SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Buckwheat who wrote (27463)12/31/1997 10:34:00 PM
From: Time Traveler  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1579680
 
Buckwheat,

"what were the "obvious technical short comings" of socket 8 that compelled Intel to develope the superior slot 1 design?"

Cost.



To: Buckwheat who wrote (27463)12/31/1997 10:38:00 PM
From: Elmer  Respond to of 1579680
 
<John,,, while we're discussing the "obvious technical short comings" of socket 7.... what were the "obvious technical short comings" of socket 8 that compelled Intel to develope the superior slot 1 design?>

I'm not John but I hope you won't mind my answering this.

Socket8 and Slot1 are identical electrically to the system, so I think the fact that Slot1 allowed the L2 cache to be off package yet still close by electrically to the processor was a big factor. Add the increased heat disapation properites and I think that covers it.

EP



To: Buckwheat who wrote (27463)1/1/1998 12:21:00 AM
From: Paul Engel  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1579680
 
Buckwheat - Re: "what were the "obvious technical short comings" of socket 8 that compelled Intel to develope the superior slot 1 design?"

Allow me>

The Socket 8 is actually an excellent interface - GTL+ electrical interface, on board full speed L2 cache.

It is VERY EXPENSIVE, however - and that is why Intel switched to a Slot 1 interface. It allows the use of standard, lower cost, slower L2 cache (one half the CPU speed) with some trade off in performance.

The Socket 8 and Slot 1 have essentially identical transaction-based I/O specs.

Paul