Last message on previous page: Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 03:52:08 -0400, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>>Hmmm, not exactly my experience with my ATI Radeon 9600XT. I have no
>>problems with the latest driver what so ever, most games paly very nicely.
>
>ATI was one of the BIG VIA (non-Intel ?) chipset finger pointers:
>basically... "we're working on it but don't hold your breath".:-)
>
>Their early stuff was dreadful - ATI Wonder on ISA - they freely admitted
>at the time that "yes our hardware uses the NMI and yes, we know that's
>supposed to be a no-no... so what?"
>
>They didn't get labeled as the supplier of the "driver of the month" for
>nothing.
Things change and anyone who thinks ATI is the same as then needs to
have their head checked.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:35:06 -0400, George Macdonald
<fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>I think you're placing far too much faith in temp readings from your mbrd's
>BIOS. The mbrd mfrs can calibrate them to read anything you want - there
>have been several cases where they have responded to user concerns of high
>reported CPU temps by lowering them, in a later BIOS, to the point they
>read lower than the mbrd "system temp".
>
>The fact is that such readings are not useful as an absolute measure of
>temperature - the only use they really have is for detecting changes in
>general system/CPU thermal behavior.
>
>Rgds, George Macdonald
Yea, I read a test report on one website where they attached their own
thermistor and compared Abit IC7 to an Asus mb (can't remember model)
and the Abit mb always read higher and the Asus always read lower.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
George Macdonald wrote:
> Is Intel's EM64T really considered incompatible? I thought they'd
> gotten
> it close enough that it was no hassle to OS or software developers.
> If things get delayed more, there's gonna be a bunch of workstation
> software vendors (and their customers) who are gonna be pissed. OTOH
> maybe that's their punishment for "decertifying" Itanium.:-)
No, it's not considered incompatible -- in theory. It's just considered
buggy. Stuff doesn't work like it should sometimes.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
George Macdonald wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:32:12 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
> <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips George Macdonald wrote:
>>> Hmm, do you happen to know: does the monitoring software
>>> which runs under the OS get its readings from a BIOS call?
>>
>> I can't find any "temperature" BIOS calls (Ralf Brown's list),
>> and the Winbonds are easy enough to read, so I'm presuming
>> MS-Win32 monitoring software goes directly to hardware.
>
> Mbrd vendor writes both so I guess the rest of the world doesn't have
> to know about it. It'd certainly be interesting to know.
Motherboard Monitor seems to detect various chipsets and stuff, to configure
itself. So I would assume that they poll the temperature monitors directly
rather than through a BIOS call. However, like so much else that happens
through the BIOS these days, it doesn't really get used while Windows is
running, but it sets up an environment prior to Windows starting. It's
possible that mobo makers use the BIOS to set the temperature sensor
multiplication factors.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:10:29 -0700, Bruce Mckown wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 03:52:08 -0400, George Macdonald
> <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Hmmm, not exactly my experience with my ATI Radeon 9600XT. I have no
>>>problems with the latest driver what so ever, most games paly very nicely.
>>
>>ATI was one of the BIG VIA (non-Intel ?) chipset finger pointers:
>>basically... "we're working on it but don't hold your breath".:-)
>>
>>Their early stuff was dreadful - ATI Wonder on ISA - they freely admitted
>>at the time that "yes our hardware uses the NMI and yes, we know that's
>>supposed to be a no-no... so what?"
>>
>>They didn't get labeled as the supplier of the "driver of the month" for
>>nothing.
>
> Things change and anyone who thinks ATI is the same as then needs to
> have their head checked.
Once burned... Remember, hardware was *expensive* then. I'd likely look
at ATI now, but NVidia would be my first choice. Actually 3D and
games aren't my thing so neither is all that interesting.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:51:32 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> George Macdonald wrote:
>> Is Intel's EM64T really considered incompatible? I thought they'd
>> gotten
>> it close enough that it was no hassle to OS or software developers.
>> If things get delayed more, there's gonna be a bunch of workstation
>> software vendors (and their customers) who are gonna be pissed. OTOH
>> maybe that's their punishment for "decertifying" Itanium.:-)
>
> No, it's not considered incompatible -- in theory. It's just considered
> buggy. Stuff doesn't work like it should sometimes.
You're the one following all this stuff, but I thought there was a problem
with:
- NX
- Physical address width (limited to 36b, but reports 40)
- DMA MMU not 64b
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
> My next video card will have me back in the nVidia camp thank you...
> now, if you don't mind, I've got some fire to discover!
Just a word of warning about latest detonators, the GDI rendering is broken
currently atleast with GF 6800 U: windows are not always properly updated,
text is not updated, etc.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 03:18:08 -0400, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:
>
>keith wrote:
>> Intel can't even got a trivial thing like 64b right. Of course they
>> don't *want* to, since it'll kill Itanic (the fools haven't come to
>> grips with the fact that it's been dead for four years).
>
>The Inquirer is saying that it's likely that Windows XP 64-bit will be
>delayed some more, simply to accomodate Intel's dual-cores. I have a feeling
>that the final release of XP64 will simply look at the Intel chip steppings
>and refuse to run in 64-bit mode on anything other than their last revision,
>when Intel tells Microsoft that it's finally gotten the compatibility right.
>:-)
I dunno, it seems every month The Inquirer finds some new conspiracy
theory to prove that Microsoft is delaying WinXP for x64 one Intel
technology or another.
Personally I think they're forgetting the old saying.. "Never
attribute to malice what can easily be explained by incompetence". I
really don't think there's any conspiracy theory required here, merely
the fact that Microsoft is totally incapable of designing a product in
a timely manner. Just look at Longhorn, it's already been delayed by
2+ years and had it's feature set cut back, and it hasn't even hit the
beta stages yet!
-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:15:10 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>Once burned... Remember, hardware was *expensive* then. I'd likely look
>at ATI now, but NVidia would be my first choice. Actually 3D and
>games aren't my thing so neither is all that interesting.
Well, I suggest you do some serious research first. Here, I'll do it
for you.
http://www.techimo.com/newsapp/ind [...] 00&thumb=1 The Inquirer has some info on the new battleground for ATI and nVidia:
WHQL certification. One has to wonder what is going on over at nVidia.
Looks like after multiple driver submissions to Microsoft, nVidia is
still incapable of passing WHQL certification. Meanwhile, ATI has
received certification for its latest Catalyst 4.9 driver.
Our snitch sent us complete report on WHQL test finished at nVidia
Geforce 5950 card with 61.77. They are failing each and part of WHQL
test. They are failing in all fourteen tests including, D3Dlines,
Multisampling, Non power 2 conditional RenderTarget, Pixel Shader
Precision, Pixel Shader Ver. 1.1, Pixel Shader Ver. 1.2, Pixel Shader
Ver. 1.3, Pixel Shader Ver. 1.4, Pixel Shader Ver. 2.0, Point Sprites,
Texture address, Texture stage, Update surface and YUV Bit test.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:fkh8n0p69hjrjvohh8tcjgpt70me4s53nj@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:05:50 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:nq16n09ii27te1rbtlui3tn4okg5rv1v05@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:38:21 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:L9udndzeufmI9_LcRVn-gQ@rogers.com...
>>>>> AJ wrote:
>>>>>> Personally, if Northwoods go away and Prescott is the only Intel
>>>>>> choice, I'm gonna buy AMD. Secondly, if motherboards from Intel
>>>>>> become >$120, I'll go third party there too. Enough of the gouging
>>>>>> already. "Innovation" where it is not necessary is not appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not even sure why you would need to announce this, AMD and/or third-party motherboards should've always been on your
>>>>> radar,
>>>>> even before now.
>>>>
>>>>Historically, good integrated motherboards for AMD haven't been there.
>>>
>>> Just what counts as an "integrated" motherboard?
>>
>>LAN, Sound, Video.
>
> I don't know why you have a hard time finding this.<shrug> They're out
> there.
>
>>> Either way, that
>>> history changed the day that nVidia first brought out their nForce
>>> chipset, roughly 3 years ago. The integrated video and audio on that
>>> chipset were better than anything that was available for Intel chips
>>> until the brand-new i9xx series motherboards.
>>
>>Well I got started building my own PCs when the integrated board offerings
>>in uATX were far and few between. So now I know Intel and have no reason
>>to look elsewhere. If I was considering building an AMD system, I wouldn't
>>look at any other vendor for a motherboard than ASUS though. As far as I'm
>>concerned, AMD+ASUS is the platform there and there's no need to
>>evaluate the also-rans.
>
> It seems you haven't even tried it and yet you have preconceived ideas
> about what's the best - doesn't make sense to me!! While I've used Asus in
> the past for Intel-based and non-Intel-based systems, there are certainly
> several worthy challengers... as well as signs/talk that Asus is getting
> rather arrogant... unresponsive. More recently I've been using MSI mbrds
> with not a single problem.
>
>> Intel solution: CPU, chipset, motherboard by one
>>vendor. AMD solution: CPU, chipset, motherboard by two or three vendors.
>>The former is compelling. The latter is frightening. (It works for me!).
>
> There is nothing about an AMD system which is frightening - maybe you
> should try it. As for Intel mbrds, there's no such thing any longer on the
> desktop... sub-contracted for even workstation class. From experience,
> your "compelling" solution buys you nothing really: with a recent chipset
> from any vendor, including Intel, you're going to have driver .INF files to
> load for Windows of any flavor or vintage.
>
> Hmm, you spout this religious dogma and then accuse people who suggest AMD
> of being zealots???õ_õ
See, you're an AMD zealot because you (like that keith ranter) are trying to
pursuade me to try/buy AMD. All I did was tell you why I'm currently using
Intel and you both go off in a huff and try to impose your own personalities
on me. I don't give a sh@! what you use. I'm not trying to convince anyone,
but you zealots are. Get a grip and see yourselves!
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message newsol8n01joe7ibirjoebnfcajo61o9dufor@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:05:50 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:
>> So now I know Intel and have no reason
>>to look elsewhere. If I was considering building an AMD system, I wouldn't
>>look at any other vendor for a motherboard than ASUS though. As far as I'm
>>concerned, AMD+ASUS is the platform there and there's no need to
>>evaluate the also-rans. Intel solution: CPU, chipset, motherboard by one
>>vendor. AMD solution: CPU, chipset, motherboard by two or three vendors.
>>The former is compelling. The latter is frightening. (It works for me!).
>
> I've used both, and honestly the difference is pretty much nil.
That statement has no value if you're trying to convince someone/anyone,
realize. (I've used both too).
> About
> the only bet is that you've got one number to call if a part dies
> instead of two, but I've never actually had a CPU die on me, and I
> know from my work that CPUs only die at a rate of about 1 for every
> 100 motherboards that blow (interesting bit of trivia, roughly 95% of
> all CPUs that are returned as defective are 100% functional), so this
> isn't really a big worry. Otherwise you've got one set of drivers to
> load and that's about it.
I look at the MB/CPU (and chipset of course) as a unit. I wouldn't care if the
CPU was soldered on the
board (it would probably cheaper). I've never used a CPU from one system
in another (I don't think most stand alone system users have/would/do, though
the techies here probably do). Removability/replaceability is a good paradigm
for video cards, but for a CPU the cost/benefit is probably not worth it (?).
Maybe that should be for those priced-way-out-there "extreme" boards and
not for mainstream users who want low prices.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:2ri8n0t5ol1naldood6ev0ddlqovdo9bk4@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:30:03 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bruce Mckown" <no@email.here> wrote in message news:1e46n0lpsebal9i13stkisl5eilhg8594n@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:47:51 GMT, "AJ" <ng@newsgroups.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On these cool fall days, (though I have the heat on in my home), my 2.4
>>>>Northwood idles at under 30 C. As I type this, it's at 28. I have a Zalman
>>>>7000 AlCu instead of the stock HSF though. Your 36 C idle temp sounds
>>>>high to me, but maybe your ambient is higher too.
>>>>
>>>>AJ
>>>>
>>> 36c is not high at all. Even Idle temp of 40 - 46c is fine. Maybe your
>>> mb is giving a false reading because sub 30c is really low.
>>
>>I realize that 36 C it's well within the spec. I think it's easy to do much
>>"better" though. I've built a number of Northwood systems now and they
>>all idle around 30 C (and lower in cool environments). Again, I'm using
>>the Zalman 7000 AlCu HSF (and even have side vents blocked or non-
>>existent). The added cooling capability of the Zalman is just icing though.
>>I bought it to eliminate the unacceptable noise level of the stock Intel
>>HSF. My CPU is a 2.4C but the 2.8C boxes that I've built aren't that
>>much hotter (a couple of degrees maybe). Now that one Prescott 2.8E
>>I built runs 10C hotter and also ramps to 50C quite easily (according
>>to Intel Active Monitor). On that one I left the side vent unblocked and
>>the case thermal fan control off (it's in a noisey environment so no
>>one hears the PC anyway).
>>
>>The 3 motherboard temp sensors on my PC as I type this are 28, 26, 26 C.
>>(I plan on slowing down or replacing my case fans though. They are 92 mm
>>Zalmans that have the resistor inline causing them to turn at 1600 rpm, but
>>I can still hear them so I'm going to try to find even slower fans, perhaps
>>PWM ones and a controller). That's why I like Northwoods over Prescotts:
>>I can get much closer to silent computing.
>
> I think you're placing far too much faith in temp readings from your mbrd's
> BIOS.
Why? I'm not doing a scientific comparison for a magazine.
> The mbrd mfrs can calibrate them to read anything you want
They seem to be consistent across different boards.
>- there
> have been several cases where they have responded to user concerns of high
> reported CPU temps by lowering them, in a later BIOS, to the point they
> read lower than the mbrd "system temp".
As long as they are measured the same way, it's fine. The readings are
hardly useless. Quite useful actually.
> The fact is that such readings are not useful as an absolute measure of
> temperature - the only use they really have is for detecting changes in
> general system/CPU thermal behavior.
I think most people report those readings here though. Most people don't
have scientifically thermocoupled systems! The relative readings were
relevant for this thread (pretty much measured the same way and are
probably fairly consistent from board to board. I've built a few (5) of them
and they all turn out the same (except for the +10C Prescott).
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
"Bruce Mckown" <no@email.here> wrote in message newss7bn0p8hbmtf7qpli2iupt4qnvc8leaen@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:35:06 -0400, George Macdonald
> <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I think you're placing far too much faith in temp readings from your mbrd's
>>BIOS. The mbrd mfrs can calibrate them to read anything you want - there
>>have been several cases where they have responded to user concerns of high
>>reported CPU temps by lowering them, in a later BIOS, to the point they
>>read lower than the mbrd "system temp".
>>
>>The fact is that such readings are not useful as an absolute measure of
>>temperature - the only use they really have is for detecting changes in
>>general system/CPU thermal behavior.
>>
>>Rgds, George Macdonald
>
> Yea, I read a test report on one website where they attached their own
> thermistor and compared Abit IC7 to an Asus mb (can't remember model)
> and the Abit mb always read higher and the Asus always read lower.
I think a lot of you are trying to be too scientific and missing the point of
the value of the *relative* readings and that some level of comparison can
be done with those and the info is still useful.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:10:29 -0700, Bruce Mckown <no@email.here> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 03:52:08 -0400, George Macdonald
><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Hmmm, not exactly my experience with my ATI Radeon 9600XT. I have no
>>>problems with the latest driver what so ever, most games paly very nicely.
>>
>>ATI was one of the BIG VIA (non-Intel ?) chipset finger pointers:
>>basically... "we're working on it but don't hold your breath".:-)
>>
>>Their early stuff was dreadful - ATI Wonder on ISA - they freely admitted
>>at the time that "yes our hardware uses the NMI and yes, we know that's
>>supposed to be a no-no... so what?"
>>
>>They didn't get labeled as the supplier of the "driver of the month" for
>>nothing.
>
>Things change and anyone who thinks ATI is the same as then needs to
>have their head checked.
Did I say that they are the same? Despite your gratuitous response, there
*have* been many years between then and now, during which their reputation
stayed in the gutter. They damned near came apart at the seams a couple of
times in the meantime and their non-OEM policy was ill-conceived in the
face of the market. If they have put such things behind them all the
better - competition is good and benefits us all. Tony's experiences do
not inspire confidence in them.
Rgds, George Macdonald
"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
ol8n01joe7ibirjoebnfcajo61o9dufor@4ax.com...
s7bn0p8hbmtf7qpli2iupt4qnvc8leaen@4ax.com...