
>Third Party Chipsets.
>http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20050524054105...

Uhh.. this story is just... weird... I don't get it. I can't imagine
that there would be any hardware difference with JUST the Pentium-D
820 chips vs. the 830s or 840s. I could maybe see a difference
between the standard Pentium-D and the Extremely Expensive Edition
chips, but not just between different speed bins.

I would tend to take this report with a rather large grain of salt at
this stage in the game, especially with no explanation as to WHY they
are "incompatible".

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 25, 2005 12:28:26 PM

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

Tony Hill wrote:
> Uhh.. this story is just... weird... I don't get it. I can't imagine
> that there would be any hardware difference with JUST the Pentium-D
> 820 chips vs. the 830s or 840s. I could maybe see a difference
> between the standard Pentium-D and the Extremely Expensive Edition
> chips, but not just between different speed bins.
>
> I would tend to take this report with a rather large grain of salt at
> this stage in the game, especially with no explanation as to WHY they
> are "incompatible".
>

In another forum, one poster suggests that maybe Nvidia and Intel have
an agreement to not allow this version of the chip to work, because it
might be the basis of some gadgets that Intel has in the pipeline, like
media-centre PCs. So the incompatibility might be by agreement.

Yousuf Khan
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2005 9:04:46 AM

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

On Wed, 25 May 2005 08:28:26 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:

>Tony Hill wrote:
>> Uhh.. this story is just... weird... I don't get it. I can't imagine
>> that there would be any hardware difference with JUST the Pentium-D
>> 820 chips vs. the 830s or 840s. I could maybe see a difference
>> between the standard Pentium-D and the Extremely Expensive Edition
>> chips, but not just between different speed bins.
>>
>> I would tend to take this report with a rather large grain of salt at
>> this stage in the game, especially with no explanation as to WHY they
>> are "incompatible".
>>
>
>In another forum, one poster suggests that maybe Nvidia and Intel have
>an agreement to not allow this version of the chip to work, because it
>might be the basis of some gadgets that Intel has in the pipeline, like
>media-centre PCs. So the incompatibility might be by agreement.

That makes more sense than any sort of technical reason for
incompatibility (though the story you quoted made it sound like it was
a technical issue). I wonder if this is JUST an Intel/nVidia thing of
if Intel will try to enforce this with the likes of VIA and SiS as
well. If so it would seem ripe for anti-competitive allegations.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 26, 2005 9:08:10 AM

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

Tony Hill wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2005 08:28:26 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
> wrote:
> >In another forum, one poster suggests that maybe Nvidia and Intel have
> >an agreement to not allow this version of the chip to work, because it
> >might be the basis of some gadgets that Intel has in the pipeline, like
> >media-centre PCs. So the incompatibility might be by agreement.
>
> That makes more sense than any sort of technical reason for
> incompatibility (though the story you quoted made it sound like it was
> a technical issue). I wonder if this is JUST an Intel/nVidia thing of
> if Intel will try to enforce this with the likes of VIA and SiS as
> well. If so it would seem ripe for anti-competitive allegations.

Yes, the original story certainly makes it sound technical in nature,
and that's probably how the parties want it to look. But the
speculation is that it's not technical in nature, and it is just a
business move.

Yousuf Khan
May 28, 2005 2:28:33 AM

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

On 26 May 2005 05:08:10 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>Tony Hill wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2005 08:28:26 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
>> wrote:
>> >In another forum, one poster suggests that maybe Nvidia and Intel have
>> >an agreement to not allow this version of the chip to work, because it
>> >might be the basis of some gadgets that Intel has in the pipeline, like
>> >media-centre PCs. So the incompatibility might be by agreement.
>>
>> That makes more sense than any sort of technical reason for
>> incompatibility (though the story you quoted made it sound like it was
>> a technical issue). I wonder if this is JUST an Intel/nVidia thing of
>> if Intel will try to enforce this with the likes of VIA and SiS as
>> well. If so it would seem ripe for anti-competitive allegations.
>
>Yes, the original story certainly makes it sound technical in nature,
>and that's probably how the parties want it to look. But the
>speculation is that it's not technical in nature, and it is just a
>business move.
>
> Yousuf Khan

Of course it's a technical issue! A fuse blown here, a line of code
in BIOS there - isn't it purely technical? The marketing and business
folks don't have even a slightest idea about the implementation of the
incompatibility, so it just couldn't be a business move!
;-)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 28, 2005 5:01:34 AM

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

On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:28:33 GMT, "nobody@nowhere.net"
<mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 26 May 2005 05:08:10 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Tony Hill wrote:
>>Yes, the original story certainly makes it sound technical in nature,
>>and that's probably how the parties want it to look. But the
>>speculation is that it's not technical in nature, and it is just a
>>business move.
>
>Of course it's a technical issue! A fuse blown here, a line of code
>in BIOS there - isn't it purely technical? The marketing and business
>folks don't have even a slightest idea about the implementation of the
>incompatibility, so it just couldn't be a business move!
>;-)

Hehe, I think that's pretty much it, but it looks like Intel is going
one step further here. It seems that they've decided the Pentium D
820 was just TOO good of a bargain and they're really going to have to
work to make it less functional than it's bigger brethren. I just
noticed this little bit on Intel's website under the "Feature/Benefit"
section for the Pentium D:

"Enhanced Intel® SpeedStep® Technology:
Enables cooler and quieter PC designs—depending on system
implementation and usage. (Not available on 820.)"

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentium_D/index...


Damn.. The one thing that's really turning me off the Pentium D
processor to begin with is it's high power consumption (and, more to
the point, the noisy fans that would be required to cool the thing)
and now it looks like this will be an even bigger problem for the 820
model! On the upside, the 820 model is listed with a TDP of "only"
95W vs. the TDP of 130W for the 830 and 840 models.

Side note here: it looks like Intel has adopted a more AMD
Athlon64/Opteron-style approach to reporting their TDP with their
newest chips (to be fair, Intel actually did this before AMD with
their Itanium line). I can't imagine that the above mentioned
"technical differences" would account for a 35W increase in power
consumption.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2005 5:12:23 PM

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

On Sat, 28 May 2005 01:01:34 -0400, Tony Hill
<hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>Hehe, I think that's pretty much it, but it looks like Intel is going
>one step further here. It seems that they've decided the Pentium D
>820 was just TOO good of a bargain and they're really going to have to
>work to make it less functional than it's bigger brethren. I just
>noticed this little bit on Intel's website under the "Feature/Benefit"
>section for the Pentium D:
>
>"Enhanced Intel® SpeedStep® Technology:
>Enables cooler and quieter PC designs—depending on system
>implementation and usage. (Not available on 820.)"

Have a look at

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/pentiumd-820/index...


Here's a small quote:

"In fact, its clock speed is sufficiently slow that Intel apparently
saw no need for the 820 to have power management features like
Enhanced Speedstep, the C1E halt state, or TM2 thermal throttling.
Other recent Pentium desktop processors run at 2.8GHz when throttled
back, and the Pentium D 820 is already there."

-- David Ball
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2005 5:12:38 PM

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

nobody@nowhere.net wrote:
> >Yes, the original story certainly makes it sound technical in nature,
> >and that's probably how the parties want it to look. But the
> >speculation is that it's not technical in nature, and it is just a
> >business move.
> >
> > Yousuf Khan
>
> Of course it's a technical issue! A fuse blown here, a line of code
> in BIOS there - isn't it purely technical? The marketing and business
> folks don't have even a slightest idea about the implementation of the
> incompatibility, so it just couldn't be a business move!
> ;-)

Oh yes, how can one ignore the technology of market positioning. :-)

Yousuf Khan
!