Slot vs. Socket?

PRETORIAN -


This topic has been discussed at length. If you go to the "Search Boards" option and search on "Slot" you will find a lot of posts.


Hope you find what you're looking for.


beans

Well, i'm gonna add my two sense.

I think Slot was one of the dumbest ideas for a processor design ever. It's big, expensive to produce, and hard to cool. The only advantages were that it was REALLY hard to fry the chip. Which, in my opinion, wasn't all that useful. Most people who go removing processors know how to deal with static electricity.

I know that part of the reason for design was the 512K L2 cache being closer to the processor for faster cache speeds. BUT, this could have been done in a more intellegent manner- as with the Pentium Pro (L2 cache was set of to the side of the wafer) Ultimately, Intel realized it was dumb and went ahead with FCPGA. So did AMD.

The funny part was this: Intel claimed they'd save booko bucks on production on Slot processors. HOW on EARTH can you save money when your adding more parts and making it more difficult for construction? Hmmm... one of the more less intellegent statements from Intel I think...

-MP Jesse

"Signatures Still Suck"

Not really. Let me explain what I mean by Intel claiming they would save money. Intel said they would save money on Slot processors over exisiting Pentium MMX chips. At the time, a processor (other than the Pentium Pro) with a L2 cache on the chip die or PCB didn't exist. Intel said they would save money over exisiting CPU design. Granted- performance demanded fast L2 cache, but this could have been implemented into a chipset design instead of a Processor design. That- it seems to me, would have saved cash.

-MP Jesse

"Signatures Still Suck"

Then the cache would have been forced to run at bus speed. I think the PII advantage was that it used faster cache.

Suicide is painless...........