What do you guys think the advantages or disadvantages are of using Slot or Socket?
Does Socket cool better?
Does Slot take up to much room?
Does Socket cool better?
Does Slot take up to much room?
mpjesse
Splendid
- Dec 31, 2007
- 7,214
- 0
- 25,810
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"
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"
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,594
- 91
- 66,190
They saved a tremendous amount of money by using slots! At the time, putting Cache on the chip was very expensive because they could not make it small yet, so they would have had to use a huge die! So they used the slot card to mount the cache! Then, when they developed newer manufacturing techniques that allowed them to put the cache on a small die, they went back to the socket.
Suicide is painless...........
Suicide is painless...........
mpjesse
Splendid
- Dec 31, 2007
- 7,214
- 0
- 25,810
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"
-MP Jesse
"Signatures Still Suck"
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram