Monday, 12 June 2006
|
| Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Preview from Taiwan Yousuf Khan 21:12:48 |
| | Sure looks like Intel has leapfrogged AMD as badly as AMD had previously
leapfrogged Intel. The only problem I see though is that Intel isn't
expecting to have a lot of Core 2 Duos available for a while. Only 25%
of its production is going to be of this generation, the remaining 75%
will still be of the old Netburst generation. This means that it's going
to be selling tons of cheap undesirable Netburst processors at firesale
prices, which will result in a pricing war.
AnandTech: Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Preview from Taiwan
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2771
|
| |  20 answers | Add comment |
Saturday, 10 June 2006
|
| Weird HD problem. George Macdonald 07:13:35 |
| | Again, I'd rather avoid .storage aggro but this one has me baffled: I
have a K8 system (Athlon64 3500+ on a MSI K8N Neo4-F) which is used as a
File/Print/DNS server with a Promise Fasttrak100 TX2 PCI card swappable
RAID-1 set up. This was a hot-swappable RAID kit sold by Promise called a
Fasttrak100 TX2 Pro
http://www.promise.com/product/product_detail.asp?product_id=4 and it's
been working fine for 4-5 years now. I bought two complete kits so I'd
have four drawers and a spare controller.
On Saturday, one of the RAID array drives started dropping out of "ready",
triggering a rebuild, followed by repeating "drop-outs" and rebuilds... so
Sunday I trudged off to the office to err, fix it. We have four
identical Seagate UDMA-100 drives and one of the active pair gets swapped
once per week.
With the swappable drawers/enclosures etc. it took me a while to boil this
down to the "faulty part" but here's the essence of it: the drive which
failed to rebuild gives faulty sectors on every single sector with the
Seagate Seatools diagnostics when connected to the Promise Fasttrak100 TX2
PCI card; the same drive passes OK when connected to the motherboard
IDE-PATA connector.
This is with the same IDE cable -- tried with several 80-wire conductor
cables, including two fresh ones -- connecting the drive directly to the
IDE ports, i.e. without the enclosures. All the other three drives pass
diagnostics, and work fine in real use, when connected to the Fasttrak100
TX2; I also tried a different Fasttrak100 TX2 PCI card, with same results.
So, the bottom line is that this one drive just doesn't work right when
connected to the Fasttrak100 TX2 but is OK when connected to the mbrd
(nForce4) IDE-PATA connector. I don't understand this - how can that be?
AFAIK the Seagate diags only read from the drive so it would not appear to
be a signal cable/connector thing... how can the controller affect whether
the drive gets bad sector reads? I guess I should check full operation of
the drive on the mbrd IDE connection but dunno if I have the time or
motivation.
I'm going to get a new drive of course but... anybody with some wisdom
here?
--
Rgds, George Macdonald
|
| | 9 answers | Add comment |
|
| "Green" Web hosting George Macdonald 06:41:35 |
| | Interesting story here:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/060506-web-hosts-green.html
Seems like the desert is the "place" to start a "provider" service - all
that sun and a few solar panels. Seems too simple - no? Then again,
apparently there are "green" clients.
On the 2nd page:
"At the same time, AISO is like most companies today in that it is always
looking for ways to reduce energy consumption. It is migrating away from
Intel servers, and now 99% of its systems run on lower-power-consuming AMD
Opteron processors, Nail says."
--
Rgds, George Macdonald
|
| | Add comment |
Friday, 9 June 2006
|
| Desktop Mobos for Mobile 4000+ S754 CPU? * * Chas 12:40:21 |
| | Are there any Socket 754 mobos beside MSI and DFI that can run the
Athlon Mobile 4000+ CPUs?
For example, Asus K8N or K8N-E.
If not, which MSI and DFI boards work best with the 4000+ chips?
Chas.
|
| | Add comment |
|
| Examining Intel's Woodcrest performance claims on TPC-C, Floating point, Integer, Java, Web, HPC and Sharikou 01:26:05 |
| | Examining Intel's Woodcrest performance claims on TPC-C, Floating
point, Integer, Java, Web, HPC and application
Today, former Enron execs were found guilty on charges of fraud, false
statements and conspiracy. Let's revisit Intel's Woodcrest performance
claims. I pointed out that Intel's changing of the Opteron TPC-C
benchmark description from 32 bit x86 to 64 bit x64 was a fraud.
Some of the readers said that Intel simply picked up the highest
reported TPC-C results for two way servers, Woodcrest and Opteron,
regardless of the operating system used. Let's test this assumption on
other benchmarks. Let's look at floating point performance.
For SpecFP_rate_2000, the highest reported score for 2P 2.6GHZ Opteron
285 was 85 under Solaris 10. Guess what? Intel ignored this result,
instead, it uses a lower Opteron result for Linux with a score of 72.9.
The 3GHZ Woodcrest scored 83 under Linux. The 3GHZ Woodcrest (Linux)
was 3% slower than 2.6GHZ Opteron (Solaris). Also, notice that Intel
chose the SPECfp_rate_base2000 scores for comparison. The
SPECfp_rate_base2000 is for conservative optmization of the benchmark,
so it's always lower than the SPECFp_rate_2000 score. For some strange
reason, the DELL 2950 Woodcrest server's optimized SPECfp_rate_2000
score was the same as the conservative SPECfp_rate_base2000 score,
which may indicate that there were some issues with how the benchmark
was done. Any way, Intel was shopping for the lowest Opteron scores.
This clearly shows that Intel knew different configurations lead to
different results. Had Intel chosen the highest score regardless of OS,
the 2.6GHZ Opteron would outperform 3GHZ Woodcrest in SpecFP_rate_2000.
According to this report, the 3GHZ Woodcrest (Xeon 5160) will be the
topmost chip, the next will be the 2.66GHZ Xeon 5150. Intel's topmost
desktop chip the Conroe XE will be at 2.93GHZ. This indicates that a
3GHZ Woodcrest will be a cherry-picked chip. According to this page,
the 2.8GHZ Opteron x90 has been in the wild for quite a while now.
For SpecInt_rate_2000, Intel again changed the OS description of the
systems. The Woodcrest benchmark was done in 64 bit. The Opteron
benchmark was done in 32 bit. This time, Intel changed the Dell
PowerEdge 2950's benchmark description from "Microsoft Windows Server
2003 Enterprise x64 Edition" to just "Microsoft Windows Server 2003",
making it look like the same as the Opteron test. This is just like
Intel's Woodcrest TPC-C performance claim fraud.
Let's look at another example: Intel's page on Java performance. Intel
used an unpublished Woodcrest test result on a Fujitsu Siemens PRIMERGY
server running Windows Server x64 with BEA JRockit 5.0 P26.4.0 JVM. But
for Opteron, Intel decided to use the score from a Tyan S2895 server
with two 2.6GHZ Opteron and a SATA drive, the score was only 54490.
However, from www.spec.org, we can find a Fujitsu Siemens PRIMERGY
server with two 2.4GHZ Opteron 280 (running Linux, JRockit 5.0 P26.0.0)
scoring 61155. Again, Intel was shopping for the lowest Opteron scores.
Let's look at yet another example: Intel's page on web performance. An
IBM 3GHZ Woodcrest server got a SpecWeb2005 score of 9182.
Mysteriously, there is no Opteron scores on this Intel page. However,
going to www.spec.org, we quickly found this 2.4GHZ Opteron 280 server
achieving a score of 8394. The 3GHZ Woodcrest has a 25% clockspeed
advantage but only 9% performance lead over the 2.4GHZ Opteron.
Let's look at one more example: Intel's page on application
performance. For the SunGard ACR test, Intel sent two servers to a
company called Principled Technologies. One was an Intel built Opteron
server and one was a Woodcrest server. Not surprisingly, the Woodcrest
won the benchmark. The details of the benchmark is in this PDF file.
The motherboard Intel chose for the Opteron was an UNIWIDE SS232_128_03
model using Nvidia NF4 chipset. One has to ask why Intel built the
Opteron server themselves instead of using a proven server such as
SUN's X4200 or HP DL385. We know server performance does vary from
system to system. Not only Intel built and configured the Opteron
server, it also provided the Intel compiled test application "SunGard
ACR Intel Demo 2.5". It is unclear how Intel optimized this test
application, but in a previous report (later removed), it was reported
SunGard ACR is significantly faster for Xeon when compiled with Intel
C++ compiler.
The more we examine Intel's presentations, the more problems we find.
Looking at Intel's HPC performance page, pay attention to the fluid
dynamics results (Fluent). Intel used a Woodcrest 3GHZ (2530.44)
against an IBM 2.2GHZ LS20 Opteron blade (2014.34) , with the Woodcrest
having 36.4% clockspeed advantage and 26% performance lead. However, if
you go to the Fluent full results page, you can see there are quite a
few Opteron results better than the 2.2GHZ IBM LS20 Opteron blade. In
fact, there is a 2.6GHZ IBM LS20 Opteron blade scoring 2404.72. Using
this result for 2.6GHZ Opteron, the 3GHZ Woodcrest would have only 5%
performance advantage, despite 15% clockspeed advantage. Actually, both
results show that Woodcrest being 10% slower than Opteron clock for
clock, in agreement with our previous analysis. One can imagine Intel
tabulated the Fluent benchmark results, and decided to use AMD's entry
level 2.2GHZ Opteron 275 for comparison against the topmost Woodcrest
3GHZ (Xeon 5160). On the same HPC performance page, for "Finite Element
Analysis for Crash Simulation", Intel also picked a low score for
Opteron, despite existence of better Opteron results (see user
comments).
So, why did Intel change the Opteron TPC-C description from x86 (32
bit) to x64 (b4 bit)? Why did Intel consistently choose the lower
Opteron scores for comparison?
The answer is obvious, to create a false impression that the Intel CPU
is much better.
Fraud: Any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to
deceive another to his or her disadvantage. (Merriam-Webster's
Dictionary of Law, 1996).
/////////////////////////////////////////////
<em><span style="font-size:85%;"></span></em>
<span style="font-size:85%;"><i>Examining Intel's Woodcrest performance
claims on TPC-C, Floating point, Integer, Java, Web, HPC and
application</i>
</span>
Today, former Enron execs were found guilty on charges of fraud, false
statements and conspiracy. Let's revisit Intel's Woodcrest performance
claims. I pointed out that <a
href="http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/05/intel-woodcrest-performance-claim.html">Intel's
changing of the Opteron TPC-C benchmark description from 32 bit x86 to
64 bit x64 was a fraud</a>.
Some of the readers said that Intel simply picked up the highest
reported TPC-C results for two way servers, Woodcrest and Opteron,
regardless of the operating system used. Let's test this assumption on
other benchmarks. Let's look at <a
href="http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/fpthru.htm">floating
point performance</a>.
For SpecFP_rate_2000, the <a
href="http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2006q1/cpu2000-20060306-05756.html">highest
reported score for 2P 2.6GHZ Opteron 285 was 85</a> under Solaris 10.
Guess what? Intel ignored this result, instead, it uses a <a
href="http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2006q1/cpu2000-20060306-05758.html">lower
Opteron result for Linux with a score of 72.9</a>. <a
href="http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2006q2/cpu2000-20060501-05939.html">The
3GHZ Woodcrest scored 83 under Linux</a>. The 3GHZ Woodcrest (Linux)
was 3% slower than 2.6GHZ Opteron (Solaris). Also, notice that Intel
chose the SPECfp_rate_base2000 scores for comparison. The
SPECfp_rate_base2000 is for conservative optmization of the benchmark,
so it's always lower than the SPECFp_rate_2000 score. For some strange
reason, the DELL 2950 Woodcrest server's optimized SPECfp_rate_2000
score was the same as the conservative SPECfp_rate_base2000 score,
which may indicate that there were some issues with how the benchmark
was done. Any way, Intel was shopping for the lowest Opteron scores.
This clearly shows that Intel knew different configurations lead to
different results. Had Intel chosen the highest score regardless of OS,
the 2.6GHZ Opteron would outperform 3GHZ Woodcrest in SpecFP_rate_2000.
According to <a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31990">this
report</a>, the 3GHZ Woodcrest (Xeon 5160) will be the topmost chip,
the next will be the 2.66GHZ Xeon 5150. Intel's topmost desktop chip
the Conroe XE will be at 2.93GHZ. This indicates that a 3GHZ Woodcrest
will be a cherry-picked chip. According to <a
href="http://www.american-computer.com/supercomputing/viper.htm">this
page</a>, the 2.8GHZ Opteron x90 has been in the wild for quite a while
now.
For SpecInt_rate_2000, Intel again <a
href="http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/intthru.htm">changed
the OS description of the systems</a>. <a
href="http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2006q2/cpu2000-20060501-05940.html">The
Woodcrest benchmark</a> was done in 64 bit. The <a
href="http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2006q1/cpu2000-20060306-05697.html">Opteron
benchmark was done in 32 bit</a>. This time, Intel changed the Dell
PowerEdge 2950's benchmark description from "Microsoft Windows Server
2003 Enterprise x64 Edition" to just "Microsoft Windows Server 2003",
making it look like the same as the Opteron test. This is just like <a
href="http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/05/intel-woodcrest-performance-claim.html">Intel's
Woodcrest TPC-C performance claim fraud</a>.
Let's look at another example: <a
href="http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/java.htm">Intel's
page on Java performance</a>. Intel used an unpublished Woodcrest test
result on a Fujitsu Siemens PRIMERGY server running Windows Server x64
with BEA JRockit 5.0 P26.4.0 JVM. But for Opteron, Intel decided to use
the score from a Tyan S2895 server with two 2.6GHZ Opteron and a SATA
drive, the score was only 54490. However, from <a
href="http://www.spec.org">www.spec.org</a>, we can find a <a
href="http://www.spec.org/jbb2005/results/res2006q1/jbb2005-20060214-00074.html">Fujitsu
Siemens PRIMERGY server with two 2.4GHZ Opteron 280 (running Linux,
JRockit 5.0 P26.0.0) scoring 61155</a>. Again, Intel was shopping for
the lowest Opteron scores.
Let's look at yet another example: <a
href="http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/web.htm">Intel's
page on web performance</a>. An IBM 3GHZ Woodcrest server got a
SpecWeb2005 score of 9182. Mysteriously, there is no Opteron scores on
this Intel page. However, going to <a
href="http://www.spec.org">www.spec.org</a>, we quickly found this <a
href="http://www.spec.org/web2005/results/res2006q2/web2005-20060508-00025.html">2.4GHZ
Opteron 280 server achieving a score of 8394</a>. The 3GHZ Woodcrest
has a 25% clockspeed advantage but only 9% performance lead over the
2.4GHZ Opteron.
Let's look at one more example: <a
href="http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/app.htm">Intel's
page on application performance</a>. For the SunGard ACR test, Intel
sent two servers to a company called <a
href="http://www.principledtechnologies.com/">Principled
Technologies</a>. One was an Intel built Opteron server and one was a
Woodcrest server. Not surprisingly, the Woodcrest won the benchmark.
The <a
href="http://www.principledtechnologies.com/clients/reports/Intel/WSunGard_ACR_0506.pdf">details
of the benchmark is in this PDF file</a>. The motherboard Intel chose
for the Opteron was an UNIWIDE SS232_128_03 model using Nvidia NF4
chipset. One has to ask why Intel built the Opteron server themselves
instead of using a proven server such as SUN's X4200 or HP DL385. We
know server performance does vary from system to system. Not only Intel
built and configured the Opteron server, it also provided the Intel
compiled test application "SunGard ACR Intel Demo 2.5". It is unclear
how Intel optimized this test application, but in a previous report
(later removed), it was reported SunGard ACR is significantly faster
for Xeon when compiled with Intel C++ compiler.
The more we examine Intel's presentations, the more problems we find.
Looking at <a
href="http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/hpcapp.htm">Intel's
HPC performance page</a>, pay attention to the fluid dynamics results
(Fluent). Intel used a Woodcrest 3GHZ (2530.44) against an IBM 2.2GHZ
LS20 Opteron blade (2014.34) , with the Woodcrest having 36.4%
clockspeed advantage and 26% performance lead. However, if you go to <a
href="http://www.fluent.com/software/fluent/fl5bench/flbench_6.2/fullres.htm">the
Fluent full results page</a>, you can see there are quite a few Opteron
results better than the 2.2GHZ IBM LS20 Opteron blade. In fact, there
is a 2.6GHZ IBM LS20 Opteron blade scoring 2404.72. Using this result
for 2.6GHZ Opteron, the 3GHZ Woodcrest would have only 5% performance
advantage, despite 15% clockspeed advantage. Actually, both results
show that Woodcrest being 10% slower than Opteron clock for clock, in
agreement with <a
href="http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/05/3ghz-woodcrest-against-26ghz-opteron.html">our
previous analysis</a>. One can imagine Intel tabulated the Fluent
benchmark results, and decided to use AMD's entry level 2.2GHZ Opteron
275 for comparison against the topmost Woodcrest 3GHZ (Xeon 5160). On
the same HPC performance page, for "Finite Element Analysis for Crash
Simulation", Intel also picked a low score for Opteron, despite
existence of better Opteron results (see user comments).
So, why did Intel change the Opteron TPC-C description from x86 (32
bit) to x64 (b4 bit)? Why did Intel consistently choose the lower
Opteron scores for comparison?
The answer is obvious, to create a false impression that the Intel CPU
is much better.
<strong>Fraud</strong>: <em>Any act, expression, omission, or
concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage.
(Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, 1996).</em>
<em></em>
Intel's behaviour satisfies the above legal defintion 100%.
|
| | Add comment |
|
| Tyan unleashes 16 core Woodcrest 'personal' supercomputer Lyon_wonder 01:07:09 |
| | Tyan unleashes 16-core 'personal' supercomputer
By Tony Smith in Taipei
7th June 2006 08:54 GMT
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/06/07/tyan_unveils_typhoon/
Computex 2006 Taiwan's Tyan today pledged to ship a deskside "personal
supercomputer" powered by eight Intel low-voltage 'Woodcrest' Xeon
processors and packing up to 48GB of memory in the fourth quarter. But
expect to pay at least $10,000 for the wheel-mounted machine, the
company said.
Named Typhoon - it'll "blow you away", quipped Tyan CEO Symon Change -
the 68 x 36 x 32cm system contains four removable motherboard units,
each with a pair of dual-core Xeon 5100-series LV CPUs and 12GB of
registered 533MHz or 667MHz DDR 2 SDRAM. Each 'node' board can take a
single SATA storage devices.
The four nodes run co-operatively using Windows or Linux clustering
software to deliver "respectable" performance for scientific apps,
Chang said. And for business and productivity tools too, it added -
the company wants to broaden the machine's appeal beyond boffins and
engineers.
The Woodcrest-based Typhoon, the B5372, will be preceded by the B5191,
this time based on four 'Conroe' Core 2 Duo CPUs but capable of taking
up to 64GB of unbuffered 667MHz DDR 2 connected via an Intel 3000
North Bridge - the B5372 uses the 'Blackford VS' chipset. The Conroe
machine is aimed at "cost-conscious" buyers, Tyan said, the other at
the more performance hungry.
Both models have eight USB and eight Gigabit Ethernet ports. They ship
with an XGI Volari Z7 (XG20) GPU with 16MB of dedicated graphics
memory. Each box consumes just under 1,400W in total - each node has
its own PSU and requires its own power cable. If the power draw is
high, the noise isn't: Typhoon generates under 45dB, Tyan said.
Tyan said Typhoon would going into mass production later this year:
August for the B5191, with the B5372 coming in October. Tyan said
prices will start at around $10,000 - plenty for a personal computer,
but rather less than comparable supercomputing cluster set-ups cost,
the company claimed. ?®
|
| | Add comment |
Thursday, 8 June 2006
|
| Will winMe work on AMD64 BobV 12:02:05 |
| | I tried to build a new system using a ESC mobo with AMD64 cpu and could
not get winMe to complete the instal.
The system would install winXP and Ubuntu(64bit) just fine.
I trashed the mobo, but would like to try again with a different make mobo.
Is there any incompatibility with winMe and 64bit cpu's???..........BobV
|
| | 12 answers | Add comment |
Wednesday, 7 June 2006
|
| Plextor burner pricing astronomic Rich 02:16:45 |
| | Sony's $50/ea, LiteOn $40, Plextor $120? I know their reputation, but
that seems
a bit too much more to make sense, unless they do something with them
that costs
so much more in production or gives you better reliability and accuracy.
|
| | 4 answer | Add comment |
Tuesday, 6 June 2006
|
| Why AMD for gaming? Eddie G 20:02:49 |
| |
Why is AMD preferred for gaming? Intel has dual-core CPU's at 3.4 ghz
(and 3.6 iirc) and the fastest AMD x2 is what...2.6 ghz? I'd rather
get the faster Intel.
Please explain if you can...
Eddie g
|
| | 22 answer | Add comment |
|
| Will the first AM2 chips support quad processing? Boe 19:35:56 |
| | I am planning on building a new system soon. I've seen mention of having 2
dual core chips from AMD and Intel effectively giving you quad processing.
I haven't seen any info on if the first release chips from either company
support this with a new motherboard chipset or if a totally different CPU is
required.
I figure I could replace the motherboard easily enough if I just need a
second processor down the line.
Thanks
|
| | 2 answer | Add comment |
|
| Intel puts it's communications and Xscale businesses on the chopping block Lyon_wonder 08:42:00 |
| | http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=NU2NUZITRWNACQSNDBCSKH0CJUMEKJVN?articleID=188701421
SAN JOSE, Calif. ?— Troubled Intel Corp. has put several of its
loss-ridden communications-chip businesses on the block, including its
network processors, XScale chip lines and other products, according to
a report from the San Jose Mercury News on Saturday (June 3).
Intel (Santa Clara, Calif.) spent more than $10 billion to enter the
communications business over the years, but the microprocessor giant
lost its shirt ?— if not millions of dollars in the arena. The reported
communications-chip sale is said to be part of Intel?’s plan to
overhaul the company. Intel is also set to include the layoff or
redeployment of 16,000 employees.
|
| | 2 answer | Add comment |
|
| AMD and ATI? Boe 02:58:40 |
| | There have been a few posted rumors about ATI buying ATI. I'd rather see
AMD take Creative - then maybe we'd see real on board sound - audigy 2
chipset or an audigy 2 PCI express sound card.
|
| | 4 answer | Add comment |
Monday, 5 June 2006
|
| conroe and broadwater Eddie G 21:34:32 |
| | Conroe (or Core Duo) is the new CPU coming out next month. Broadwater is a
chipset. Is Broadwater a chip on the Core Duo CPU? Or does it have to do
with a chip on the mobo?
Thanks!!
Eddie
|
| | 6 answers | Add comment |
Saturday, 3 June 2006
|
| Asia-Pacific still hasn't heard of AMD yet Bbbl67 03:03:33 |
| | Well, I'm starting to see Lost Angel's perspective about AMD. Looks
like AMD has not penetrated Asia-Pacific to any great degree yet.
Whereas those of us in North America are seeing very visible signs of
AMD's success everytime we go to a store, A-P remains largely loyal to
Intel still. In servers, Intel maintains 95.7% marketshare in A-P (not
including Japan).
Interestingly, AMD's marketshare is pretty reasonable in PCs in A-P,
but even there it's highly concentrated in one huge country, China,
where AMD PC's are pretty popular. AMD has 18% marketshare in China,
and that translates to 14% share in A-P. So it's probable that outside
of China & Japan, there's not a lot of AMD presence.
ZDNet India > News > hardware > Dell-AMD deal won't hurt Intel in AP,
yet
http://www.zdnetindia.com/news/hardware/stories/149403.html
Yousuf Khan
|
| | 15 answers | Add comment |
Friday, 2 June 2006
|
| OT-(slightly) LCD image burn-in George Macdonald 15:21:36 |
| | Interesting article here:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/615-1/lcds-with-persistent-images.html
And here the folklore was that image burn-in was only on CRTs & plasma...
though this is most apparent on overdrive LCDs and apparently recoverable
on some LCDs depending on the cause.
--
Rgds, George Macdonald
|
| | 1 answer | Add comment |
|
| Re: MSI Neo 4 Platinum and SATA... VanShania 04:15:37 |
| | Time to phone MSI tech help. Lets us know if they helped you
--
Sapphire X1600 Pro 512mb AGP
MSI Theater 550Pro TV Tuner
Thermaltake LanFire Midtower(4X80mm fans),Antec 550 Watt PSU
Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939 nForce3, A64 3500+, Stock Cooler IdleTemp 28 C
2 Gb Dual Channel PC3200 OCZ Platinum 2-3-2-5 CL2.5
Viewsonic A91f 19in Moniter
2XSATA WD 320gb Raid Edition, PATA WD 120Gb HD
Pioneer 110D Dual Layer burner
Logitech MX 310 Optical Mouse
Microsoft Sidewinder Precision 2 Joystick
Microsoft ergonomic keyboard
Cheap computer speakers with Sennheiser HD 477 Headphones
3DMark05Free-Overall-3134 1024X768, 4XAA/8XAF 6.4Drivers
Cpu - 4405
3Dmark2001 - 8702 4XAA/8XAF 1280X1024
Games I'm Playing- IL-2 Sturmovick Series
Empire Earth 2, Need For Speed: Underground 2,
Civ IV, Warhammer 40,000 Gold
"Guest" <llcoolj@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Osaag.77031$H71.70051@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Anyone know why I cannot get the Silicon SATA controller to work as just an
SATA controller without RAID? I just want to use it to add another 4 hard
drives, bun in this case a 5th SATA.
|
| | 3 answer | Add comment |
|
| If you were to rate motherboards.... Rich 03:29:37 |
| | ...say 6 brands from best to worse, what would the list look like? Not
individual boards, but overall brand ratings themselves. I've only
ever used Asus and Soyo boards but I'd be interested
in people's opinions.
|
| | 27 answers | Add comment |
|
| Changing motherboard Alex Moreau 01:02:12 |
| | I'm about to change my motherboard but keep my existing CPU. It's a 4400+x2.
Will I be able to remove the CPU with the heatsink intact, or will I have to
remove the heatsink first and then the CPU? (maybe I should remove it and
clean and replace the thermal compound anyway?)
Thanks,
Alex
|
| | 3 answer | Add comment |
Thursday, 1 June 2006
|
| E-mails released to WSJ expose memory cartel conspiracy Guest 17:23:07 |
| | I'm sure we will have the Micron/Crucial pumpers such as George
McDonald claim that the following is legal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"No problem," wrote one Micron executive, in a June 2001 message,
responding to another message about lower DDR pricing. "We want DDR to
explode into the marketplace so have actually been requesting Infineon,
Samsung and Hynix to lower their DDR pricing to help it become a
standard (and drive Rambus away completely)."
------------------------------------------------------------------
A subscription is needed to view the whole article at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114913057568568388.html?mod=home_whats_news_us
|
| | 2 answer | Add comment |
|
| Hardware details 100$ laptop Jan Panteltje 17:10:13 |
| | http://wiki.laptop.org/index.php/Hardware_specification
so 1200x900 TFT, 5 W consumption (1/2 A @ 10V, 22Ah battery,
makes <4 hours on NiMH).
AMD Geode 1.1 W processor, FLASH..... no harddisk.
The flash is small.
What will the kids do? Play DivX on it? 400MHz, should be possible
in 352x288...
wireless, audio, Linux OS.
|
| | Add comment |
|
| Please help me identify my SIEMENS SDRAM Frank Spade 14:19:22 |
| | Hello,
I bought SIEMENS SDRAM with a label that says:
SIEMENS HYS64V8200GU-8 8M x 64 SDRAM A2298510189 PC100-222-620
I was told these are 512 MB chips, but my computer only recognizes 64
MB. What is right?
Kind regards,
Frank
|
| | 8 answers | Add comment |
|
