SLCentral - Your logical choice for computing and technology
Latest Deals   
Navigation
  • Home
  • Search
  • Forums
  • Hardware
  • Games
  • Tech News
  • Deals
  • Prices
  • A Guru's World
  • CPU/Memory Watch
  • Site Info
  • SL Newsletter
    Recieve bi-weekly updates on news, new articles, and more


    Forum home My SLBoards (Control Panel)View the calendar View the members list Read the FAQ Search the forums

    Go Back   SLCentral Forum > Technology > Hardcore Techies Only
    User Name
    Password


    Reply
     
    Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
      #1  
    Old 06-13-01, 08:32 PM
    pcres pcres is offline
    Registered User
     
    Join Date: Jun 2001
    Location: California
    Posts: 23
    pcres is off the scale
    Default Thank you!

    Paul!

    Finally, a forum which shows a lot of potential, i will try to get them all to join, you know which peopl i mean...

    Oh, BTW, have a great one!

    Patrick
    __________________
    No question is to dumb if you are prepared for a technical answer...
    Reply With Quote
      #2  
    Old 06-13-01, 08:48 PM
    Dave's Avatar
    Dave Dave is offline
    ActiveTuning Partner
     
    Join Date: Dec 2000
    Location: University Of Maryland
    Posts: 1,873
    Dave is on a distinguished road
    Send a message via AIM to Dave
    Default

    Hey, I just wanted to say welcome, and I hope you all find this your new home. We will do our best to make this the best possible place to post.
    __________________
    ActiveTuning - Partner & Director Of Sales & Marketing

    Reply With Quote
      #3  
    Old 06-13-01, 08:53 PM
    pcres pcres is offline
    Registered User
     
    Join Date: Jun 2001
    Location: California
    Posts: 23
    pcres is off the scale
    Default

    Thank you very much Dave!

    If this forum will discuss questions like the bandwidth problems of the newer dual P4 boards and such issues, you can bet your butt that i will be a regular poster...

    In fact, i will ask anyone who has more knowledge (or different opionions) regarding the bandwidth problem with the dual P4 boards to explain why they did not opt for a 4 channel board instead...

    Wingz, PM, are you out there?

    Patrick
    __________________
    No question is to dumb if you are prepared for a technical answer...
    Reply With Quote
      #4  
    Old 06-13-01, 08:59 PM
    Dave's Avatar
    Dave Dave is offline
    ActiveTuning Partner
     
    Join Date: Dec 2000
    Location: University Of Maryland
    Posts: 1,873
    Dave is on a distinguished road
    Send a message via AIM to Dave
    Default

    Patrick,

    I am defintiely not in those leagues quite yet But just wanted to make a quick note for you and others. For this forum to become the "standard" for you hardcore techies, it needs to be done with your help. So tell the people you think belong here to come on over here, and start and add on to discussions. Tell them to bring the people they know, etc, etc. It can only be done with the communities help.

    Looking forward to seeing you guys around.

    ---Dave---
    __________________
    ActiveTuning - Partner & Director Of Sales & Marketing

    Reply With Quote
      #5  
    Old 06-13-01, 09:52 PM
    Paul's Avatar
    Paul Paul is offline
    Student-for-life
     
    Join Date: Dec 2000
    Location: College Park, Maryland
    Posts: 1,294
    Paul is off the scale
    Send a message via ICQ to Paul Send a message via AIM to Paul
    Default

    I don't know how long it takes for the typical chipset verification (and subsequently, most motherboard design, and verification with the chipset), but could this simply be an economic move?

    If there were enough time between the introduction of the P3 w/i820, and Intel had enough time to redesign the i850 to be merely dual channel like the i840, then it might have been simply a political/face-saving view.

    People hate rambus as a technology (often due to flamers), and even more hate rambus as a company. If (this is the if that I don't know) there were enough time to redesign the i850 to use only two channels, then they'd be able to do a few things:

    A) keep the cost of the system to sane levels - Intel must have known shortly after the i820 that RDRAM might not be the "next big thing" (right away - it still has niche markets for sure, and may expand in the future), and might not become commonplace.

    B) They really don't seem to need it. Of course more is better, but perhaps this was an internal move as well? While yes, the Itanium has better SPECfp scores, with increased bandwidth, might the P4 have scored too high? I don't know how the politics work within Intel, but it would be rather embarassing if Intel's "miserly anchient x86" architecture could beat their brand spanking new architecture.

    Intel has made some slip-ups, for sure, but the additional costs associated with more RIMM's might detract from Intel's prestige more than they could take. Remember, the P4 is a desktop processor, not a backend server

    Besides, ServerWorks is working on a 4-way interleaved DDR solution for 4-way SMP (one chipset). I think that a uniprocessor in such a system could score rather nicely in FP/bandwidth intensive benchmarks.
    Reply With Quote
      #6  
    Old 06-13-01, 10:08 PM
    pcres pcres is offline
    Registered User
     
    Join Date: Jun 2001
    Location: California
    Posts: 23
    pcres is off the scale
    Default

    I understand your reasoning and perhaps you are correct, but i still think it is stupid...

    If you are willing to buy two high performing (because of available bandwidth) CPU's from Intel and placing them on an motherboard with lower bandwidth per CPU, it sounds like a sucky deal to me...

    Regarding the server works chipset, 4way ddr would equal 256pin solution (or rather it IS a 256 pin solution) which would requrie the same kind of shielding and technology that is used on the PCRES motherboard (unless they have a special solution) so to their tries for the future i can only say, good luck...

    The higher bandwidth per available channel bit of RDRAM requires a high level of noice reduction, i know that, you know that, but simply adding PCB layers will solve that, so why not?

    Patrick
    __________________
    No question is to dumb if you are prepared for a technical answer...
    Reply With Quote
      #7  
    Old 06-13-01, 10:11 PM
    pcres pcres is offline
    Registered User
     
    Join Date: Jun 2001
    Location: California
    Posts: 23
    pcres is off the scale
    Default

    Well, obviously i did not read your post properly...

    "The P4 is a destop CPU not intended for backhand servers" well, i can only say that i fully agree... except for one thing...

    The ultimate bandwidth that comes from the PCRES RBDRAM board might be used with Intel cpu's instead...

    But enough about that... what is your take on the hammer?

    Patrick
    __________________
    No question is to dumb if you are prepared for a technical answer...
    Reply With Quote
      #8  
    Old 06-14-01, 06:05 AM
    Paul's Avatar
    Paul Paul is offline
    Student-for-life
     
    Join Date: Dec 2000
    Location: College Park, Maryland
    Posts: 1,294
    Paul is off the scale
    Send a message via ICQ to Paul Send a message via AIM to Paul
    Default

    I dont' know a heck of a lot about the hammer family...then again, few people do, and those that do have NDA's . Sure there's the x86-64 documentation, but that's implementation agnostic.

    Some more points about the whole bandwidth thing: sure you can add more layers to the PCB, but can't you do that anyway with SDR/DDR if you added additional channels?

    I'm not arguing that SDR/DDR is better, I'm just saying that I don't think Intel wanted to simply add more layers, due to cost issues. While the P4 as a chip is cheap compared to other processor introductions of the past from Intel, it's still not cheap compared to AMD (god bless competition ).

    Plus, having to install RIMM's in units of 4 eliminates the ability of the consumer to do much serious upgrading - in order to upgrade, they'd have to buy 4 RIMM's of the same type! Common', though I know the vast majority of corporate users don't do that, some do, and that'd be a major pain/expense. Especially if there were only 4 RIMM slots - you'd have to throw them all out! Otherwise, you could have 8 RIMM slots, but that just takes up a lot of space, increasing the size of the board - would Intel really want to do that?
    Reply With Quote
      #9  
    Old 06-14-01, 05:03 PM
    pcres pcres is offline
    Registered User
     
    Join Date: Jun 2001
    Location: California
    Posts: 23
    pcres is off the scale
    Default

    You could add layers to reduce increased line noise with a multiple channel DDR solution, but the pin count problem is still there...

    Maybe a new serial technology like DDR-II which is serial just like RBDRAM would be the answer, but there is not enogh info regarding this yet.

    Quote:
    Plus, having to install RIMM's in units of 4 eliminates the ability of the consumer to do much serious upgrading - in order to upgrade, they'd have to buy 4 RIMM's of the same type! Common', though I know the vast majority of corporate users don't do that, some do, and that'd be a major pain/expense. Especially if there were only 4 RIMM slots - you'd have to throw them all out! Otherwise, you could have 8 RIMM slots, but that just takes up a lot of space, increasing the size of the board - would Intel really want to do that?


    Good point!

    Patrick
    __________________
    No question is to dumb if you are prepared for a technical answer...
    Reply With Quote
    Reply


    Thread Tools Search this Thread
    Search this Thread:

    Advanced Search
    Display Modes

    Posting Rules
    You may not post new threads
    You may not post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    vB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Forum Jump



    All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:55 AM.

    Archive - Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6 © 2006, Crawlability, Inc. Top
    Browse the various sections of the site
    Hardware
    Reviews, Articles, News, All Reviews...
    Gaming
    Reviews, Articles, News...
    Regular Sections
    A Guru's World, CPU/Memory Watch, SLDeals...
    SLBoards
    Forums, Register(Free), Todays Discussions...
    Site Info
    Search, About Us, Advertise...
    Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.1
    Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6 © 2006, Crawlability, Inc.
    Legal | Advertising | Site Info