Current P4 mobos WON'T support Prescott

baldurga · Jul 11, 2003

Hi to everybody.

I found this info quite surprising and can influence a lot of people decision. This new appear in Anandtech, here is the link:

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.html?i=20014" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.html?i=20014</A>

I hate these incompatibility issues! I hate Intel for don't take care of it! ... And I hope mobo manufacturers find a workaround.

But risk is there.

Still looking for a good online retailer in Spain :frown:

Pirox · Jul 11, 2003

Come now don't be surprised...things like this tend to happen when one wants to consider going to the intel path will always have a price to pay..

And then intel fan's will bow down to Intel like dog's :X...
Edited by pirox on 07/11/03 06:26 AM.

endyen · Jul 11, 2003

Yes but the really good news is that next year scotty will have a new socket format. Why cant AMD force us to buy new mobos for each upgrade? The first prescott boards will only be usable with the 3.4 gig chip. Should be a hot item.

TheRod · Jul 11, 2003

HA HA HA!!!

The Intel way!

"For each each CPU we sell a NEW chipset is needed. And we built that chipset! More money in our pockets."

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?

Mephistopheles · Jul 11, 2003

The Intel way!

Come on, put yourself together there. AMD will not only have you switching all hardware, but they'll have you switch all software too! And you don't seem to complain about that now, do you? You just say "Intel, those b*st*rds"...

It sounds as if it's a technical drawback they're faced with (i.e. couldn't do differently). Maybe, still, mobo makers can work around - after all, maybe a flexibly-designed mobo can change its voltage accordingly after a BIOS update. Just my thoughts here.

TheRod · Jul 11, 2003

First! I did not mention AMD! And I didn't said "AMD is better than Intel!".

I can only say one thing... When I bought my P3/700 an a SLOT! I got screwed! Because, they stopped supporting it fast. AMD did the same with is SLOT too!

But, after that AMD kept is socket... You can virtually put ANY Athlon XP on any MB. Of course, you might be limited by the chipset and/or BIOS. But the socket/pinout/voltage is the same.

I just said that Intel tend to change platform more often. It's bad for limited budget customer who want cheap or easy upgrade.

And for the "software" change, you are wrong. The new Athlon platforms (A64 and Opteron) are backward compatible with 32 bits apps. Buyers of AMD Opteron will run WinXP and 32 bits apps. as they do now with Athlon or P4.

The new Intel 64 bits chip will "emulate" 32 bits code. It will run too on Intel platform.

It will not be necessary to change all the software. You will need to update software only if you want to use 100% of your CPU feature. And for this, you will have to get optimized version of software for AMD or Intel.

What is bad with this situation is that people bought in the latest months P4 thinking they will be able to get Prescott core when the will be out! Today, they lern that they will probably not!

Maybe some company will build an adapter for CPU socket... Will see!!!

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?Edited by TheRod on 07/11/03 08:58 AM.

Mephistopheles · Jul 11, 2003

And for the "software" change, you are wrong.

Right or wrong again.

Oh well, what I meant was that if you don't upgrade your software, there'll be absolutely no reason to go with A64 at all. The 3400+ is slower than the 3.2Ghz Northwood in those apps. So the limited budget user who isn't interested in those 15±5% of all software that is 64-bit might choose the other way, because it is more tried-and-tested...

(actually, for most, just looking at the 3400+ label will make them automatically feel it performs on par with the 3.4Ghz Prescott. Let's wait and see)

Anyway, maybe you're right, backwards compatibility does undermine my argument a little bit. But I was annoyed at your "the Intel way" attitude. It's filled with prejudice. Like the term "intelliot" - which you didn't use, of course, it's just an example

Mephistopheles

slvr_phoenix · Jul 11, 2003

They also said that you couldn't run a 133MHz FSB P3 on a 440BX chipset mobo, but look what happened. **ROFL**

No, seriously, on the odd chance that the Prescott actually won't run on an i865/i875, that even a simple BIOS revision won't fix that, even then a very simple socket adapter will fix that. That's just a voltage regulation issue, which is really no big deal.

Besides, AMD customers are just as screwed. The A64 requires a whole new motherboard too.

Really it all comes down to a matter of taste. AMD keeps one socket for a very long time. This is good in that it is theoretically a reusable motherboard. It is bad in that many old motherboards actually won't run new CPUs. If it isn't voltage problems (such as with very old mobos) then it's FSB problems.

And then there's Intel. They don't keep their sockets for as long (although you have to admit that socket 478 has had a pretty long run) but the sockets usually change every time a significant CPU change is made, so you don't have nearly as many problems with people putting a new Intel CPU in an old motherboard and then wondering why it doesn't work.

And since any idiot can buy an Intel since practically all OEMs and computer shops carry them and market Intel PCs like mad, this strategy makes sense because not all Intel owners (I would dare say most Intel owners) are not smart enough to handle AMD's system. AMD's method only works well when the majority of your customers are PC enthusiasts.

So do I care if Prescott in theory won't run on an i865 mobo? Hell no. Because in the end it'll be possible anyway, and because for every Intel owner out there who can't even tell a USB port from a Firewire port they'll be protected from their own lack of PC skill. It's good for business. And since we want companies to stay in business, what's good for them is also good for us.

"Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they ARE your equals." - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>

baldurga · Jul 11, 2003

Well, first of all I agree that most of people don't care what they have inside the box, probably they just know Ghz CPU and memory, but nothing else (chipset? what's it? ...). So they are not affected by this new.

But I have seen several people talking about what will last longer right now, what to buy. I was with "P4" answer. Right now I am thinking about "are you sure you can't run with your current computer half year more?". I'm sure by the end of this year this issue will be solved and also A64 will show if it's worth.

BTW, totally different, you give me an idea: would it be interesting to have a socket chipset? I know cost will be higher, but imagine you can upgrade northbridge easily. If you maintain CPU socket for several years, like AMD has done, you could upgrade every year and at full speed. Obviously, this means chipset has to have the same number of pins, but VIA already use to do it.

Just an idea

Still looking for a good online retailer in Spain :frown:

Mephistopheles · Jul 11, 2003

socket chipset?

I don't think that this upgrading scenario is possible... BTW, chipsets are a set of chips (hence the name) that are already socketed or something, but they can't be upgraded that way because their specs change more than you'd care to count. Every new chip has a different configuration... A Dual Xeon Northbridge is actually a 1000-pin or so chip. An Itanium controller node is a 1350-pin or so chip. They change constantly, though.

Mephistopheles

slvr_phoenix · Jul 11, 2003

A socket chipset is entirely possible. There's no real reason why a southbridge and northbridge can't be combined into one chip. I came up with this idea well over a year ago. It just requires standardization and convincing people of it's value.

At the time I also posed that the 'GPU' could be just plugged into another socket on the motherboard instead of in an AGP card. In effect, a dualie motherboard, but one of the 'CPU's was a GPU. It'd probably require seperate memory controllers and seperate memory banks per processor, but I don't see why it couldn't be done and cost graphics companies less in the end.

Some ideas are just so ... new ... that no matter how much sense they may make, convincing people of their merits is difficult.

"Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they ARE your equals." - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>

NurseMSIC · Jul 11, 2003

Well i think the whole thing sucks ass. Big time. It may be that a socket adapter will work, but i bought my motherboard specifically so that it will be able to fit a prescott (i had to get a new motherboard anyway, but that's the reason i chose my particular one).
I don't have so much sympathy with people who buy a motherboard that's at the end of the chipset's life (well, i have a little, but they should have done the research first). But I did my research! Yes, this will be ok for at least the first few Prescotts i was informed.

And for the record, i DO NOT believe it to be a technical reason, i think it's marketing.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=18108" target="_new">My Editing & Gaming Machine</A>

NMDante · Jul 11, 2003

Before we all go overboard, the statement from the link wasn't from intel, but an unnamed manufacturer.

So, until a brand name manufacturer, ie. ASUS, ABIT, MSI, etc., states the same thing, I won't go into the whole "intel screwed us" debate. Accordingly, a .5 VIN change might be necessary for a new mobo, but I don't see or understand how such a small voltage change can immediately call for a new motherboard design.

Whether or not the "article" is genuine is questionable, since the manufacturer was not named (why?) and no solid statement from intel about the VIN requirement.

Just my $.02

How many watts does it take to get the center of CPU core?

Mephistopheles · Jul 11, 2003

At the time I also posed that the 'GPU' could be just plugged into another socket on the motherboard instead of in an AGP card. In effect, a dualie motherboard, but one of the 'CPU's was a GPU. It'd probably require seperate memory controllers and seperate memory banks per processor, but I don't see why it couldn't be done and cost graphics companies less in the end.

Yes, well, that sounds interesting... Maybe you're right. But if it would cost less for the companies, then I think they might have done that by now. Point is, it'd probably cost less for us!...

But I'm not really sure that that is convenient enough... Maybe that standardization will remove overall technological upgradability - you need a change here and there for the latest tech to work properly. But that is the only thing I can think of that makes this idea worse.

Mephistopheles

slvr_phoenix · Jul 11, 2003

Yes, well, that sounds interesting... Maybe you're right. But if it would cost less for the companies, then I think they might have done that by now. Point is, it'd probably cost less for us!...

But I'm not really sure that that is convenient enough... Maybe that standardization will remove overall technological upgradability - you need a change here and there for the latest tech to work properly. But that is the only thing I can think of that makes this idea worse.

I think it'd generally not done not because it's too radical of an idea. I mean think of it. Graphics card companies won't even make cards anymore. No more PCB. All that is handled on the mobo. It's too freaky. ATi and nVidia wouldn't be able to sell their chips to 3rd party manufacturers anymore either. Now they'd be working with mobo manufacturers directly. It'd kill off a whole middle-man! Companies would collapse. (Or at least be forced to restructure.)

By not doing this no one loses their jobs and we pay more to make up that cost.

But really, what is a GPU but just a specialized CPU? Give it it's own northbridge (on the mobo or built right into the GPU) for handling the digital-analog conversion stuff and controlling the memory and suddenly you no longer need a card. You just need GDDRII sticks and a GPU like we already need DDR sticks and a CPU. Motherboard prices would go up slightly, but the cost of graphics cards would go way down because there's no more 'card'.

Anywho, that's probably enough of my 3rd party graphics card manufacturer mophia conspiracies. Next thing you know I'll be talking about optical busses instead of electrical busses on the mobo, southbridge and northbridge integrated into one chip so that you don't even need a bus there anymore and one whole bottleneck is removed from the system, etc., etc.

But basically, if I ruled the world and/or had my own PC business, then PCs would be very much redesigned. Heat sinks, cases, motherboards, graphics, it'd all be redone from the ground up.

"Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they ARE your equals." - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>

sargeduck · Jul 12, 2003

Hmmm, something doesn't add up. Prescott is due out this fall (Sept. somethime maby?), but Intel's road map calls for the next chipset (Grantsdale) to come out in the first half of 2004, (I believe). This would mean that Intel releases a chip that has no chipset for it for a couple of months. I get the feeling they wouldn't sell too many prescott's that way.
Something seems a little fishy here.......

tombance · Jul 12, 2003

If you think about it, both the GPU and CPU could access the same memory. Current Graphics card memory only exists as a buffer to make up for slow AGP Transfer rates (PCI-Express looks to change this and remove Graphics memory). By putting the chip on the mobo it wouldn't need it's own memory and I think most GPU's have integrated Memory controllers anyway, so it coulkd directly access the system memory. There could also be another path directly from CPU to GPU (a form of fastwrites) that skipped the memory alltogether. In fact, the GPU would even need to access system memory. Data would be transferred from memory, to cPU, to GPU, to Monitor. How Amazing that would be

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5467618 " target="_new">Almost Breaking 12k!!</A>

Mephistopheles · Jul 12, 2003

You just need GDDRII sticks and a GPU like we already need DDR sticks and a CPU.

This idea would really be great! I'm just sorry for those uninformed people who'd have to choose more things than they can understand - but, hey, those people always get screwed with the worst mobos and so on...

Mephistopheles

pIII_Man · Jul 12, 2003

I jumped in this forum a bit late but...

TheRod, you said you got screwed for buying a slot mobo...no ya didn't all you need is a cheepo sloket adapter and you are up and running...they even sell socket T adapters with onboard voltage regulators.

Next...Why is this such a surprise (intel changing platforms) i read weeks ago that intel was changing over to LGA...i thought it was publisised that there were only gonna be 1 or 2 478 scotties.

Moving on...the closest thing that i can think of to your guys' mobo interchangable components are some old mobos...the L2 cpu cache was on the mobo (instead of cpu) thus on some boards (socket 7's) you could put 1-2mb of L2 cache on quite old (by todays terms) cpus. Also when personal computing was in its infancy RAM that would be installed as individual chips into DIPP sockets instead of as sticks. But IMO the interchangable component mobos won't happen for a while (although good idea) b/c so many companies would have to die (or loose $). Also nvidia and ati would probably go out of biz too because i believe (disregard if i am wrong...this is a stretch) that neither of them actually manufactur or design their gpu chips they just have them contracted.

And finally it was mentioned about having a cpu and not a motherboard...this has happened in the past to intel. Jeez what was the name of that chipset...solano maybe...it was either the 810,815, or 820...i forget but it has happened.

There is no smell better than fried silicon :evil:

Edited by pIII_Man on 07/11/03 10:11 PM.

HardWareBoss · Jul 12, 2003

So are the Mobo makers going to bring out new mobos for Prescott 3.4? So next year after Scotty 3.6 Intel releases Grantsdale which is 775 or whatever chipset. We will all have to buy Grantsdale for the faster Scotty's So what the heck will the new mobo's for Scotty 3.4. be named? Say Asus P4P800S For Scotty Gee short run for two CPU's. I can't see Mobo manufacturers speeding big money on upgrading to a new line of what? Six months for two chips. No one waste that kind of money. Sounds like an AMD ploy.

Flinx · Jul 12, 2003

No good retailer in Spain!
Sounds like a great business opportunity!

The loving are the daring!

Crashman · Jul 12, 2003

In order to support Socket 7 processors with the "right" voltage, you had to upgrade your board from your old Pentium board. Of course their were workarounds...

And Intel moved to Slot 1. So that's one for AMD, one for Intel.

Now, AMD moved to slots, Intel moved back to sockets. BUT, get this...you could use a slot adapter on the Intel board, and the PIII 1000E was avaiable in Slot 1...So that's 2 for AMD, 1 for INtel.

Intel tried to pull a dirty trick with the Tualatins, but adapters were available. Then Intel switched to Socket 423, 2 for AMD 2 for Intel. Then Intel introduced Socket 478...but AMD changed a few things too, try running your XP2600+ on your A7V133...And then they both came out with increased bus speeds...

So far it's been about equal. Intel offered a couple more varieties, but nothing that required you to change boards, if only you used an adapter. And if you look at it from the adapter standpoint, Intel processors required FEWER platform changes...unless you include expensive adapters with onboard VRM's, which also existed for Socket 7. Then your back to...about the same thing with both companies.

Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!

Crashman · Jul 12, 2003

Intel released VRM specifications for Prescott processors before releasing the 865/875 chipsets...so manufacturers would know what was needed for future compatability. Are you saying that they changed the spec again? Do you have anything but rumors to back that up?

Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!

pIII_Man · Jul 12, 2003

I dunno if i am holusinating but intel will move to the land grid array for the high end prescott...right...i thought they were doing this because the scotties were gonna draw too much power for a normal pga socket...so...i don't see how addapters would work...but then again there has been alot of prescott BS floating around too...

Ya know this kinda reminds me of when intel moved from slot 1 to socket 370...with all pIIs and half of the pIIIs were slot 1...now most p4's are socket 478 and a few scotties will be too.

There is no smell better than fried silicon :evil:

endyen · Jul 12, 2003

Well Crashman, I used to have an AMD equivalent to a p75 that went on a 486 board. I still have 3 socket 7 mobos that can take anything from a p75 to a K6 2 550. My current mobo will run any socket athlon made. Let us not forget sockets 5 & 8 as well. Nor would I give Intel too much credit for Slotkits or socket adapters as they do not support thier use. I would put the score at Intel 8 Amd 2. You do have to give Amd credit for backwards compatability.

So lets recap P1 socket 5 - 2 or 3 chips P 2 socket 8 - 1 or 2 chips P3 Shortlived slot format P4 socket 423 also shortlived, but you dont think P5 will have a special format. LOL.
Edited by endyen on 07/12/03 00:47 AM.

Current P4 mobos WON'T support Prescott

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Polypheme

Polypheme

Splendid

Splendid

Share this page