Intel to purposely to turn off Performance Accelerating Technology in cheaper chips

[SOS]

News Article (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/chipsets/display/20030724102437.html)

This is why there should be more major processor chip manufactures.


i865PE Waves PAT Goodbye...

No One Will Cheat Intel, Understood?
by Anton Shilov
07/24/2003 | 10:26 AM

Sources among mainboard manufacturers said today that Intel will be replacing the existing revision of the i865P and i865PE chipsets with a new one that will not allow turning on the Performance Accelerating Technology, a very proprietary feature of Intel Canterwood also known as i875P core-logic.

Earlier this year almost all mainboard makers positioning their products for the retail market and hardware enthusiasts started to switch on Intel’s PAT on i865P and i865PE-based mainboards, causing sales of i875P chipsets to slump. In order to rebound sales of the higher-end desktop chipset, Intel plans to introduce a special revision of Springdale core-logic with hardware modification that does not allow setting the more aggressive transactions between memory and core-logic, the conception of Intel’s Performance Accelerating Technology.

Just after the new revision of Springdale makes it to the market, sales of the i875P will go upwards rapidly, Intel seems to believe

[RandomNY]

They are changing the chipset and not the CPU's. There are other chipset companies.. SIS, and VIA are the 2 biggest. Nvidia hasn't made a new Nforce yet. Plus there are ways to Overclock without just changing 1 setting like a pussy. OVERCLOCK like real men and use trial and error to gain the best performance possible.

[bluecell]

I bet the 9xx PowerPCs sound really good right about now, eh? ;)

[RandomNY]

Originally posted by bluecell
I bet the 9xx PowerPCs sound really good right about now, eh? ;)

Only if APPLE will allow ABIT and ASUS to make the motherboards and allow Enthusiats to overclock and tweak their own systems.

[bluecell]

Originally posted by RandomNY
Only if APPLE will allow ABIT and ASUS to make the motherboards and allow Enthusiats to overclock and tweak their own systems. That would actually be up to IBM, not Apple. IBM desings and manufactures the chips to Apple's specifications, but you can still get them to run on Linux, should you decide not to go with MacOS X (God forbid). Other vendors, such as Sun and SGI, will probably take advantage of these processors. I'm very impressed with the newly optimized GCC 3.3 compiler for 64-bit PowerPCs.

[RandomNY]

Originally posted by bluecell
That would actually be up to IBM, not Apple. IBM desings and manufactures the chips to Apple's specifications, but you can still get them to run on Linux, should you decide not to go with MacOS X (God forbid). Other vendors, such as Sun and SGI, will probably take advantage of these processors. I'm very impressed with the newly optimized GCC 3.3 compiler for 64-bit PowerPCs.


Well I won't be buying a CGI workstation anytime soon. I don't have that type of cash.


But it's too APPLE's SPECS so it's up to APPLE if the CPU's can be tweaked, along with the chipsets.

[bluecell]

Originally posted by RandomNY
Well I won't be buying a CGI workstation anytime soon. I don't have that type of cash.


But it's too APPLE's SPECS so it's up to APPLE if the CPU's can be tweaked, along with the chipsets. That's not totally the case. IBM bases its PowerPC design on their extremely high-end Power server chips. I recommend checking out IBM Semiconductor's PowerPC 970 page (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/A1387A29AC1C2AE087256C5200611780). You can view its documentation in PDF format here (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/A1387A29AC1C2AE087256C5200611780/$file/PPC970_MPF2002.pdf). Although, it's not entirely updated with the current specs. The PowerPCs are built with Unix-based operating systems in mind. IBM's using it for their new servers, and both Sun and SGI have taken an interest in PowerPC as an alternative to x86. Even going against their own RISC-based options. It's not just Apple.

[RandomNY]

In the end it's APPLE's decision to use the IBM chips since they make the OS. If the chips aren't up to snuff then APPLE won't use them.


Again this goes to only APPLE selling APPLE computers.

[bluecell]

Okay, now I'm completely lost. That's alright, though.

[RandomNY]

Originally posted by bluecell
Okay, now I'm completely lost. That's alright, though.

Use WINXP you won't be lost.. Of course it will crash every so often but hey. :)


The main thing about the GAME performance that INTEL is shutting off, it's just a way to overclock without having to use any trial and error. No need to set voltages or fsb speed.

ASUS and ABIT were using it as a selling point and intel didn't like that BIOS tweak.


So this thread kind spun out of control and went into a ditch.

[bluecell]

Originally posted by RandomNY

So this thread kind spun out of control and went into a ditch. I take full responsibility. Sorry. :)

[RandomNY]

Originally posted by bluecell
I take full responsibility. Sorry. :)


Acutally it's both of our faults. SOS never came back.. I think he read that article wrong..

[bluecell]

AMD, from what's been going around, is having some serious trouble. Intel is likely to find itself the only x86 contender.

[Sinn Fein]

I embraced AMD chips with open arms, but after having two bad Athlon XP's in a row, I am finished.

[RandomNY]

Originally posted by bluecell
AMD, from what's been going around, is having some serious trouble. Intel is likely to find itself the only x86 contender.

That is sad unfortunatly AMD kinda sold it's soul for market share the last couple of years by making CPU's that were absoulutly DIRT CHEAP and gave similar performance to the INTEL chips.

They tried with the BARTON core to make some money, I'm guessing not many people are going to buy a $400 Barton XP chip that doesn't have hyperthreading(which is one feature I love) like the P4 and runs extremely hot.

AMD makes chips for many items so at the worst they will sell off their CPU's production factories. Another problem was that VIA took forever to come out with new chipsets and NVIDIA hasn't made a new NFORCE chipset, while INTEL came out with the I865 and I875 chipsets, plus with the new P4's they are hitting the enthusit market hard again.

They basically were selling 3.0 GIG CPU's in the 2.4GIG boxes. I run mine at 3.2GIG with no extra cooling, once I fix my watercooling case I should be able to hit 3.6GIG with a CPU I bought for $150 bucks 2 months ago.

[RandomNY]

Originally posted by Sinn Fein
I embraced AMD chips with open arms, but after having two bad Athlon XP's in a row, I am finished.


They were bad out of the box? That is unfortunate. I have had 4 differnet AMD chips the only bad one I had, I fried so it was my own fault. :)

[Sinn Fein]

I had one that was a new defective and one that ran for 3 days and then died.

[bluecell]

AMD used to be my favorite x86 maker, but Intel won me over with their HyperThreading performance. Making chips go from 32- to 64-bits isn't innovative enough. Especially when you talk about that particular architecture.

I still have quite a few AMD boxes here and I haven't had a problem with them at all.

[RandomNY]

I love hyperthreading, no need to buy a $300 TYAN dual CPU board if you want dual CPU performance. Now only if ID software would get QUAKE4 and DOOM III out they are supposed to support hyperthreading.

Plus for home desktop use 64-bit is not needing. Although AMD released graphs that show better performance, but again it was an AMD test graph.

[bluecell]

64-bit addressing makes a huge difference when it comes to analysis, multimedia applications and games. You don't need to go further than 32-bits if you're just doing word processing.

[RandomNY]

Originally posted by bluecell
64-bit addressing makes a huge difference when it comes to analysis, multimedia applications and games. You don't need to go further than 32-bits if you're just doing word processing.

Hell if you are doing word processing you don't need to get faster than a 200 mhz Pentium I. :)