Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by WilHarris, 25 Sep 2006.
Any idea what GPU was being used? Mika mentioned an nvidia chipset, I'm guessing quad SLI?
This aint fair, i was planning a Intel Based Mod, but i wont be starting for a few months. Bit-tech, tell intel to put this mod plan back a few months so i can start on mine
It's only for the design by the looks of it, so you don't need to have a working model as such.
wait, the million-dollar case has to be small? dam that puts me out.
Any links to an official page on the intel site or something, about the case design contest?
Unfortunatly the competition isnt open to individuals
Damn. Makes sense though, as very few of us are going to have the contacts or knowledge to get this thing mass produced.
I suppose not, though i wonder if i could get away with saying i'm an oem because ive build computers for other people?
thanks for the link.
Plus the money is for "co-marketing" and "hard tooling" only. Under those rules... meh
Re: "Robson, the technology that will bring flash memory storage onto your motherboard."
I understand that flash ram has a limit to how many times it can be flashed. I know that this limit it quite high. What I want to know is, how long this will last for the average user when used this way. (I'd hate to use it heavily only to have it die in two or three years)
On the other hand, even today I think a gigabyte of Flash RAM costs around $15-20 (I believe they've said that Vista is optimized for 1GB of this technology). As long as they were smart about how the Flash integrated with the motherboard (ie: some sort of standard card, and not some sort of chip that is both proprietary and varies from motherboard to motherboard), then replacing the flash every 2-3 years wouldn't be too much of a burden. In 2 or 3 years, a gigabyte will probably run you $2-3...and by then, with OS Service packs and what not, you might be wanting to upgrade to 2GB anyway.
This may be a dumb idea/question, as I don't understand the way a processor works as well as many others in the bit-tech forums, but:
In a regular Core2duo, are the two cores able to communicate directly with each other?
If they are, then I wonder if there is a way with Kentsfield to send threads that may want to share data/communicate with each other to a pair of cores that CAN communicate directly? For example, if I'm running some code that can only really run on 2 cores, then would that be confined to one of the core2duo's inside the kentsfield....or could it presumably send one thread to each of the core2duo cores and result in a slowdown? Would this be a matter of the OS knowing the difference between the 4 cores in the processor, or would it be some logic embedded within the Kentsfield package?
true but the socket etc will add cost and probably won't be on many budget boards - who'll notice before the waranty is up? I like the idea and am hoping for a socket too.
Core 2 Duo / Conroe has a shared L2 cache with a bus arbitration unit that allows the two cores to communicate with each other via the high speed L2 cache.
With Preslersaurus (dual core via two Cedar Mill dies on one package), the cores communicated via the front side bus, meaning that there were situations where the front side bus was saturated. Kentsfield works in a similar way, in that there are two CPU dies on one package and they communicate via the northbridge/front side bus. However, unlike Presler, each of the dies has two cores.
I am assuming that if you are running code that is optimised for two cores, it will run on one half of a Kentsfield CPU (i.e. one of the two Conroe dies). If you are communicating between the two Conroe dies, you will need to go via the front side bus. However, with the introduction of Advanced Smart Cache and Smart Memory Access technologies, Intel managed to make memory access and cache management more efficient on a dual core chip. This means that there is less traffic traveling across the front side bus and leaves more room for the two pairs of cores to talk to eachother.
From my understanding, there are going to be very few applications where the front side bus is going to be saturated in the same way that it was with the Preslersaurus.
Ive always thought that having a gfx card in the form of a gpu socket (like cpu's) would be acool idea. Then you would only have to buy gpu's to upgrade.
Thanks for the answer Tim S
I'm still wondering how the RAM will work for the extra socket in either Intel's or AMD's ideas...as graphics ram is much faster than system ram (and just about the same magnitude in many systems). Will the extra socket have it's own RAM slots that'll take GDDR3 (or 4) somehow? Or is the more direct connection with the CPU going to pull in enough slack that the faster RAM isn't even necessary?
Lets hope the winner for the case design contest has somin better than BTX
So... could a home made system be entered into the contest?
EDIT: NM, I now see we cant...
So Intel is looking for a media pc thats stylish, small and able to work with any room of the house?
If the Wii can play videos over the network, we have our solution.
Separate names with a comma.