I appreciate this post. I, too, have been considering a Mini ITX build.
Size is the main restraining factor in this build. It doesn't have to be super light weight, just cannot be too bulky. The linked Lian Li is too long for my plans.
I only need one hard drive on the system and I am thinking about using a PCI Express x4 SSD.
Would it be better to get a PCI express 2.0 x16 lane slot so that future SSD's at higher bandwidth could be upgraded down the road? Is there a clear cut way of determining whether the x16 slots are only capable of being used with video?
I also need at least one serial port, yes the old technology, but would prefer to have two. I also would prefer PS/2 connections for the keyboard and mouse. Depending on these two factors, however, I would need 1 to 5 USB ports. Either way, having up to 6 USB ports would be great. I don't need any more than 6 USB ports.
Onboard graphics would be sufficient. If/when I need additional displays, it would be preferable to add them via a hot swap device like USB (literature I have read states that VGA(~d sub 15) is NOT hot swappable/pluggable) -- but whether I would need USB 3.0 to handle the video bandwidth is another question...
Also, I don't NEED audio, so if that could be skimped, perhaps it would save cost...but I think sound is one of the basics built into all nonserver mobos.
I want to put one of the more powerful Intel CPU's in there but I had not compared the 1156 to the 1366.
From what I have looked at with the 1366, the maximum memory bandwidth is 25.6 GB/s with the Core i7 980 x and the i7 950.
Does this mean that if you had memory bandwidth in your RAM in excess of this amount that it would be hindered?
I haven't found the PCI Express Configurations for the i7 980 or i7 950, but do the 1156 or 1366 CPU's have a more direct connection(hardware layout-wise) than traditional motherboards?
I am not sure which RAM to go with. None of the i7's support ECC on RAM; so, does this rule out RIMM's and UDIMM's?
I also want to have at least 4 GB of RAM...but whether I go more than 4 GB is contingent upon how the excess would be handled.
I wouldn't need SATA, or IDE(EIDE/ATA) for that matter, but most boards come with SATA. If I have an adapter (clip) to turn an internal SATA port into an eSATA port, will it work with the newer SATA 6 Gbps? Will it work at the higher speed or will the adapter's (lower?)standard(I think it is SATA 3.0 Gbps) be imposed? If it operates at
Another nicety would be a single firewire port for an isosynchronous connection.
Also nice would be USB 3.0. As mentioned above with supplemental hot-pluggable video, it could improve video bandwidth. Also, to avoid any compatibility issues with eSATA, it might be preferable to use for connecting external HD's/flash drives. This is thinking ahead for when I upgrade to USB 3.0 flash drives and/or SATA 6 Gbps HDD's, though.
I do not need room for mounting optical/magneto optical drives, as I will use a USB to IDE/SATA adapter to connect my CD/DVD drive.
Seeing as there are adapter cards including both USB 3.0 and eSATA, I could put off including either in the motherboard....but perhaps because of limited number of PCI slots it would be better to have them.
I have quite a few questions: with XP Pro 32 bit when more than 4 GB is present in a system that has hardware support for more than 4 GB, what occurs?
Does the excess RAM (beyond the recognition of the OS) lie stationary or is the excess "free" for any application to use it?
Can two operating systems run at once on a single system (NOT one WITHIN the other as in virtual/emulated OS's) in a single core, single CPU system? in a multicore system? in a single core, multi CPU system? in a multi core multi CPU system?
If I cannot utilize more than 4 GB, then the two choices I see would be four 1 GB RAM chips, preferably in quad channel (which doesn't exist? the ones I have seen claiming "quad" are two dual channels...) or two 2 GB RAM chips in dual channel.
The advantage I perceive from multi(dual, tri, quad??) channel RAM is that there are more traces (wider bandwidth) for the RAM to operate at.
Thus, in either of these two options I do not perceive a need for triple channel RAM. However, this would change if more than 4 GB could be utilized by the OS or apps...