- Oct 3, 2001
- 26,549
- 0
- 50,780
<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20030603/index.html" target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20030603/index.html</A>
As we have seen here, ol' Tom wrote this along with the CPU article crew. I knew that if it weren't for him, this would not appear. Only Tom had the enthusiast blood this much. I like the fact Asus played behind Intel here, and released official retail boards using such technology. Yes it is PAT, no it isn't advertised at such (anymore), and yes it performs liks an i875. If you're gonna whine about 875 boards being slightly higher (in the form of 1%), then that is because you did not read the clock charts, which show a clear 30MHZ gap between the i875 P4C800 and the i865 P4P800.
Even more reasons why you're only getting screwed for getting Canterwood, if you're an enthusiast. Again, ECC is crap if you do not do server business. Gigabit LAN is barely used around, and if you do need it, I believe the CSA is integrated thus an i865 board should or HAS to have it.
Nevertheless, it clears up why THG's i865 test was so powerful back then. I suppose however that PAT exists indeed, and therefore I do admit having been overjumping on the case.
Hahah, I do find it funny though that Intel is probably really pissed off at the moment. I am surprised THG published such an article. It is like telling us how to mod a geForce 4 into a Quadro 980 GXL! Only Tom would do that, only ol' Tom...
EDIT: Ok, reading through Silver's mainboard research, it appears GB Lan by CSA is extremly rare. Therefore it is a lesser argument in favor of 875's uselessness. It does however raise the question of: Who or what will use 125MB/sec of bandwidth, AT HOME! So yeah, it's a Workstation indeed, but at least now we can get that WS's performance at home for less.
--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue: <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 06/03/03 11:16 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
As we have seen here, ol' Tom wrote this along with the CPU article crew. I knew that if it weren't for him, this would not appear. Only Tom had the enthusiast blood this much. I like the fact Asus played behind Intel here, and released official retail boards using such technology. Yes it is PAT, no it isn't advertised at such (anymore), and yes it performs liks an i875. If you're gonna whine about 875 boards being slightly higher (in the form of 1%), then that is because you did not read the clock charts, which show a clear 30MHZ gap between the i875 P4C800 and the i865 P4P800.
Even more reasons why you're only getting screwed for getting Canterwood, if you're an enthusiast. Again, ECC is crap if you do not do server business. Gigabit LAN is barely used around, and if you do need it, I believe the CSA is integrated thus an i865 board should or HAS to have it.
Nevertheless, it clears up why THG's i865 test was so powerful back then. I suppose however that PAT exists indeed, and therefore I do admit having been overjumping on the case.
Hahah, I do find it funny though that Intel is probably really pissed off at the moment. I am surprised THG published such an article. It is like telling us how to mod a geForce 4 into a Quadro 980 GXL! Only Tom would do that, only ol' Tom...
EDIT: Ok, reading through Silver's mainboard research, it appears GB Lan by CSA is extremly rare. Therefore it is a lesser argument in favor of 875's uselessness. It does however raise the question of: Who or what will use 125MB/sec of bandwidth, AT HOME! So yeah, it's a Workstation indeed, but at least now we can get that WS's performance at home for less.
--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue: <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 06/03/03 11:16 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram