**NEW** ABIT TH7-II
- Thread starter labooboo
- Start date
The TH7 is for Socket 423 Pentium 4s; the TH7-II is for Socket 478 Pentium 4s. Both use the same Intel i850 chipset. Which one you get depends on which CPU you have.
I have read the
ABIT Th7 II review on
Firingsquad
I think Th7-II is more upgradable in the future with Northwood CPU that's what I am going to get later.
ABIT Th7 II review on
Firingsquad
I think Th7-II is more upgradable in the future with Northwood CPU that's what I am going to get later.
I am gonna get one of these suckers when the P4 1.5Ghz S478 is released (will cost $140) and also the price would come down also.
If you're really interested in a P4, I'd personally wait for the DDR boards to come out instead of having to buy Rambus memory.
Why?
I mean DDR is not that much faster then SDR. Your all all comparing DDR with Rambus. Why not compare DDR with Yellowstone (upcoming memory from Rambus with a whooping bandwidth of 6,2Gb/sec, current Rambus is 3,2). I actually can't see any memory beating Yellowstone not even PC2700 DDR. Yellowstone will be released Q4 and the presentation is in September
I mean DDR is not that much faster then SDR. Your all all comparing DDR with Rambus. Why not compare DDR with Yellowstone (upcoming memory from Rambus with a whooping bandwidth of 6,2Gb/sec, current Rambus is 3,2). I actually can't see any memory beating Yellowstone not even PC2700 DDR. Yellowstone will be released Q4 and the presentation is in September
Why?
OK, let's go:
I mean DDR is not that much faster then SDR
But it is faster, and it's the same price - $40 shipped for 256MB of PC2100 DDR SDRAM. If I'm buying a new mobo and memory, why would I buy a SDR board/memory when a DDR combo is the same price? You're also ignoring the platform - DDR will be relatively much faster than SDR on the P4 as opposed to DDR vs. SDR on a P3 platform.
Your all all comparing DDR with Rambus
Why not? The comparison's a lot closer than theoretical numbers state. And there's the Sandra "problem." Sandra sucks at calculating bandwidth numbers for Athlons, and it specifically hurts DDR scores. The beta of the fixed Sandra - and I don't know when it'll be released - shows that the efficiency (actual throughput as measured by the new Sandra divided by theoretical) of DDR is higher than Rambus RDRAM.
Plus, on the P4 platform DDR looks like it'll be within spitting distance of RDRAM's practical, application-level benchmarks, and the DDR boards will be less expensive than either the i850/RDRAM or i845/SDRAM boards. We'll see in a month or so with the VIA and SiS P4 DDR boards hitting the street.
If DDR isn't such a big deal, why isn't Intel releasing the i845 chipset with DDR support out of the gate? The support in the chipset is pretty much already there, and when they do support DDR they're only going to officially support PC1600 not PC2100. Considering their relationship with Rambus, it looks like they're trying not to embarass them, plus there's that inane exclusivity deal.
Why not compare DDR with Yellowstone (upcoming memory from Rambus with a whooping bandwidth of 6,2Gb/sec, current Rambus is 3,2). I actually can't see any memory beating Yellowstone not even PC2700 DDR
Couple of reasons:
1) Considering that as it stands now - RDRAM costs more than double what DDR cost - I can't imagine what Yellowstone will cost. If you want to compare things with that price disparity, why not compare a Celeron 900 to an Athlon 1.4GHz? Plus I'd also be interested to see how the current RDRAM mfgs will rush to embrace Yellowstone when Intel is clearly distancing itself from Rambus.
2) When do you suppose we'll see chipsets supporting Yellowstone? Intel clearly looks like they're not terribly happy about being joined at the hip with Rambus. Plus from your post it sounded like you wanted to buy something in the relatively near future - which isn't when Yellowstone will be on the street.
3 Current PC2100 SDRAM isn't being pushed to its limits. On the Epox 8K7A, PC2100 SDRAM is being run stably at speeds up to 170-195MHz. Not guaranteeing it, but it wouldn't surprise me to see a DDR 400 spec.
4 The SiS 645 - technically the world's first P4 DDR chipset was announced Thursday; it's sampling this month and shipping next month in mass quantities. It also supports DDR 333/PC2700. SiS 645 boards will be on the street (along with PC2100/PC2400 DDR that can be pushed to PC2700) while Yellowstone is still on paper.
5) If we're talking about upcoming memory that's not available yet, why not compare Yellowstone to QDR (quad data rate) SDRAM?
BTW, if memory bandwidth is so all-important, why can't a P4 with its huge RDRAM bandwidth and quad-pumped bus beat an Athlon clocked at the same speed? If you think the P4 has it in the clock speed department, AMD's specs for the desktop Palomino/Athlon 4 (coming out next month) now lists an 18x multipler, which on a 133MHz bus tops out at 2.4GHz - and they can always add a few additional multipliers like they've done in the past by recycling the lower ones.
OK, let's go:
I mean DDR is not that much faster then SDR
But it is faster, and it's the same price - $40 shipped for 256MB of PC2100 DDR SDRAM. If I'm buying a new mobo and memory, why would I buy a SDR board/memory when a DDR combo is the same price? You're also ignoring the platform - DDR will be relatively much faster than SDR on the P4 as opposed to DDR vs. SDR on a P3 platform.
Your all all comparing DDR with Rambus
Why not? The comparison's a lot closer than theoretical numbers state. And there's the Sandra "problem." Sandra sucks at calculating bandwidth numbers for Athlons, and it specifically hurts DDR scores. The beta of the fixed Sandra - and I don't know when it'll be released - shows that the efficiency (actual throughput as measured by the new Sandra divided by theoretical) of DDR is higher than Rambus RDRAM.
Plus, on the P4 platform DDR looks like it'll be within spitting distance of RDRAM's practical, application-level benchmarks, and the DDR boards will be less expensive than either the i850/RDRAM or i845/SDRAM boards. We'll see in a month or so with the VIA and SiS P4 DDR boards hitting the street.
If DDR isn't such a big deal, why isn't Intel releasing the i845 chipset with DDR support out of the gate? The support in the chipset is pretty much already there, and when they do support DDR they're only going to officially support PC1600 not PC2100. Considering their relationship with Rambus, it looks like they're trying not to embarass them, plus there's that inane exclusivity deal.
Why not compare DDR with Yellowstone (upcoming memory from Rambus with a whooping bandwidth of 6,2Gb/sec, current Rambus is 3,2). I actually can't see any memory beating Yellowstone not even PC2700 DDR
Couple of reasons:
1) Considering that as it stands now - RDRAM costs more than double what DDR cost - I can't imagine what Yellowstone will cost. If you want to compare things with that price disparity, why not compare a Celeron 900 to an Athlon 1.4GHz? Plus I'd also be interested to see how the current RDRAM mfgs will rush to embrace Yellowstone when Intel is clearly distancing itself from Rambus.
2) When do you suppose we'll see chipsets supporting Yellowstone? Intel clearly looks like they're not terribly happy about being joined at the hip with Rambus. Plus from your post it sounded like you wanted to buy something in the relatively near future - which isn't when Yellowstone will be on the street.
3 Current PC2100 SDRAM isn't being pushed to its limits. On the Epox 8K7A, PC2100 SDRAM is being run stably at speeds up to 170-195MHz. Not guaranteeing it, but it wouldn't surprise me to see a DDR 400 spec.
4 The SiS 645 - technically the world's first P4 DDR chipset was announced Thursday; it's sampling this month and shipping next month in mass quantities. It also supports DDR 333/PC2700. SiS 645 boards will be on the street (along with PC2100/PC2400 DDR that can be pushed to PC2700) while Yellowstone is still on paper.
5) If we're talking about upcoming memory that's not available yet, why not compare Yellowstone to QDR (quad data rate) SDRAM?
BTW, if memory bandwidth is so all-important, why can't a P4 with its huge RDRAM bandwidth and quad-pumped bus beat an Athlon clocked at the same speed? If you think the P4 has it in the clock speed department, AMD's specs for the desktop Palomino/Athlon 4 (coming out next month) now lists an 18x multipler, which on a 133MHz bus tops out at 2.4GHz - and they can always add a few additional multipliers like they've done in the past by recycling the lower ones.
<< why isn't Intel releasing the i845 chipset with DDR support out of the gate? >>
Be cause guys like stop can't seem to stop b*tching about the poor performance and price of Rambus (is it so bad??)
<< Considering that as it stands now - RDRAM costs more than double what DDR cost - I can't imagine what Yellowstone will cost. If you want to compare things with that price disparity, why not compare a Celeron 900 to an Athlon 1.4GHz? Plus I'd also be interested to see how the current RDRAM mfgs will rush to embrace Yellowstone when Intel is clearly distancing itself from Rambus. >>
Considering the extremly low price SDR/DDR, Rambus is doing pretty fine actually. It is set to cut the price by another 30% (well Samsung is gonna do that other will follow). Analist predict SDR/DDR prices will go up as the market is pretty shaky (people being fired like that)
<< When do you suppose we'll see chipsets supporting Yellowstone? Intel clearly looks like they're not terribly happy about being joined at the hip with Rambus. Plus from your post it sounded like you wanted to buy something in the relatively near future - which isn't when Yellowstone will be on the street. >>
Actually Northwood is gonna support it and ThII-7 supports Northwood and also Yellowstone. It's like PC2700 so no Socket/chipset change
<< 3 Current PC2100 SDRAM isn't being pushed to its limits. On the Epox 8K7A, PC2100 SDRAM is being run stably at speeds up to 170-195MHz. Not guaranteeing it, but it wouldn't surprise me to see a DDR 400 spec. >>
Rambus isn't pushed to the limit too, so what's your deal??
<< 4 The SiS 645 - technically the world's first P4 DDR chipset was announced Thursday; it's sampling this month and shipping next month in mass quantities. It also supports DDR 333/PC2700. SiS 645 boards will be on the street (along with PC2100/PC2400 DDR that can be pushed to PC2700) while Yellowstone is still on paper. >>
SIS 645 is still planned for 4Q so is Yellowstone. Expect a presentation of Yellowstone september
<<
5) If we're talking about upcoming memory that's not available yet, why not compare Yellowstone to QDR (quad data rate) SDRAM?
>>
QDR will start sampeling end of 2002 and Yellowstone will sample end of this year
<< BTW, if memory bandwidth is so all-important, why can't a P4 with its huge RDRAM bandwidth and quad-pumped bus beat an Athlon clocked at the same speed? >>
one word:
latency
Yellowstone will proberly fix this issue.
Why not compare DDR with Yellowstone (upcoming memory from Rambus with a whooping bandwidth of 6,2Gb/sec, current Rambus is 3,2)
That current bandwidth number you gave is wrong. Current PC800 16-bit data path RDRAM as delivered from Rambus (your context) has a bandwidth of 1.6GB/sec; the 3.2GB/sec you quoted is the bandwidth achieved on the 850 due to Intel's implementation of dual channels of 16-bit data path RDRAM. You can go check this genuine Rambus PDF on 32-bit and 64-bit RIMMs yourself. There's a table on page 4 that gives you the comparative bandwidths of each module. If you don't believe me, try running an i850 with only one RIMM and see what happens. If you really want to compare dual channel-to-dual channel performance, why not wait for the nForce 420 where nVidia has optimized memory performance with 2 DDR DIMMs? If you don't think this matters, bench your Abit KT7A with 4-way memory interleaving off and on and you'll get the idea.
As for that 6.2GB/sec (or 6.4GB/sec according to Rambus) number, their roadmap (linked at the bottom of this post) shows them delivering that module bandwidth in 2003.
Be cause guys like stop can't seem to stop b*tching about the poor performance and price of Rambus (is it so bad??)
Poor performance? Considering Rambus' bandwidth numbers, definitely. You raised the latency issue, not me. Poor price? Yes - only recently has the signficant price premium over DDR narrowed. Poor price/performance ratio? Yes.
As for b*tching about Rambus, errr...never mind.
Rambus is doing pretty fine actually
Talked to any Rambus shareholders lately?
It's only doing "fine" because Intel is forcing it onto the market - if you've wanted a P4 up to now you've HAD to buy Rambus. I don't see AMD, VIA, SiS or ALi marketing chipsets supporting Rambus - they may have licenses, but I don't see them using it. Like Craig Barrett just recently said, "the consumer will decide" the fate of Rambus. Interesting words from the president of Intel. We'll also see how Rambus does when it's exclusivity deal with Intel is over - for that matter, we'll see real soon how well RDRAM sells when SDR/DDR P4s are available with Intel's blessing. I expect we'll see the i820 vs. i815 story all over again.
Northwood is gonna support it and ThII-7 supports Northwood and also Yellowstone
I don't see how Northwood is going to have specific Yellowstone support, especially considering that the SDR/DDR i845 also supports Northwood. It seems the issue is whether the chipset supports it. For that matter, technically Northwood will also support PC100, PC133, PC150, PC166, PC1600, PC2100, PC2400 and PC2700 DRAM.
As for the TH7-II/i850 supporting it - well that's an interesting postulation. Right now, the one confirmed fact from Rambus is that Samsung will start volume introduction of PC1066 RDRAM in 2002. If you look back at the PDF I pointed out earlier, you'll see the specs for PC1066 RDRAM are listed. With a 16-bit data path bandwidth is 2.1GB/sec; on an Intel dual channel platform that's 4.2GB/sec - about a 30% increase. Not a huge deal considering they haven't dealt with latency with PC1066 either. I'll assume that Yellowstone isn't PC1066 for the moment, although their timetables are curiously similar and that would make Yellowstone no BFD. If Yellowstone isn't PC1066, then I'd be REAL surprised to see that Yellowstone sticks with a 16-bit datapath, particularly since Rambus is aggressively pushing 32-bit and 64-bit data paths. If Yellowstone doesn't have a 16-bit data path, I'd like to know how the existing i850 will support a 32-bit datapath considering the i850's pinout. For that matter, the TH7-II's current RIMM sockets don't even support 32-bit RIMMs. You can check the TH7-II's sockets over at FiringSquad yourself.
If Yellowstone is PC1066, then you're not talking about Northwood, you're talking about Tulloch, the Intel chipset with official PC1066 support due out Q2 or so next year.
SIS 645 is still planned for 4Q so is Yellowstone
The 645 is sampling, not "planned" this month and in mass production next month. That's Q3 not Q4. SiS 645 boards may not actually be on the street until the beginning of Q4, but SiS will be spitting 645 chipsets out of its own fabs in Q3 while Yellowstone's only visible implementation will be in PowerPoint. If you don't think this is possible, look at the time between when SiS started production of the SiS 735 and when the ECS 735 boards showed up on the street.
one word:
latency
Yellowstone will proberly fix this issue.
Really? I find it kind of curious that in Rambus' RIMM Module Roadmap to 9.6GB/s Modules presentation, that in 36 pages of slides they never ONCE mention the words "latency" or "latencies." 32-bit and 64-bit datapaths, yes. Gobs of bandwidth, yes. Latency, no. From their current implementation, they obviously don't know what it is. But hey, latency is irrelevant when you've got 9.6GB/sec of bandwidth, right?
That current bandwidth number you gave is wrong. Current PC800 16-bit data path RDRAM as delivered from Rambus (your context) has a bandwidth of 1.6GB/sec; the 3.2GB/sec you quoted is the bandwidth achieved on the 850 due to Intel's implementation of dual channels of 16-bit data path RDRAM. You can go check this genuine Rambus PDF on 32-bit and 64-bit RIMMs yourself. There's a table on page 4 that gives you the comparative bandwidths of each module. If you don't believe me, try running an i850 with only one RIMM and see what happens. If you really want to compare dual channel-to-dual channel performance, why not wait for the nForce 420 where nVidia has optimized memory performance with 2 DDR DIMMs? If you don't think this matters, bench your Abit KT7A with 4-way memory interleaving off and on and you'll get the idea.
As for that 6.2GB/sec (or 6.4GB/sec according to Rambus) number, their roadmap (linked at the bottom of this post) shows them delivering that module bandwidth in 2003.
Be cause guys like stop can't seem to stop b*tching about the poor performance and price of Rambus (is it so bad??)
Poor performance? Considering Rambus' bandwidth numbers, definitely. You raised the latency issue, not me. Poor price? Yes - only recently has the signficant price premium over DDR narrowed. Poor price/performance ratio? Yes.
As for b*tching about Rambus, errr...never mind.
Rambus is doing pretty fine actually
Talked to any Rambus shareholders lately?
It's only doing "fine" because Intel is forcing it onto the market - if you've wanted a P4 up to now you've HAD to buy Rambus. I don't see AMD, VIA, SiS or ALi marketing chipsets supporting Rambus - they may have licenses, but I don't see them using it. Like Craig Barrett just recently said, "the consumer will decide" the fate of Rambus. Interesting words from the president of Intel. We'll also see how Rambus does when it's exclusivity deal with Intel is over - for that matter, we'll see real soon how well RDRAM sells when SDR/DDR P4s are available with Intel's blessing. I expect we'll see the i820 vs. i815 story all over again.
Northwood is gonna support it and ThII-7 supports Northwood and also Yellowstone
I don't see how Northwood is going to have specific Yellowstone support, especially considering that the SDR/DDR i845 also supports Northwood. It seems the issue is whether the chipset supports it. For that matter, technically Northwood will also support PC100, PC133, PC150, PC166, PC1600, PC2100, PC2400 and PC2700 DRAM.
As for the TH7-II/i850 supporting it - well that's an interesting postulation. Right now, the one confirmed fact from Rambus is that Samsung will start volume introduction of PC1066 RDRAM in 2002. If you look back at the PDF I pointed out earlier, you'll see the specs for PC1066 RDRAM are listed. With a 16-bit data path bandwidth is 2.1GB/sec; on an Intel dual channel platform that's 4.2GB/sec - about a 30% increase. Not a huge deal considering they haven't dealt with latency with PC1066 either. I'll assume that Yellowstone isn't PC1066 for the moment, although their timetables are curiously similar and that would make Yellowstone no BFD. If Yellowstone isn't PC1066, then I'd be REAL surprised to see that Yellowstone sticks with a 16-bit datapath, particularly since Rambus is aggressively pushing 32-bit and 64-bit data paths. If Yellowstone doesn't have a 16-bit data path, I'd like to know how the existing i850 will support a 32-bit datapath considering the i850's pinout. For that matter, the TH7-II's current RIMM sockets don't even support 32-bit RIMMs. You can check the TH7-II's sockets over at FiringSquad yourself.
If Yellowstone is PC1066, then you're not talking about Northwood, you're talking about Tulloch, the Intel chipset with official PC1066 support due out Q2 or so next year.
SIS 645 is still planned for 4Q so is Yellowstone
The 645 is sampling, not "planned" this month and in mass production next month. That's Q3 not Q4. SiS 645 boards may not actually be on the street until the beginning of Q4, but SiS will be spitting 645 chipsets out of its own fabs in Q3 while Yellowstone's only visible implementation will be in PowerPoint. If you don't think this is possible, look at the time between when SiS started production of the SiS 735 and when the ECS 735 boards showed up on the street.
one word:
latency
Yellowstone will proberly fix this issue.
Really? I find it kind of curious that in Rambus' RIMM Module Roadmap to 9.6GB/s Modules presentation, that in 36 pages of slides they never ONCE mention the words "latency" or "latencies." 32-bit and 64-bit datapaths, yes. Gobs of bandwidth, yes. Latency, no. From their current implementation, they obviously don't know what it is. But hey, latency is irrelevant when you've got 9.6GB/sec of bandwidth, right?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter