Quantcast

Maximum PC

It is currently Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:46 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 6:44 am 
Team Member Top 500
Team Member Top 500
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:10 pm
Posts: 6657
Location: Houghton, MI (Michigan Technological University)
Beelzebubba9 wrote:
athlon11 wrote:
Intel needs btx due to their inability to design a cool running processor.


And because its a better design. OEMs (Read: Dell) have been designing computers to maximize air flow long before the Prescott came along, so BTX just relieves them of some of that R&D burden.

athlon11 wrote:
Intel also needs ddr2 because the p4 has a voracious appetite for memory bandwidth. the athlon64 just doesnt need the bandwidth ddr2 can provide to perform on par with Intel.


The Athlon 64/Opteron are also far more sensative to latency, so until DDR2 can be shipped in volume at lower CAS ratings (or AMD's need for bandwidth compensates for the high latency), so adopting DDR2 now would most likely HURT the K8's performance.

athlon11 wrote:
so in the end amd is designing much more efficient chips that dont need new expensive technologies to perform just as well as their Intel counterparts.


AMD also doesn't have the clout to push new technologies like Intel, so they can't afford to be as cutting edge.
i agree on all of your points, except the very last one, but only slightly, amd did have enough clout to get microsoft to make a new 64bit version of windows, before Intel even announced they were ever gonna support x86-64. and didnt amd start the ddr phase. i think amd was the first to use ddr with their thunderbird chips, but i could be wrong on that.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 7:09 am 
Bitchin' Fast 3D Z8000
Bitchin' Fast 3D Z8000
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:48 pm
Posts: 241
Location: Whispering Evil Things in your ear...
athlon11 wrote:
i agree on all of your points, except the very last one, but only slightly, amd did have enough clout to get microsoft to make a new 64bit version of windows, before Intel even announced they were ever gonna support x86-64. and didnt amd start the ddr phase. i think amd was the first to use ddr with their thunderbird chips, but i could be wrong on that.


Yeah, it was really more of a generalization. AMD has pushed AMD64 and HyperTransport out mostly by themselves, which means to me that they know which feature are critical to their platform and which battles fo fight. But if you compare this to the raw number of technologies that Intel either designed, had a major hand in designing, or pushed ahead, AMD comes up looking a little timid.

And no, AMD didn't have a hand in the design or spec'ing of DDR (AFAIK). They were the first to sell it on the desktop with the AMD760, but that was because Intel was tied to RDRAM until 2002, but the standard was being pushed foreward by pretty much everyone else, namely IBM, Sun, etc .


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 8:28 am 
Bitchin' Fast 3D Z8000
Bitchin' Fast 3D Z8000
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 5:24 pm
Posts: 4329
Location: Aggieland, TX
XHAOS wrote:
i'm runnin on a thunderbird 1.4 right now. It runs between 39C and 41C.


Mine was lucky to get below 60C...


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 8:31 am 
Bitchin' Fast 3D Z8000
Bitchin' Fast 3D Z8000
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 5:24 pm
Posts: 4329
Location: Aggieland, TX
athlon11 wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
athlon11 wrote:
I Am Weasel wrote:
It's not only BTX that I'm after, but also DDR2, which I haven't found in any AMD mobo's yet. With PCI Express on the way, I'm eager to have a mobo that has both these features. What harm can AMD have in going with a BTX form? So what if they aren't "hot" enough yet, atleast they'd be prepped for the future. Perhaps they will make a socket 939 board in BTX for AMD.
amd is not going with either btx or ddr2, they dont need either of them. Intel needs btx due to their inability to design a cool running processor. Intel also needs ddr2 because the p4 has a voracious appetite for memory bandwidth. the athlon64 just doesnt need the bandwidth ddr2 can provide to perform on par with Intel. in fact, i doubt youd see much, if any, of a performance boost if you put the athlon64 fx-53 on a ddr2 board if it stayed at the same frequency. so in the end amd is designing much more efficient chips that dont need new expensive technologies to perform just as well as their Intel counterparts.


Hehe, well, you should remember that I dont think heat is the big issue right now. It is AN issue, maybe a major one, but definitely not the only one.

Also, remember that Intel's Northwood procs run plenty cool, so the "inability" to make a cool running proc is a little off. Lets not forget AMDs Thunderbird procs either (I had one! If you thought Prescott was hot...).

(not an Intel fanboy)
even though i never had a thunderbird i remember when they were out and the people who said how hot they ran. i wasnt refering to all Intel chips either, i should have made that clear but i didnt, i was refering to the prescot and how they cant seem to get it to run cool.


Yeah, just want to be sure you understand Intel isnt going to push BTX simply because one of their chips run a little hot...BTX has been talked about for quite some time before Prescott came out.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 3:38 pm 
BANNED
BANNED
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 8:40 pm
Posts: 15
This is totally off the topic i wrote earlier...but has anyone seen that coolermaster atx/btx case? what do they call it the stacker? Im sorry but that is the dumbest thing ive ever seen...i pray to god btx wont look like that thing.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 3:51 pm 
Team Member Top 500
Team Member Top 500
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:10 pm
Posts: 6657
Location: Houghton, MI (Michigan Technological University)
Coolmanchu wrote:
This is totally off the topic i wrote earlier...but has anyone seen that coolermaster atx/btx case? what do they call it the stacker? Im sorry but that is the dumbest thing ive ever seen...i pray to god btx wont look like that thing.
yes, its called the cm stacker. but i dont think it looks all that bad. btx has no set look, just like atx doesnt either, there are many different looking atx cases out there.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 6:33 pm 
BANNED
BANNED
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 8:40 pm
Posts: 15
see i just think its a lil bit to tall....that and they have all of those stupid fan monitors and what not on it....looks tacky.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 6:35 pm 
Team Member Top 500
Team Member Top 500
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:10 pm
Posts: 6657
Location: Houghton, MI (Michigan Technological University)
Coolmanchu wrote:
see i just think its a lil bit to tall....that and they have all of those stupid fan monitors and what not on it....looks tacky.
no, that stuff is not a requirement of btx, as the case was mainly designed as an atx part.


Top
  Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group