Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Petz who wrote (73377)	9/28/1999 4:02:00 PM
From: Charles R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580130

Thread, Looks like Compaq is being particularly friendly o Intel: biz.yahoo.com Wonder how long Compaq plans to be dependent on Intel for server chips. Chuck

To: Petz who wrote (73377)	9/28/1999 4:55:00 PM
From: Goutam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580130

Petz, I'm surprised to learn that the original spec for the 820 was for four memory slots - from The Register - Posted 28/09/99 12:05pm by Pete Sherriff Cam in no 820, your time is up Oh dear, it's almost enough to make you feel sorry for poor old Chipzilla. Betting the farm on the whizz-bang i820 chipset and Rambus is starting to look like being a really bad move for the Great Satan of Chips. The inability of the 820 to run correctly on mobos with three memory slots is embarrassing enough, but those with longer memories will recall that back in April The Register ran the very first 'What the Hell is...' feature, explaining what Camino was all about. Even then, Camino was late. The original spec for the 820 mentions not three, but four memory slots, so it looks very much as if Intel discovered a problem with four slot configurations months ago and quietly cut back the spec to just three, hoping the problem would go away. Now Chipsetzilla is whimpering on about a measly two memory slots -- and that just isn't enough for the high-end systems the 820 was supposed to support. There are a number of fundamental differences between the way Camino works (or rather, doesn't work) and conventional chipsets like the trusty BX440, which could explain where the problems lie. Camino is based on a hub architecture with a Memory Controller Hub (MCH) at its heart. The MCH in turn talks to the CPU through the host bus (at 133MHz), the graphics subsystem through the AGP bus (AGP 4X) and the memory through Rambus. Everything else is handled by the I/O Controller Hub (ICH) which has a direct link to the MCH. Unlike regular memory, you need to fit continuity modules in empty memory slots because Rambus daisy chains its memory a bit like SCSI devices. This was supposed to mean that clocking the memory was simpler and was also electrically superior, offering active power management of individual memory modules. Electrically superior it may be, but if it doesn't work reliably, it's totally useless. *It looks as if Intel was overreaching itself by trying to introduce so many new techniques simultaneously.* © --------------- Regards, Goutama