Intels Core New Low

[DeathReborn]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: DeathReborn
Intel does it again with the "Platform Refresh" to support Conroe.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=789

It's a mystery why people haven't kicked up a huge stink at Intel for doing this for almost every new chip.

No, you can actually blame the motherboard manufacturers because they're the ones that are profiting the most from this.

I bought an Asus P4P800, 865 chipset, over 2 years ago and it supports Prescotts and even Dothans. Whereas most other 865 boards cant support either.

Intel specified what VRM Modules were to be used with it's chipsets, it's up to the motherboard maker to decide to vary from Intel's chosen path. It's not a chipset issue, it's down to the VRM & BIOS this time which for most means a new motherboard needs to be purchased. Intel & the motherboard manufacturers will profit from this but it's not the Motherboard makers fault that Intel is changing hte requirements of the VRM for Conroe.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: openwheelformula1
The mobo manufacturers still need to purchase chipsets to make motherboards you know. Intel is requiring new chipset updates to support newer CPUs WAY TOO OFTEN.

All 915 and above chipsets can support Conroe.

In fact, even the ancient 865 can support Pressler.

As pointed out...

Documents from Intel mentioned that the next generation Intel desktop processor, Conroe, will require a platform refresh on existing chipsets. The upcoming Intel G965 and P965 chipsets will support Conroe, but any other Intel chipsets from 975X on down will require a modified VRM and BIOS updates. The VRM, or voltage regulator module, is the component on the motherboard that adjusts the voltages to the CPU. Even if today's chipsets are physically compatible with Conroe, no motherboard today will support the CPU if manufacturers followed the VRM guidelines set forth by Intel when those chipsets were designed

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=789

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: DeathReborn

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: DeathReborn
Intel does it again with the "Platform Refresh" to support Conroe.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=789

It's a mystery why people haven't kicked up a huge stink at Intel for doing this for almost every new chip.

No, you can actually blame the motherboard manufacturers because they're the ones that are profiting the most from this.

I bought an Asus P4P800, 865 chipset, over 2 years ago and it supports Prescotts and even Dothans. Whereas most other 865 boards cant support either.

Intel specified what VRM Modules were to be used with it's chipsets, it's up to the motherboard maker to decide to vary from Intel's chosen path. It's not a chipset issue, it's down to the VRM & BIOS this time which for most means a new motherboard needs to be purchased. Intel & the motherboard manufacturers will profit from this but it's not the Motherboard makers fault that Intel is changing hte requirements of the VRM for Conroe.

This is very correct, its the power regulation on the motherboards that determines support for the new dual core procs. MOST mobo makers cheaped out on the power components and the boards in turn cannot support the new power sieves from hell.

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: DeathReborn

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: DeathReborn
Intel does it again with the "Platform Refresh" to support Conroe.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=789

It's a mystery why people haven't kicked up a huge stink at Intel for doing this for almost every new chip.

No, you can actually blame the motherboard manufacturers because they're the ones that are profiting the most from this.

I bought an Asus P4P800, 865 chipset, over 2 years ago and it supports Prescotts and even Dothans. Whereas most other 865 boards cant support either.

Intel specified what VRM Modules were to be used with it's chipsets, it's up to the motherboard maker to decide to vary from Intel's chosen path. It's not a chipset issue, it's down to the VRM & BIOS this time which for most means a new motherboard needs to be purchased. Intel & the motherboard manufacturers will profit from this but it's not the Motherboard makers fault that Intel is changing hte requirements of the VRM for Conroe.

This is very correct, its the power regulation on the motherboards that determines support for the new dual core procs. MOST mobo makers cheaped out on the power components and the boards in turn cannot support the new power sieves from hell.

How much would it cost to put some new caps on an 865 if thats all that is needed? Just out of curiousity.

 

[Viditor]

EM64T has been on the table for ages, plus it is a cakewalk to implement

IIRC, Intel's original plans were for IA-64 on the desktop...to me, it passes the point of credulity that Intel developed x86-64 at the same time AMD did, and with the identical implementation. The very first announcements of x86-64 from Intel were at least a year after AMD's success with Opteron...

As to LaGrande, AMD's version is called Presidio...and they wrote the first white paper on it (in 2000 I believe), even before Microsoft proposed the Palladium initiative. The first iteration was in collaboration with Wave Systems (encryption company) and was called EMBASSY (EMbedded Application Security SYstem).

As to the on-die memory controller, even the first ones made by AMD were built for dual core...they were just missing the second core. If you look at the original Hammer drawings, they include the crossbar and a pathway for both cores 0 and 1...

 

[Hulk]

It astounds me that Intel didn't see the problems they were going to have ramping up the P4's clockspeed.

They were demonstrating P4's running at very high clocks routinely so they know what it took to cool those chips. Did they really think a die shrink would make all of the thermal problem go away?

I can't see how they miscalculated so badly.

 

[Cooler]

Originally posted by: Hulk
It astounds me that Intel didn't see the problems they were going to have ramping up the P4's clockspeed.

They were demonstrating P4's running at very high clocks routinely so they know what it took to cool those chips. Did they really think a die shrink would make all of the thermal problem go away?

I can't see how they miscalculated so badly.

The engineers saw it but the wigs up top wanted more MHz no mather what.
Untill wigs saw that they would need water cooling or better on 90nm to get pass 4ghz

 

[Hulk]

Cooler,

That does seem to be the only explanation that makes sense. I guess the guys up top figured, "ah the engineers will figure a way to get those speeds up in a few months, they always do." Or something like that.

I bet they'll listen to the guys in the labs a little more now.

Either that or they fired a bunch of guys.

 

[Cooler]

If Intel had it there way everyone would be using the Itanic cpu. As programer im glad that they did not.

 

[kmrivers]

I don't think the guy from FS is bitching or is an AMD fanboy. I think he is coming from the standpoint that Intel is a great company and would like them them to flex their muscle and be innovative like they were in the day of Pentium and Pentium Pro. The fact that some of you can pick up on that feeling means either a) you skimmed the article and came to post in your rage b) have no idea how to read and interpret words in a way that helps you understand the writers feelings. Go read some books kids.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Viditor
As pointed out...

Documents from Intel mentioned that the next generation Intel desktop processor, Conroe, will require a platform refresh on existing chipsets. The upcoming Intel G965 and P965 chipsets will support Conroe, but any other Intel chipsets from 975X on down will require a modified VRM and BIOS updates. The VRM, or voltage regulator module, is the component on the motherboard that adjusts the voltages to the CPU. Even if today's chipsets are physically compatible with Conroe, no motherboard today will support the CPU if manufacturers followed the VRM guidelines set forth by Intel when those chipsets were designed

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=789

Not entirely correct. It depends on the individual VRM's put on by the OEM's. Lets take Asus as an example. The VRMs they put on their 865, 875, 915 boards were universal enough to accept Pentium-M's, which require significantly less voltage much smaller variances than the originally intended Northwoods they were designed for. OEM's that stick to reference designs for everything are just cutting back costs.

Originally posted by: Viditor
IIRC, Intel's original plans were for IA-64 on the desktop...to me, it passes the point of credulity that Intel developed x86-64 at the same time AMD did, and with the identical implementation. The very first announcements of x86-64 from Intel were at least a year after AMD's success with Opteron...

The design was on the table far longer than Opteron actually came out.

Originally posted by: Cooler
If Intel had it there way everyone would be using the Itanic cpu. As programer im glad that they did not.

Unless you're doing assembly level programming, it doesn't really matter. But then again, when x86 came out, a lot of assembly level programmers where whining how difficult that was compared to similar things that were out.

Originally posted by: kmrivers
I don't think the guy from FS is bitching or is an AMD fanboy. I think he is coming from the standpoint that Intel is a great company and would like them them to flex their muscle and be innovative like they were in the day of Pentium and Pentium Pro. The fact that some of you can pick up on that feeling means either a) you skimmed the article and came to post in your rage b) have no idea how to read and interpret words in a way that helps you understand the writers feelings. Go read some books kids.

Oh I read that article fully. From my perspective, it seems like a game reviewer attempting to write an article about CPU micro-architecture (eg somthing that should never be done). If you want to read articles about CPU micro-architeture, stick to arstechnica, where they actually know what they're talking about.

 

[openwheelformula1]

question: I know my Asus P4P800SE supports Dothans, do Intel made motherboard (based on 865PE chipsets) also support Dothan?

 

[DeathReborn]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Viditor
As pointed out...

Documents from Intel mentioned that the next generation Intel desktop processor, Conroe, will require a platform refresh on existing chipsets. The upcoming Intel G965 and P965 chipsets will support Conroe, but any other Intel chipsets from 975X on down will require a modified VRM and BIOS updates. The VRM, or voltage regulator module, is the component on the motherboard that adjusts the voltages to the CPU. Even if today's chipsets are physically compatible with Conroe, no motherboard today will support the CPU if manufacturers followed the VRM guidelines set forth by Intel when those chipsets were designed

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=789

Not entirely correct. It depends on the individual VRM's put on by the OEM's. Lets take Asus as an example. The VRMs they put on their 865, 875, 915 boards were universal enough to accept Pentium-M's, which require significantly less voltage much smaller variances than the originally intended Northwoods they were designed for. OEM's that stick to reference designs for everything are just cutting back costs.

Originally posted by: Viditor
IIRC, Intel's original plans were for IA-64 on the desktop...to me, it passes the point of credulity that Intel developed x86-64 at the same time AMD did, and with the identical implementation. The very first announcements of x86-64 from Intel were at least a year after AMD's success with Opteron...

The design was on the table far longer than Opteron actually came out.

Originally posted by: Cooler
If Intel had it there way everyone would be using the Itanic cpu. As programer im glad that they did not.

Unless you're doing assembly level programming, it doesn't really matter. But then again, when x86 came out, a lot of assembly level programmers where whining how difficult that was compared to similar things that were out.

Originally posted by: kmrivers
I don't think the guy from FS is bitching or is an AMD fanboy. I think he is coming from the standpoint that Intel is a great company and would like them them to flex their muscle and be innovative like they were in the day of Pentium and Pentium Pro. The fact that some of you can pick up on that feeling means either a) you skimmed the article and came to post in your rage b) have no idea how to read and interpret words in a way that helps you understand the writers feelings. Go read some books kids.

Oh I read that article fully. From my perspective, it seems like a game reviewer attempting to write an article about CPU micro-architecture (eg somthing that should never be done). If you want to read articles about CPU micro-architeture, stick to arstechnica, where they actually know what they're talking about.

IA-64 completely sucked at 32bit and they were forced to add a Co-Processor to offer reasonable 32bit performance. That's not something that is cheap to do so CPU prices would be considerably higher. AMD managed to enhance standard x86 to support 64bit code, which Intel then pretty much copied and bolted on some extras.

ps: I hate the quote system used here so excuse my lack of editing them properly, too time consuming.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: openwheelformula1
question: I know my Asus P4P800SE supports Dothans, do Intel made motherboard (based on 865PE chipsets) also support Dothan?

It only supports Dothan with the CT-479 adaptor..which only works with specific Asus motherboards. There are not Intel desktop boards that support Dothan. There is are a couple of desktop boards from Aopen and DFI that are for Pentium-M's, and there appears to be several desktop boards coming out that will support yonah(core duo/solo). While socket 478 CPU's, and Dothan/Banias use the same physical socket, they are not electricly compatible, which is why the CT-479 adaptor is required, or a board designed specificly for the pentium-m.

 

[Cooler]

I just pray Ausu has bios upate for my mobo i dont want to have to get a new one.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: stevty2889
It only supports Dothan with the CT-479 adaptor..which only works with specific Asus motherboards. There are not Intel desktop boards that support Dothan. There is are a couple of desktop boards from Aopen and DFI that are for Pentium-M's, and there appears to be several desktop boards coming out that will support yonah(core duo/solo). While socket 478 CPU's, and Dothan/Banias use the same physical socket, they are not electricly compatible, which is why the CT-479 adaptor is required, or a board designed specificly for the pentium-m.

The CT-479 adapter is just that, an adapter. There is no VRM on that adapter. Go to the XS forums, people have been trying that adapter with other motherboards. Most of them fail, while some of them actually work (albeit half-hazardly due to no official BIOS recognition).

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: stevty2889
It only supports Dothan with the CT-479 adaptor..which only works with specific Asus motherboards. There are not Intel desktop boards that support Dothan. There is are a couple of desktop boards from Aopen and DFI that are for Pentium-M's, and there appears to be several desktop boards coming out that will support yonah(core duo/solo). While socket 478 CPU's, and Dothan/Banias use the same physical socket, they are not electricly compatible, which is why the CT-479 adaptor is required, or a board designed specificly for the pentium-m.

The CT-479 adapter is just that, an adapter. There is no VRM on that adapter. Go to the XS forums, people have been trying that adapter with other motherboards. Most of them fail, while some of them actually work (albeit half-hazardly due to no official BIOS recognition).

I was just pointing out that his motherboard didn't actualy support the CPU without the adaptor because they are electrictly incompatible..the way he worded it, sounded like he thought he could just stick a dothan on his motherboard and have it work.

 

[kmmatney]

When I had to choose my budget processor, it was between a Celeron-D and the Sempron754. However the mere fact that the Celeron-D was related to the Prescott made me not want to buy it. I loved Intel in the Celeron 300A days, and my last Intel cpu was a Celeron 533 @ 800 mhz. I'm finding myself becoming more of an AMD fanboy every day.

 

[Zebo]

I agree 100% with the cheap marketing gimmicks intel is using.. been using since netburst to dupe. Even thier memory numbers since netburst is gimmick - "quad pumped" when every enthusiast knows it runs 1/4 that...or maybe they don't. Fooled..

 

[dmens]

"quad pumped" when every enthusiast knows it runs 1/4 that

what matters more, throughput or frequency of the controller.....

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I agree 100% with the cheap marketing gimmicks intel is using.. been using since netburst to dupe. Even thier memory numbers since netburst is gimmick - "quad pumped" when every enthusiast knows it runs 1/4 that...or maybe they don't. Fooled..

Whats wrong with 800Mhz Quad pumped? That means 200Mhz with 4 lanes.

If you want to go to marketting deception, you should look up JEDEC and SDRAM. The original one was PC66/100/133 (66/100/133Mhz). Then Rambus comes in with PC600/700/800 (which was just 300/350/400Mhz DDR). So to combat that, they used PC1600/2100/2700/3200 (which was the actual bandwidth of the memory) because obviously they couldn't use PC200/333/400.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

i'd like to add that the name core duo sucks.
plain sucks
i think intel could not have chosen a worse name.

 

[openwheelformula1]

Here is the latest from hkepc.com:

There will be Conroe XE (1366fsb), Conroe dual core (1066fsb) and Conroe single core (800fsb). i945/955 chipsest will NOT support Conroe. A new 946 chipset will support single core Conroe. This new chipset will only support 800fsb for Prescott, Smithfield...and newer. It will utilize ICH7.

To those who still think your existing 945/955 will support Conroe: Sorry, Intel did it again.

BTW, ICH8 will NOT support PATA anymore.