Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Tualatin Processors and Motherboard Support?

Posted by Cliff on from the is-intel-hiding-something dept.

IntelIntrique asks: "I became intrigued when I learned about the new P3 Tualatin processors with a 512K cache, but was disappointed to learn that they require specific new motherboards to support the chips (Intel claims voltage changes). However, HotHardware features a review where they use one of these new processors in an Intel D815EEA2 motherboard, one that Intel shows as not supporting the new processor. What gives?"

"I have an D815EEA2, and I'd love to grab one of these new processors, but not if it means buying a new motherboard. Is Intel trying to prevent existing motherboard owners from cashing in on this new super chip? Are there any other slashdotters who have tried these new P3's in older motherboards with success? I'm mainly concerned with people using the processors in Intel boards, since it seems as though Intel would be in a unique position to know what types of new chips might be around the corner, and build unofficial support into early board revs."

68 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. this caught my attention this morning by Loudergood · · Score: 3, Interesting

    seems there are slot1 adapters for BX boards in developement here Http://www.powerleap.com/Products/iP3T.htm

  2. continued... by AA0 · · Score: 1, Troll

    accidently hit submit.

    Intel makes the p4 and charge 5x for the same performing Athlon. The P3s were reasonably priced, but intel had competition then. Now that the p4 is out, there is no Mhz competition so they jack the prices up.

    AMD boards have previously been able to take a die shrink (The k6s went from .26 to .18 (mobile)), and didn't require a new board. I'm using one right now.
    There is no real reason why intel couldn't have made the chip so it works with the old boards.

    If the new P3s would have worked... it would have had the same performance of a 1.7 p4, and that would hurt P4 sales... intel doesn't want that. They are doing everything to make the P4 look like a great chip.

    They are ripping you off, plain and simple.

    1. Re:continued... by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, it's called a marketing mistake. They should have been truthful in advertising, and then they could have been raking in the dough on the new P3, but now they have to cripple it to save face. It's not capatilism, It's stupidity.

      It's especially unfortunate, bucause it'll be a long time if ever before we see another processor that is both as fast as the new P3, and uses only .5 watts. The good thing is that they're playing it right in the corporate/embedded space where they know they can't pull the wool over people's eyes. Intel would have been in serious trouble if they had actually canned the P3 completely. They would have lost alot of business to IBM and Motorola and been left with only the rapidly declining consumer market.

    2. Re:continued... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You're absolutely right that most corporate buyers are happy with the P3 and would/will stay there for as long as possible. Fast enough, battle-tested, and cheap.

      Intel's looking a couple years out tho. Right now, the P4 is not compelling (to corporate buyers or gamer/homebrew types), but when it hits 4Ghz, it certainly might be. However, for Intel to get yields at those speeds, they need to have their P4 production lines up and running. Can't do that if they are dinking around making last decade's P6 chips for conservative customers.

      Besides, sales are way down right now. Something's gotta go. Cram the P4 down the market's throat to keep it alive, and when the market picks up again, it might be fast enough to encourage a tidal wave of upgrades.

      Another thing to consider is that motherboard compatibility for CPU upgrades only matters to .01% of the buyers, and all of those people are currently firmly AMD. Therefore, changing the MB specs is not a consipracy.

    3. Re:continued... by ivan256 · · Score: 2

      I agree about the motherboard specs. I never would have believed a conspiracy. If the chip has a lower core voltage then it is quite possible and even likely that the board manufacturers didn't build the board to provide the new lower voltage, even if the bridge chip supports it.

      I don't think that Intel is evil, I just think that their marketing department has made some mistakes lately.

    4. Re:continued... by AA0 · · Score: 1

      Intel has a massive hold on the market, especially the market of ignorant computer people. It is extremely easy to charge those prices with the monopoly they have and bring in lots of money. Much like MS.

  3. Of course...... by forsaken33 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmm, follows the normal Intel marketing trend. Make new processor, make it use a proprietery motherboard, and clean up on the profits after making everyone else believe that its the fastest thing out there. BUT, won't this backfire? Intel seems to be pushing the "Megahertz Myth" pretty hard. To the average consumer, Pentium 3 1.2 gigahertz is not as good as that pretty new Pentium 4 2 gigahertz processor. We shall see......

    --
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe =UTF-8&q=. amusing....
  4. Tualatin Processors by questionlp · · Score: 5, Informative

    Intel has several different versions of the Tualatin, the 256K cache version for the desktop, and the 512K cache versions, one for the mobile segment and one for the lower-end workstation/server market. The Tualatin processors require a different stepping in the 810 and the 815 chipsets to support the new voltages as well as a new revision of 1.25V GTL versus 1.5V GTL+ used in the original Pentium III processors, which aren't compatible. More information about this can be found in the Pentium III-S Datashet here.

    As far as motherboard compatibility, I think Intel didn't want the 512K version of the Tualatin (aka the Pentium III-S) to flow through the retail/desktop channels because in a lot of cases, it performed better than their lower end Pentium 4 processor line. That's also the reason why Intel has slowed/stopped production of Pentium 4 processors below 1.6Ghz and will halt production of the desktop version of the Tualatin and shift the current desktop Tualatin into the Tualatin-based Celeron (but without data pre-fetch and only at 100Mhz FSB). More information can be found at the regular sites: Anandtech, Aces Hardware, Tom's Hardware.

    1. Re:Tualatin Processors by questionlp · · Score: 1

      Oops... 1s/datashet/datasheet/

      Also, I wanted to clarify that Intel will continue to produce the 256K version of the Tualatin Pentium III, but it will be re-labeled as a Celeron (I don't know if they are going to call it the Celeron III or the Celeron-T or what) and stop orders for the 256K desktop Tualatin either by end of this month or end of this year.

    2. Re:Tualatin Processors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry for posting as an AC, but I don't want any Intel lawyers knocking on my door for this...

      This post is right on the money - The reasons that Tualatin is not backwards compatible are for the voltage levels. There is also a differential clock compared to the Coppermine's single-ended clocking.

      One more thing - there are some pins that are used on the Tualatin that are not used on the Coppermine. I believe that these pins were originally designated as No-Connect (NC) in the Coppermine. However, some board manufacturers pull them up to VCC or down to ground. That means that the chip could end up getting cooked if you tried it in a non-Tualatin motherboard.

      Its really amusing to see how everybody can create such a conspiracy out of this. It's for engineering reasons, not some crazy marketing strategy that the Big Evil Company has cleverly crafted in a huge dark board room.

      In closing - buy Tualatins. They are really solid processors that offer good preformance.

    3. Re:Tualatin Processors by questionlp · · Score: 1

      Thanks... I forgot about the different pin assignments on the Tualatin versus the Coppermine Pentium III processors.

      I'm personally thinking of going either dual Tualatin (512K version... so long as I find a decent motherboard that supports two of those and doesn't have a Via chipset) or a dual Athlon with the Tyan Tiger MP motherboard. I highly doubt that for what I do that I would need SSE2 or the high memory bandwidth that the Pentium 4 or the Pentium [4] Xeon would have.

  5. Interestingly... by metlin · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    There is this site that teaches you to build SMP Linux workstations using Slot 1 BX motherboards at http://www.linuxenvy.com/gened/projects/smplinux.h tml. Pretty neat.

    1. Re:Interestingly... by Thatman311 · · Score: 1

      Did you know that running dual-celerons is slower than running just one celeron if you get into an app that uses SMP? That is because the celeron was never designed to work in a SMP world and it also doesn't have the quanity of L2 cache needed to prevent it from having to refresh its L2 all of the time. Plus I have used that board. Doesn't do PM for shit.

      --
      Silly Rabbit...Sig's are for kids.
  6. tell me about it... by RelliK · · Score: 2

    I am the "happy" owner of the Asus TX97e board with Intel's TX chipset. Intel intentionally crippled the chipset so that it caches only 64MB of RAM. If you have more than that, the performance goes down the toilet. After I upgraded my machine to 256MB RAM, Norton System Information benchmark went from 110 to 70 (AMD K6-2/300). It's not a scientific benchmark but still quite telling. Thank you Intel!

    And don't even get me started on what they tried (and are still trying) to pull off with Rambust...

    --
    ___
    If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    1. Re:tell me about it... by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1

      This was a long time ago, but I heard that if you run Linux, this isn't as bad. This is because of how Linux uses memory vs Windows: Windows starts allocating memory for programs at the "top" (uncached) end, whereas Linux starts at the "bottom" (cached) portion of memory.

      I'm in a similar situation, and the way I look at it is this: it may be uncached RAM, but it's still faster than my hard drive, which is what I would be using if I were running as many programs as I am able to now.

      Still, I'm kicking myself for not getting an HX chipset board, way back when. Oh well.

    2. Re:tell me about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's actually a very common problem with older boards. Don't forget that those things shipped with maybe 4MB of RAM in a day when filling it up with 64MB would have cost thousands of dollars. Even memory pig OSes like OS/2 or WinNT really didn't need more than 32MB in those days. Besides, Intel was making Pentium Pro systems for the higher end workstation customers (insert consipiracy theory if you'd like).

    3. Re:tell me about it... by RelliK · · Score: 2
      Actually most computers at the time came with 32MB of RAM. That's only one upgrade away from max.

      Besides, Intel was making Pentium Pro systems for the higher end workstation customers (insert consipiracy theory if you'd like).

      That's exactly why Intel crippled the TX chipset. The (earlier) HX chipset does not suffer from this problem.

      --
      ___
      If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    4. Re:tell me about it... by ameoba · · Score: 2

      And then they sold the PPro owners down the river when they put MMX on the p5, and then moved the P2 over to a slot. No upgrade path was available until recently, when some inovative company released a s370->s8 adaptor, allowing you to place a modern Celeron (oh-boy!) into your old PPro boards.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    5. Re:tell me about it... by ksheff · · Score: 2

      Nope. I've run linux on a board where the top end of the memory was uncached and it runs like a dog. This is mentioned in linux/Documentation/memory.txt. The 2.4.x kernels have the slram driver that will limit the kernel to only use the cached ram for normal purposes and treat the uncached ram as a block device. It's in the MTD section. This will allow you to use it as swap or as a ram disk. Patches exist for the 2.2.x kernels, but it appears that the web pages for them have disappeared.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  7. Pinouts and timing different by dogbot · · Score: 1

    Supposed to be that 10 pins are used differently, and some external timing is different.

    Based on this using it in older motherboard should never work. If it does, that is very odd.

    1. Re:Pinouts and timing different by Alien54 · · Score: 2
      Supposed to be that 10 pins are used differently, and some external timing is different.

      Depends a bit, I suppose if those features are even implemented on the mother board. They may be unused on some boards, so in which case, you might just get away with it.

      After that I'd need the spec sheets with pin outs, etc for both processors. Not that I have the time to pick it apart.

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  8. Why a not the P5 Tualatin? by deth_007 · · Score: 3, Troll

    Probably much more interesting is that the tualatin core has shown a lot more promise than current P4s. This review (http://www4.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q3/010919/inde x.html) over at Toms shows how a measly 1.2 tualatin holds it's own with the P4.. and overclocked to 1.5 it can be see that it has much more potential than the P4, even with the P4 running on rambus and the P3 on SDRAM! At the end of that review Tom mentions how the tualatin core is capable of 'much higher clock speeds', but it seems Intel is keeping them down because they don't want it to compete with it's 'Big Brother', however underachieving he is.

    Personally I have ordered myself a Tualatin 1.2, I choose it over the P4 offerings.

    1. Re:Why a not the P5 Tualatin? by bigbadwlf · · Score: 1

      The Tualatin does perform very well right now, but it doesn't have much of a future.
      It still uses the aging FPU of the PIII. It will likely never be capable of reaching clock speeds as high as the P4.
      Tualatin may hold its own against the current P4, but soon the P4 will also get a die shrink. Once the P4 reaches a high enough clock speed it *should* stop suffering from its own long pipeline.
      I actually don't like the current P4, but I think it's a bit too early to write its epitaph.

      Tualatin is a great chip, but it wouldn't make sense to call it P5.

    2. Re:Why a not the P5 Tualatin? by frantzen · · Score: 1

      Because the P4 architecture has hooks for SMT (Simultaneous Multi Threading) or what the Intel loons call Hyperthreading. Instead of exploiting ILP, it will support multiple thread contexts executing simultaneously. The proc can perform a thread switch when one thread stalls waiting for a TLB or cache spill, maybe even a bad branch mispredict and allow the cleanup to take multiple cycles. At that point, I'm sure you'll whine bitch and moan because it will not be clocked as high but will still be doing more work. Reading Tom's Hardware does not a guru make. I sure as hell am not one.

      No idea how/if they will push SMT into IA64. Predication, prefetching and speculative store/restoring register windows should mitigate more pipeline stalls. But only time (or a fat red cover NDA) will tell.

    3. Re:Why a not the P5 Tualatin? by deth_007 · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstood my post. What I am asking is; why did Intel even come out with the Tualatin?

      It really doesn't make sense from any point of view I can think of. What I think would have made more sense would have been for Intel to realize that they've got something good here with the tualatin (the benchmarks are impressive!) and took that ball and ran with it.

      I don't claim to be a chip engineer, but from what I see in empirical analysis the tualatin is doing something right. Imagine if they would have paired it with rambus, or something equally as performance oriented. That would have been some chip! Instead, they've released it under the P4 and kept the clock speeds under the P4 and the prices above the P4.. why they would do such a thing is purely up to speculation, but it would seem that they don't want this new 'wonder child' to compete with their 'star player', the P4, even though it seems to have that ability.

    4. Re:Why a not the P5 Tualatin? by deth_007 · · Score: 1

      I don't claim to be a guru. I do, however, claim to be a consumer, and I've been one for some time now. From what I've seen, it looks like Intel purposefully kept the Tualatin down so as to not generate internal competition for the P4. I could compare it to a car manufacturer.. say they have a 5.0 liter motor that makes 500 horsepower, wow you say, that's some motor. Then then come out with a 3.0 liter motor that makes 400 horsepower, except they charge you more for it and they only put it in their lower end vehicles. Why do that? Obviously the 3.0 liter was doing something right... why not continue on that line of research and come up with something truly great, instead of worrying about how it's going to look next to the 5.0 liter! (Ignore gas mileage, et al... it's an example, not a parallel),

      So, from a consumer point of view, using the only tools I have at my disposal, and my own sense of reason, it appears to me that this is what Intel is doing with the Tualatin. It's as though it could be great, but will never be so, because of a marketing decision. Perhaps, that was also the reason for requiring a new motherboard. I don't know, this is all conjecture.

    5. Re:Why a not the P5 Tualatin? by polarkittycat · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Tualatin is a 0.13um process version of the P3. It does out perform the p4 at the same clock speed. However, you have to keep in mind that the P4 can run at much higher clock speeds. The 0.18um version of the P4 easily hits speeds well above 2 ghz. (some over clocking number show 2.6Ghz). When the P4 goes to a 0.13um process it will be able to go even higher, as Intel has shown one at 3.5Ghz. The PIII at 0.13um will not be able to scale nearly that high, and thus won't be as fast.

      Basicly, what Intel proved is something we already knew, if you shrink the die (within reason) you can ramp up the clockspeed to previously unreachable speeds. Remember there first attempt at the PIII 1.13 Ghz?:)

    6. Re:Why a not the P5 Tualatin? by bigbadwlf · · Score: 1

      I wish they would take the ball and run with it.
      What I'd love to see is the Tualatin scaled past 1.2GHz and drop the low end P4's (without them gouging us for Tualatin - Ha ha).
      Is that what you have in mind?

      I'd also like to see Intel stop dragging their feet with DDR support.

    7. Re:Why a not the P5 Tualatin? by blair1q · · Score: 2

      Cameras are a fairly good market, but not the only market.

      I'm not really sure what USB2 is supposed to do, other than external HD's, but that just means I don't know which peripheral industry to invest in to take advantage of it.

      Other than that, there's nothing wrong with new stuff.

      --Blair

  9. Thanx For the Link, But... by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 1

    From the refferenced page:

    Date last revised: 31 March 1999

    And they only talk about the 2.2.x kernels. Kinda old, man. There's been a lot of work done with the 2.4.x breeds (most back-ported to 2.2.x) that make SMP a God Send (TM).

    Also:

    AMD and Cyrix do not support SMP.

    Hmmm...

    --
    I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
    I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
  10. Legacy support from Tyan Tiger 100? by Malc · · Score: 2

    I have a Tyan Tiger 100 (rev. F) with 2 P2-450's. I'm planning to upgrade, but the fastest officially support chip is the P3-850 (100 MHz FSB). Does anybody know if I can us Tualatin processors with this board, perhaps with some kind of slotket? (Or, does anybody know if it's stable with the 100 MHz FSB P3-1GHz?) Any advice is really welcome... the processor upgrade will be the last uprade I do before getting a new motherboard, so obviously, I want to do the best I can.

    1. Re:Legacy support from Tyan Tiger 100? by questionlp · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you can install Tualatin processors with a Slotket into a BX board and have it run, but my guess is that someone probably has done it ;-)

      As far as the board's support for the 1Ghz PIII processor, you may need to flash the BIOS for it to support the higher multipliers (and maybe voltage?). If you haven't checked out Tyan's website, (www.tyan.com, I would check it out and see if they have any more information available about your motherboard and support for higher speed Pentium III processors.

    2. Re:Legacy support from Tyan Tiger 100? by Malc · · Score: 2

      "If you haven't checked out Tyan's website, (www.tyan.com [tyan.com], I would check it out and see if they have any more information available about your motherboard and support for higher speed Pentium III processors. "

      Thanks for the suggesting, but I've already been checking that from a few months. They've had a beta BIOS up there for some time, but no comment about whether it supports anything above 850MHz.

      Pre rev. F boards needed some re-soldering to make them work with the faster coppermine CPUs... if that's all takes for the ones faster than 850MHz with my board... maybe I'll get adventurous.

    3. Re:Legacy support from Tyan Tiger 100? by Graymalkin · · Score: 2

      I have an old iWill dual board (DBD-100) and it supports at max an 8.5x multiplier like yours. However the iWill will clock the memory anywhere from 66MHz to 133MHz would would give me a theoretical 1100MHz chip. I've got two P3 Katmais in it right now but I'm thinking of upgrading to dual 100FBS Celerons on Slocket adapters. You should delve into the BIOS or jumpers, the iWill has soft jumpers so everything's set in the BIOS rather than physically, and see if you can get a 133MHz memory FSB. You could probably jam two Tualatin or Coppermines on the board if you wanted.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
    4. Re:Legacy support from Tyan Tiger 100? by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 2

      The old BX chipset doesn't handle the 133 MHz frontside bus that the Tualatin would require, and unlike the issue the guy posting this story described (Intel possibly not being entirely truthful about old 133 FSB mobo's supporting Tualatin), your situation is pretty much sealed. IMHO, I'd grab two 850's, they're cheaper than Tualatin's (which go for over $200, while two P3 850's shouldn't set you back more than $120-130 a piece), and it's a full 400 MHz faster than what you use right now. Short of that, you could just grab a new motherboard (you use a Tyan, you might find the Tyan S2507D motherboard to be right up your alley-- it sports dual Socket 370 slots, uses the latest Via chipset that supports Tualatins, and should be priced at around $100-150 (I haven't found any online yet at Pricewatch.com or Streetprices.com, so you might have to wait a few weeks)).

      I run a Tyan Tiger 133 (S1834D), and it's been stable since the day I got it (in case you're worried about issues with Via vs. Intel chipsets, since supposedly the BX was a rock solid mobo (and most attributed this to Intel's BX chipset, which is nice and all, but I think the real issue was that other mobo manufacturers didn't use Via's chipset correctly, or BIOS compatibility was weak). Hope this helps. =)

      --
      All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
    5. Re:Legacy support from Tyan Tiger 100? by shepd · · Score: 1

      >support the higher multipliers

      Aren't most all x86 compatible processors made since about '99 factory clock-locked?

      I thought that was what drove overclockers insane...

      I know it means that I have to run the PCI bus on my BX board at ungodly rates.

      If they are clock locked then you could set the multipler to 1x for all the processor cares. :-)

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    6. Re:Legacy support from Tyan Tiger 100? by questionlp · · Score: 1

      It's up to the BIOS to support the higher multipliers that Intel use on the 850+ Mhz processors. The processors have their multipliers locked, but for the BIOS to actually be able to run a 1Ghz Pentium III processor (which has a multiplier of 10.0 with a 100Mhz FSB), it needs to support the multiplier of 10.0, rather than 8.5.

    7. Re:Legacy support from Tyan Tiger 100? by Thatman311 · · Score: 1

      Why not just spend $180 bucks and get a single proc Athlon 1.4 with a SiS 735 chipset? It will be cheaper and faster than what you want to do.

      --
      Silly Rabbit...Sig's are for kids.
    8. Re:Legacy support from Tyan Tiger 100? by shepd · · Score: 1

      But wouldn't the BIOS only show the wrong speed?

      I know I've set my processor for incorrect multipliers before (like 4.5 x 100) and while it shows 450 Mhz, all the CPU measuring programs suggest the CPU is running at 550 Mhz.

      Unless the BIOS crashes when it can't figure out the higher multipliers, should it really be a problem?

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  11. Look more closely at the review by shawni · · Score: 5, Informative

    It says that the chip they reviewed had only a 256K cache, and that 512K would come in future versions. Without 512K, the chip is compatible with current motherboards.

    1. Re:Look more closely at the review by deth_007 · · Score: 1

      This doesn't seem to be true. All the tualatins, regardless of cache size, need the new motherboards. The evidence is in pin AF36. This pin allows the chipset to recognize the processor. If AF36 has vss voltage, it is a PIII coppermine and the chipset will run the chip at 1.5v. Otherwise, without voltage on AF36 the chipset will see it as a tualatin and run it at 1.25v. As any overcloker will tell you, yes you can run a chip at a higher voltage than specified. It just doesn't do anything for processor life. So, while a tualatin may work (there are 9 other new pins to deal with) in a older motherboard, it will run at 1.5 volts.

  12. Blame via...heh. by tcc · · Score: 2

    Intel needs to sell more chipsets because via DARED to touch into their lucrative chipsets market.

    No but seriously, tell me you can design a 40 million transistor chip that runs in gigaherts, and not make a design for it to be compatible with current motherboards out there? Talk about bad will. I was hoping to upgrade my serverworks-based workstation with 2 of these monsters, well seems like I'll keep the 800mhz... See intel? your plan on selling chipsets for what, 25$ each, costed you the sell of 2 processors, of what, few hundred bucks each?... I'm sure I am not the only one who'll react like this or turned his head towards the TigerMP platform.

    --
    --- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
  13. Tualatin-Core Requires i815 B-stepping... by deaddeng · · Score: 2, Informative

    or the latest version of the comparable VIA Apollo Pro chipset. Search pricewatch for the terms "FCPGA2" or "tualatin". Such board include:

    Abit ST6/ST6-RA, Abit VH6-T Asus TUSL2, Soyo SY-TISU

    Some board makers have been using the i815-B but don't mention it in the board specs ; marketing hasn't caught up with production yet.

    BTW, the newest Celeron 1.2GHz uses the Tualatin core; no hardware prefetch and it uses a 100MHz FSB, but it can overclock to 1.5GHz with at most a minor voltage jump and standard cooling.

    --
    --- .085 as cool; proving that a little knowledge is dangerous
  14. may I ask why Intel? by AssFace · · Score: 1

    since 1995 I've been doing cryptography and also digital graphics (3D) and for a long time (well, in terms of technology it is long), Intel was king b/c they were better at floating point calc, and both of those were almost all reliant on that. But then the amd athlon came along and now it kicks ass in that area too.

    I haven't upgraded my current systems yet, and even the newest one is a dual PIII b/c at that time the athlons weren't able to do dual - but now they have the MP and great boards (see the articles about the tyan tigermp).
    So I don't understand why you would seek out the Intel...

    --

    There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
  15. Supporting != interoperating. by blair1q · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The part might work in the non-specified board, but if you take another of the same part and board, it might not.

    It's not "supported" because Intel didn't spend on the testing to ensure that it's supposed to work at levels that don't cost Intel a lot of returns.

    They changed the voltages on the part to get some other benefit (lower power, more speed, better yield, whatever), and couldn't guarantee the old boards would work, so they designed a new board.

    It's not that big a deal (unless you think it is) because people who pull their CPU and replace it are relatively few and far between.

    --Blair

    1. Re:Supporting != interoperating. by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2

      Yes, they usually work in shops that do it all day for customers.

      Believe it or not, there are a _lot_ of people who bring their PCs in for upgrades of various kinds, including CPUs and memory.

      One of the only preventative factors is that CPUs often do require new motherboards.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  16. Tualatin Chips by Phishfry · · Score: 1

    I just bought a Supermicro P3TDLE, a dual Tualatin board, with Serverworks chipset, so i have been researching the chips myself. It seems as if the clowns at intel have released two versions of Taulatin at 1200, one with 256K cache at 1200 (Cost $200) and a 1266 part with 512K cache(Cost $390+), which is also a dual processor chip, whereas the 256K cache Taulatins will not be dual processor capable. I also note they are using a Pentium III-S designator on some chips. What a bunch of idiots, just try and read the processor PDF files from thier own site!! It will give you a headache. I believe i will stick with my dual 850-FCPGA for a while, until the price settles on the 512K models.

  17. Tiny micro-ATX cases to go with that Tualatin? by Poisonous+Drool · · Score: 1

    I'm looking for a tiny case to go with a micro-atx motherboard for a Linux router project (Tualatin based ;). I'm looking for something on the order of 12H x 16D x 6W or smaller. I don't want a 1U case. Any recommendations?

    1. Re:Tiny micro-ATX cases to go with that Tualatin? by august_fly · · Score: 1

      Am doing something very similar but for the Tualatin, I have found only 2 micro-ATX boards (ECS P6IPMT Intel 815EP-Bstep and ECS P6S5MT SiS 630T) and no Flex-ATX boards. Find anything better?

      The cases I have compiled that are close to your specs are:

      - ElanVital MF-1:
      :122(W) x 27(H) x 240(D) mm
      - Yeong Yang YY-A101/2:
      : 5.3"W X 13.3"D X 12.9"H
      - Yeong Yang MiniNLX Low Profile YY-8201
      - Yeong Yang FlexATX BOX YY-9301
      - Deer Computer Company Flex ATX cases
      - Interland Information Systems INC FlexATX
      - Palo Alto Products PA-120 OEM 1/2
      :11.5" H x 5.2" W x 9.2" D

      Suppliers? Yeh, I haven't found much.

      cheers

    2. Re:Tiny micro-ATX cases to go with that Tualatin? by Poisonous+Drool · · Score: 1

      I don't really care about the Tualatin, it just needs to be fast; I want to filter HTML in real time. Since I want it to be small, fast won't add much to the price.

      Here are a few small cases I found google searching "micro atx cases". I haven't dealt with these companies. The first is still too large. The second is small but comes with a motherboard and CDROM (you add CPU, memory, and disk) for $255. The third also comes with a motherboard, etc. for $275.

      http://www.apextechusa.com/cases/atx1400_case.ht ml
      http://www.colorcases.com/store/index.html?catalog 10_0.html
      http://www.colorcases.com/store/index.html?catalog 10_0.html

      I'll keep looking or perhaps try changing the AT power supply in the tiny case I have to an ATX (and whatever other surgery is required).

  18. Intel's recent naming by Phroggy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's kinda neat to see Intel using familiar places in the Northwest as their product names. Willamette (which nobody knows how to pronounce - it's "wil-LAM-et", not "wil-la-MET"), Tualatin... what can we expect next? Multnomah? Clackamas? Columbia perhaps.

    For those of you not familiar with local geography, the Clackamas river flows into the Willamette river (a mile from my house), which flows north through downtown Portland into the Columbia, which of course flows into the Pacific. The Portland metropolitan area spans Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington counties. Multnomah Falls is the second highest year-round waterfall in the country. Most things in the Northwest have either Native American names (mmm, Tillamook cheese), or names that were brought from the east coast by Lewis & Clark, John McLaughlin and other settlers.

    Sorry for babbling off-topic. :-)

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    1. Re:Intel's recent naming by Technician · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are so right. It isn't just any landmarks that are used (counties, mountains etc.). The names are for the local rivers. Another naming that they use is for the campus names. They are named after the farm they used to be. When a farm gives way to technology and progress, Intel used the farm name so it lives on. This is how Jones Farm, Ronlar, Hawthorne Farm, Cornell Oaks, etc. got their names.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    2. Re:Intel's recent naming by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

      Well, if there were/was truth in advertising they'd be using names like Florida, Arizona, Death Valley...Hot, damn HOT.

      But by the same token, Tbirds would be named like Vesuvius, Mt. Saint Helens...Just as hot but shorter lived.

      Heh, didn't Tom's Hardware have the "If the heat sync falls off 'review'. Ouch.
      AMD makes damn good chips, as does Intel (tho the P4 fails to impress me at all) but AMD needs to look into baking chips. Then again they are cheap enuf as long as nothing else goes with it.

      Heat syncs, and die shrinks, and heat spreaders...oh MY!!

      IMO heat sync tech is going to hit a brick wall and procs as well, until the "tweakers" tech of waterblocks and supercooling will become commanplace.

      Moose.

      --
      Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
    3. Re:Intel's recent naming by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2

      I think names of famous rivers was used as code names for other projects, I forget where, maybe Scott Adams mentioned it.

      I seem to remember something of a complaint about a proposed "Volga" project.

      Or how about naming projects after mountains, there's always the Urals.

    4. Re:Intel's recent naming by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Let them pronounce "Puyallup". Heck, since most of the US can't pronounce Yakima or Spokane right...

      I don't remember how to pronounce Puyallup myself. Not someplace I hear about often; I don't know that I've even been there. I do remember seeing it not too long ago and realizing that I didn't know how to pronounce it.

      Care to enlighten us?

      (YAK-ih-mah, spo-KAN, for those that didn't know)

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  19. As seen on HardOCP.com - P3, Tuys in Slot1 by rosewood · · Score: 2, Informative

    HardOCP.com sez:
    There will be a few of you excited about this. Powerleap has put together an adapter that will allow you to stick a S370 Tualatin chip on your current Slot 1 mainboard. Looks as if some of you might have some server upgrade options that you did not before. w00t!!1
    The PL-iP3/T(TM) employs patented technologies to adapt Slot 1 systems to the voltage and signal requirements of the new generation of Intel's Pentium III (FC-PGA2) and Celeron-II (FC-PGA2) processors. With the PL-iP3/T(TM), a typical* P-III system can reach speeds up to 1.26 GHz with the latest Pentium III-S CPUs (133 MHz FSB required), and up to 1.2 GHz when used with the latest Celeron-II CPUs (100 MHz FSB required).

    --
    The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
  20. Probably a web site mistake. by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    From the story:

    "... HotHardware features a review where they use one of these new processors in an Intel D815EEA2 motherboard, one that Intel shows as not supporting the new processor. What gives?"

    If I understand the table correctly, it is probably just a case of not having updated their web site. Intel is notoriously sloppy about things like that.

    About a year ago I called and talked to an Intel employee about a huge mistake on their web site. He said it would be fixed immediately. Eight months later the error was still there. I called and talked to the same man again about the same error. He didn't realize I had called before. He told me again it would be fixed immediately. Again it was not fixed. This is just one example.

    Be careful with the D815EEA2 motherboard. If you remove a removeable drive, it may re-configure the BIOS, without any warning, and boot from the wrong drive.

    Be careful with the network adapter if it is built into the D815EEA2. It assumes that it is attached to a huge network. If it is attached to a peer-to-peer network, you may not be able to make it function. An Intel technical support person and I worked on this problem for more than an hour. The final answer was to buy a CNET network adapter for $12.00 and disable the network adapter on the motherboard.

    Also, if you are running a Raid 0 controller like the Promise Technology FastTrak 100, the D815EEA2 BIOS has a very weird configuration. It is not obvious how you get the motherboard to boot from the Raid controller, because the way you select it is hidden.


    What should be the Response to Violence?

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  21. NO via chipset support w/ that powerleap covertor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    BX is the key, unfortunatly it does not look like there will be any Via chipset support since Powerleap says it add a lot to the cost. Also note that they will only realease and make this when the market has a large supply of these chips.

  22. Not New Pins, changed ones by deth_007 · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I meant new pinouts, not 10 additional pins. Here's the skinny:

    New Pinouts

  23. who cares? by 2ms · · Score: 1

    Who cares when 1.4GHz Palominos are like $90, 2100DDR is like $35/256MB, and - if you haven't already gotten an Athlon mobo in last 1.5 years (compatible) - rock-solid DDR mobos are less than $100?

  24. The reason for the new Motherboards by deth_007 · · Score: 1

    Seeing as no one has mentioned this yet...

    The reason for the new motherboards is because the chipsets have to recognize a lack of voltage on pin AF36, so that they run the chip at 1.25v. Otherwise, they will run at 1.5v. That should answer all the questions.. yes the tualatins should run in older boards, however it will be at a higher voltage than specified. There are a bunch of other new pinouts (and not NEW pins), for full details, see Toms Hardware

  25. From a former AMD supporter (yes I'm trolling) by vandan · · Score: 1, Troll

    So is it stable under linux, unlike AMD's crap?
    Their Irongate / AGP issues, which have been known for NINE FUCKING MONTHS now, are driving me back to Intel. I can't type 'startx' without first doing an emergency disc-sync in case the whole system locks hard. And it usually does. Well done AMD. I know support the more expensive and most likely technologically inferior Intel chips over your unstable crap.

  26. Just go AMD. by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

    Stop complaining about Intel, and do something to help... BUY AMD! Why would you even consider a Taulatin for $400, when you can get Athlon MP for $150? Get 2 of them, and a TigerMP Mainboard for $500, just $100 more than on Taulatin. Btw, the Athlon MP's overclock quite well to 1.4ghz, a speed that beats 2.2ghz p4 easily, get 2 of them... big bragging power! :-)

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
  27. What gives? by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

    Intel = Microsoft

    That simple... someone from intel broke into MS and stole Bill's marketing techniques.

    --
    Get your Unix fortune now!
  28. SMP-ing Tualatins: Advice Requested by nathana · · Score: 1

    AUGH, yes, this has been driving me bananas.

    I was seriously thinking about building myself a nice box with dual 1.26GHz Tualatins, but have been unable to find SMP mainboards that support Tualatins in an SMP setting.

    Well, actually, that's not completely true...I did find a couple, but none of them use Intel chipsets. There are a couple with VIA chipsets, and one using ServerWorks. I would prefer a board built around an Intel chipset, but the problem is that the ONLY Intel chipset that supports Tualatin so far is the i815 series which, although reportedly a good performer, is severely crippled in a number of respects: 1) It officially does not support SMP, and 2) RAM is restricted to 4 banks of SDR SDRAM which cannot exceed 512MB total.

    Despite the first restriction, I did find one SMP board built around the i815 chipset (quite an engineering feat, it would seem, considering they probably didn't get any help from Intel): the ACorp [acorp.com.tw] 6A815EPD. It looks like a good board, seems to be getting favorible reviews, and I could live with knowing that I was limited to 512MB. ;-) The only problem is that ACorp has yet to come out with a revision of this board based off of the i815EP "B stepping," which is the revision of the i815EP chipset that supports the Tualatin (I even e-mailed them, and they confirmed that they do not yet have a dualie board based off of i815EP B step).

    And, naturally, most "respectable" mainboard manufacturers are not about to release an SMP board based off of a chipset that does not officially support it. And Intel has yet to release a chipset that supports both SMP and Tualatin (and this is not because Tualatin cannot SMP, because it can; see VIA, ServerWorks).

    So, basically Intel is driving away my business.

    I am now considering VIA and ServerWorks-based boards as options. Can anyone comment on the performance and stability of these chipsets (VIA Apollo 133 and Apollo Pro 266T, ServerWorks HE) as well as their compatibility with Linux? I've heard some negative things about each with respect to Linux compatibility, and am curious to know if these rumors have any basis in truth. Thanks.

    -- Nathan

    1. Re:SMP-ing Tualatins: Advice Requested by sidetrack · · Score: 1

      In my experience, the performance on the VIA is a bit less than the BX, but similar to the 815. The Serverworks chipsets are good, but pricey (with high memory bandwidth), and I've had problems with the onboard USB on the Serverworks LE under Linux in the past. I've got one of these Gigabyte boards on order at the mo' for work. 66MHz/64bit PCI, for the SysKonnect Gigabit NIC, and 3ware 7810 8way IDE RAID card. Mmmmm, new toy ;-)...

  29. Re:who cares? by RennieScum · · Score: 1

    Because we are buying them for where we w*rk adn we aren't about to have the PHB see an invoice for a mb/cpu/mem upgrde under $200.

    Heh. I like AMD's, I've been getting them for the desktops (my boss had been buying Celerons! Ack!). I'm completely happy with them. They take abuse well too (which is a requirement for our location, dust, heat, humidity). But for the server? I'm looking for Tueys. Twin Tualatins, please.

    And what's next for this happy company? StongARMs...

    --
    ...Time is the best teacher, unfortunately it kills all of its students.
  30. Re:who cares? by 2ms · · Score: 1

    A pair of Athlon MPs along with a Tyan MP board would be something like $700 - that wouldn't be expensive enough?