Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
"ignorant" UpNDown, thanks! ;)
1st implementation of nForce3 I've seen.
http://www.xicomputer.com/products/mtowerop.asp
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9758
Xi® MTower™ 64
Based on the newest and most revolutionary, 64 bit AMD Opteron™ processor, sporting 16x16 HyperTransport™ interface with 1MB (1024KB) multi-way associative L2 Cache & independent integrated DDR 333MHz RAM Controller. The motherboard, based on the NVIDIA® nForce™ 3 Professional chipset, allows FSB data transfer much faster than previous BUS technologies (>5.8GB/sec.). Expandable to 8GB of 333MHz DDR-SDRAM dual channel memory BUS, the Xi® MTower™ 64 offers the highest level of computing power available today in a standard workstation. On board RAID, 1394 Firewire, 1GBit (10/100/1000) Ethernet network interfaces, and a wide choice of powerful video boards like the NVIDIA Quadro™ FX 2000, make this unit the ideal choice for the most demanding CAD, CAE, CAM, GIS, Video Editing and engineering computational tasks. Fully tested and supported for x86 32-Bit LINUX® & Windows® Operating Systems, the Xi MTower 64 will assure a growing longevity path to new 64-Bit OS and application software, for years to come.
Looks like PCI-Express should be interesting and simplify trace routing on the graphics boards as well as supporting higher power levels. First image of a PCI-Express video card I've seen, as well. Looks sort of like a Radeon 9600 Pro.
Paul
German tecchannel.de article
http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1182/4.html
http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1182/images/0012337_PIC.jpg
edgarcayce, re: "wbmw-As of 9/00 AMD has 10Mil Patents..."
No, AMD has the 10 millionth patent listed.
Paul
UpNDown, for those ignorant among us, could you explain the significance of your SPEC link/info?
Thanks,
Paul
greg s, EP, wbmw - it happened 4 years ago and I didn't catalog links, not realizing that I'd want them later. Suffice to say that the information was sufficient to convince me that the pressure Intel used was at least questionable and unethical(in my eyes), if not illegal according to the letter of the law. I'm sure it would not suffice to convince you guys, and that's all right with me. I had no intention of convincing you, only the intention to show EP that his characterization of our thoughts about Intel's behavior as absurd is not valid just because they don't meet his standard of proof.
In any case, that's a lot more than I ever intended to say on the subject; everyone is obviously free to believe what they will about it. On to more interesting things! :)
Paul
EP, denying reality doesn't change it. eom
Paul
EP, I agree that there may be any number of reasons for the lack, but I disagree on your Intel "conspiracy" comment. It's clear that Intel put huge pressure on chipset and motherboard manufacturers when Athlon first came out - why would you assume they aren't doing the same now? Now, exactly what they're doing and how close it may come to being considered a conspiracy or monopolistic behavior is, of course, subject to some interpretation, even in the law. But like they say,"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."
Paul
EP, what would your explanation be? Especially considering how many have displayed MBs at various shows.
Paul
wbmw, no, I didn't say that and don't think that anymore than I'd assume that Intel's errata list includes all known issues. Tsk-tsk, don't put words in my mouth. ;)
Paul
C'mon, wbmw, you know better than that. Although it has been true that the errata list for Athlons has been shorter than it's competition. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall Opteron's errata list being quite short as well. :)
Paul
sgolds, re: Opteron MB shortage
I think Mike was primarily talking about white box resellers, not DIYers.
Paul
Resellers from North America, from Europe and from Asia have all written to the INQUIRER in the last week to complain of a scarcity of third party boards for the top-end 64-bit chips.
A US reseller told us today: "The world could really, really use an article that tries to figure out why K8 boards seem to be so very sparse. my local AMD rep desperately wants me to have the pair of 240s he's had in his desk for months, but can't seem to scrape up a board."
That picture is repeated in Europe. A Scandinavian reseller said that while processor in a box Opterons have been available for a fair while through his distributors, finding enough motherboards to complete sales is a different matter altogether.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9683
avatar - welcome! BTW, your Fujitsu earthquake link is the same link as the AMD Coatue link.
Paul
EP, great question - I wish I knew!
Paul
yb, I'm hoping you're right there, I just haven't heard any word yet on their plans.
Paul
DARBES, I've got to hand it to you; at least this time you came over here to insult ihub or this thread's contributors, instead of running back to SI and whining there. For someone who has claimed on SI to have considerable experience as an analyst and in other respects, I sure would have expected you to have been around long enough to have developed more maturity along the way!
Paul
Anyone hear about any other plans for Athlon64 or Opteron PCI-Express(not PCI-X) video supporting chipsets other than the VIA K8T890? Considering that the graphics market seems to be heading that way, I'd sure feel a lot more comfortable if VIA weren't the only basket for AMD's eggs to be in.
Paul
kpf, MSI confirmed it in their e-mail response to Tom's. They didn't explicitly state it, but they confirmed Tom's lab's discovery on this page of his article:
(Note the sections I underlined)
http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030522/index.html
Quote from Tom's article:
The lab engineers made a curious discovery when taking a closer look at the 865 Neo 2 from MSI: the manufacturer had integrated an ingenious logic that increased the FSB clock from 6% to 8% when programs were run, which automatically led to overclocking the processor. The trick: with conventional tools, such as the popular WCPUID, Intel CPU Frequency Display, CPUZ and SiSoft Sandra 2003, the clock increase cannot be detected. Only a special tool was able to reveal the raised clock speed.
Official Statement from MSI Taiwan
"To the Editors of Tom' s Hardware,
We are writing in response to your article "Intel Rigs Up: P4 Series with FSB800"
Indeed what your lab engineer discovered is true.
MSI does plan to use the said "logic circuit" or "dynamic overclocking" as a feature for this board.
The reason why we haven't announced it to anybody yet is because we are in the process of doing internal testing and applying for a patent.
This feature should be available for high-end MSI motherboard in our next BIOS release.
MSI's "dynamic overclocking" (the feature name still has not been finalized as of this writing) feature is exactly what your article described."The manufacturer has incorporated an ingenious logic circuit that increases the FSB speed between 6 and 8 percent while programs are running; the processor is automatically overclocked. However, FSB and CPU speeds are only increased when applications are started or when benchmark programs have finished - subject to CPU usage reaching close to 100 percent. And this is really interesting: the overclocking does not show up using conventional benchmarking utilities such as WCPUID, Intel CPU Frequency Display, CPUZ or SiSoft Sandra 2003. You need a very specialized tool to reveal the increased bus speed."
The reason why the overclocking does not show up on well-known utilities such as WCPUID, Intel Frequency Display, CPUZ and SiSoft Sandra 2003 is because these programs cannot detect dynamic overclocking. That is why you need a special developer's tool to detect dynamic overclocking in realtime."
Jozef, re: Opteron voltage. According to the datasheet, the Opteron on Akiba is a 1.55V CPU. This also is the only voltage defined in the ordering information section of the data sheet. 240-244 are the only models defined as well.
Paul
kpf, it is MSI, they added some circuitry to accomplish it.
kpf, with all the backroom stuff that's bound to be going on to undermine the Opteron, I just don't take anything for granted. This is a dangerous time in the introduction, when a lot of pressure is being put on folks not to adopt Opteron. Every system that actually makes it to hardware/production stage is one more step to success, so I just like to note each baby step on the path. :)
Paul
I think the 244 entries have only been with the usual suspects like PC Progress and Spartan, who list them when they're not yet available.
Paul
Haddock, it's just a minor overclock - 6-8% I think they said - which won't cause instability for non-OC'd systems in most cases(I imagine they're confident of it or they wouldn't try it). Not likely to be headed for business systems, though, I don't imagine. Now it would cause all sorts of headaches for OCers who didn't know about it, but how much do they care about OCers anyhow?
Paul
Tenchu, I just meant it wasn't a figment of Tom's imagination, not that it was a good thing. MSI owned up to it being an actual "feature". I imagine, as many other manufacturers have done in the past, they thought they could get over on the reviewers and make themselves look a little better.
MSI replied to Tom's that they hadn't revealed it because they are awaiting a patent. It is real. Hope for the sake of OCers that it can be disabled.
Paul
Opteron 244 retail available at Akiba.
Paul
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/akiba/hotline/20030524/etc_opteron244.html
PS. date code 0317, pretty recent! Mid-late April.
kpf, an announcement isn't the same as a signature on the dotted line, though. That's when things get a little more real.
Paul
Cray Opteron deal almost reality.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9647
Soitec/ASM coop on strained silicon on SOI.
http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20030522S0018
yb, is it necessarily a problem with 157nm, or have they just decided they've found a suitable method to extend 193nm to smaller processes?
Haddock, I don't know whether it was in that article or elsewhere, but I read that Intel planned to go from the 193nm equipment to EUV equipment.
Paul
PS. Aah, here it is.
http://www.e-insite.net/electronicnews/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA301016&spacedesc...
Several interesting chunks of Intel info. Looks like 3.2GHz is the end of the line until Prescott, so that would mean end of the line for this process, wouldn't it, EP?
Also an interesting "micro-architecture improvements" graphic.
Paul
http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/1179/index.html
bg, someone on the RB AMD thread that has the same anal fixation you seem to have, who also adds nothing of value to the discussion.
EP, re: Yup, it really smokes those 2-4 way benchmarks. I guess that explains all the product announcements...
Getting a little impatient, aren't you? :) Those product announcements will come, count on it.
Paul
nForce3 info. Dual possible. AMDZone.
One question that emerged was about dual Opteron platform support from nVidia. The system platform group confirmed that they were indeed looking at the possibilities of doing that and that due to the HT interconnects, it would be wicked easy. Keep a lookout for a possible dual Opteron nForce 3 system late this year.
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1282&page=7
Anyone concerned about SARS's impact on the computer market, especially in light of increased outbreaks in Taiwan?
Paul
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3048943.stm
Haddock, it's not "Intel fans", just belgiangenius/vaneesbe. eom
re: VID re-post for spokeshave.
"YB: Elmer and wbmw are wrong...
...regarding VID. It is all in the Intel datasheet if one takes the time to read it thoroughly. I have corrected them numerous times before, yet they continue to stubbornly stick to their misconceptions.
I will try to clear it up. The VID is first defined in section 2.2, which states:
The processor VCC pins must be supplied with the voltage defined by the VID (Voltage ID) pins and the loadline
specifications (see Figure 2-4).
Note the reference to the loadline specifications in Figure 2-4. This will become very important later. However, this statement is pretty clear - the processor Vcc pins must be supplied with the voltage defined by the VID pins. For VID 1.550, the VID pins define a voltage of 1.550 volts. That is pretty straight-forward. But it becomes even clearer as one reads further. Next let's look at section 2.4 - Voltage Identification. In particular:
The voltage set by the VID pins is the maximum voltage allowed by the processor. A minimum voltage is provided in
Table 2-6 and changes with frequency.
Clearly, the VID is the maximum voltage allowedby the processor. This is a bit misleading, though, as will become apparent shortly. First though, just in case there is still doubt about what the maximum voltage might be, let's look at table 2-2. This table shows the Vcc_max for the different VID pins. Clearly, the Vcc_max is 1.550V. There it is in plain black-and-white. It does not say VID_max, it says Vcc_max, in other words, the max voltage for the core.
Now, let's move on the table 2-6. This is the source of all of the confusion. I understand the confusion because in my opinion, Intel is intentionally attempting to obfuscate the maximum parameters of the CPU. So, on to the table. First, note the contradiction. The maximum Vcc found anywhere in the table is 1.425V. This directly contradicts the information referenced in table 2-2 where the Vcc_max is clearly defined as 1.550V. So where does the discrepency come from? Easy. Read the footnotes. In particular, footnote 1, which states:
These voltages are targets only. A variable voltage source should exist on systems in the event that a different voltage is required. See Table 2-2 for more information. The VID bits will set the maximum VCC with the minimum being defined according to current consumption at that voltage.
Ahhhh. There's the rub. The values in table 2-6 are not minimums and maximums (though that is clearly what we are intended to believe). They are targets only. Well. That clears up a few things. Interstingly, after saying that the "maximum" voltages listed are really only "targets", the footnote goes on to reference table 2-2. Recall what is in table 2-2. That's right. The Vcc_max value of 1.550. So, in summary, the footnote clearly says that the "maximum" values in the table are not "maximum" at all but instead are "targets" and if you want the real "maximum" you should see table 2-2. I hope that settles that.
But the real meat and potatoes are in table 2-7 and figure 2-4. These are the "real deal" and are referenced throughout the rest of the document. These are the "load line" data. They represent the true nominal, maximum and minimum operating parameters. Once can see from the load line that the Vcc_max (Vcc_max = VID, remember) is practically never achieved. It can only be approached at very low currents, and under non-typical conditions. So, in fairness, the Vcc_max is only approached or realized at very low currents.
Now, let's look at maximum power which is derived from Vcc_max and Icc_max. Once again, I am rejecting the information in table 2-6 since the footnotes clearly state that those values are "targets". Instead, I will follow the footnotes and refer to table 2-7 and figure 2-4 for actual maximum operating parameters. In that table, and on the load line, the Icc_max is clearly listed as 70A, and the Vcc_max can be gleaned from the table to be 1.550 - 0.133, or 1.417V at that current. Also note that the Vcc decreases as Icc increases. So, for a Vcc_max of 1.417V at an Icc_max of 70A, the maximum power is 99.19W. Now, I recognize that this is not likely to be seen except for the worst of circumstances, but if we are to speak of maximum power, this is the figure that should appropriately be used.
ftp://download.intel.com/design/Pentium4/datashts/29864309.pdf
I believe that Elmer and wbmw still have me on ignore. Can someone repost this so they can see it?"
chipguy, re: "overclocking"
Overclocking means operating a uP outside
of its vendor specifications. The vendor can set the specifications anyway it sees fit with the
understanding that it is trying sell a manufacturable, durable, and robust product for a profit
and that its reputation with OEMs and buyers is on the line. By definition a vendor does not
sell overclocked chips.
C'mon, get real! You know exactly what he means. Technically you're correct, but anyone who knows anything about processors knows there have been times when manufacturers get to the end of a process's capabilities and suddenly the specs change, voltage goes up, Tmax goes down, etc. What exactly would you call the PIII 1.13GHz? I'd call it Intel-sanctioned OC'ing, and they got burned because they cut it too close.
Paul
EP - Link? What link? You posted the document name, but I had to go hunt it down on the site. I don't have broadband here, so it's still downloading.
Paul