PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors

Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors


"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d . com > wrote in message news:Q7pWj.71$vE.41@trnddc03...

> I'm not sure I'll ever upgrade my processor, but I'm enough of a
> traditionalist that I'd be inclined to stick with an Intel processor.


I'm a huge Intel fan.... would never leave the chipsets.... but they've
moved their focus from processor speed to multi-core processing
and hyperthreading ram in order to service the multi-tasking 'office.'
Dual and quad core processors (at much lower speeds) are all that
Intel makes these days.


DM

Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors

"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <findme@m-a-m-s . com C/Odm> wrote in
news:CS4Xj.7705$0h.831@trnddc02:

>
> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d . com > wrote in message
> news:Q7pWj.71$vE.41@trnddc03...
>
>> I'm not sure I'll ever upgrade my processor, but I'm enough of a
>> traditionalist that I'd be inclined to stick with an Intel processor.
>
> I'm a huge Intel fan.... would never leave the chipsets.... but
> they've moved their focus from processor speed to multi-core
> processing and hyperthreading ram in order to service the
> multi-tasking 'office.' Dual and quad core processors (at much lower
> speeds) are all that Intel makes these days.

That's because they simply can't go any faster. A 3.4 gHz chip is running
at less that 4 light-inches per clock tick. Not much can happen in that
interval outside the processor. The pipeline efforts are very effective
but can only be stretched so far.

Most of the world can live with one process running at a very good but not-
quite-so-fast speed as long as another (or three or seven others) can run
at the same time at the same speed. That's what multiple cores buys you.

Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors


"Carey Carlan" <gulfjoe@hotmail . com > wrote in message news:Xns9A9FDB877192Ch2atroak@140.99.99.130...
> "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <findme@m-a-m-s . com C/Odm> wrote in
> news:CS4Xj.7705$0h.831@trnddc02:
>
> >
> > "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d . com > wrote in message
> > news:Q7pWj.71$vE.41@trnddc03...
> >
> >> I'm not sure I'll ever upgrade my processor, but I'm enough of a
> >> traditionalist that I'd be inclined to stick with an Intel processor.
> >
> > I'm a huge Intel fan.... would never leave the chipsets.... but
> > they've moved their focus from processor speed to multi-core
> > processing and hyperthreading ram in order to service the
> > multi-tasking 'office.' Dual and quad core processors (at much lower
> > speeds) are all that Intel makes these days.
>
> That's because they simply can't go any faster. A 3.4 gHz chip is running
> at less that 4 light-inches per clock tick. Not much can happen in that
> interval outside the processor. The pipeline efforts are very effective
> but can only be stretched so far.

I often wonder if heat is the only reason the dramatic decrease in proc
speeds. On my latest build, I just went from $75 Intel P-IV's at 3.4 Ghz,
to Dual Core P-D's at 2.2 Ghz and $145.00.... and they tell me that all
they will be carrying when I go back, are Quad Core processors at $200 +.

> Most of the world can live with one process running at a very good but not-
> quite-so-fast speed as long as another (or three or seven others) can run
> at the same time at the same speed. That's what multiple cores buys you.

And that's why I really don't see it for just toying around with a 2-track editor
or for reviewing certain software or hardware devices.... seems like a call
for a dedicated box, to me... not a lot of various processes or applications
need to be running.


DM

Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors

On May 15, 11:24 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <fin...@m-a-m-s . com C/Odm>
wrote:
> "Carey Carlan" <gulf...@hotmail . com > wrote in messagenews:Xns9A9FDB877192Ch2atroak@140.99.99.130...
> > "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <fin...@m-a-m-s . com C/Odm> wrote in
> >news:CS4Xj.7705$0h.831@trnddc02:
>
> > > "Mike Rivers" <mriv...@d-and-d . com > wrote in message
> > >news:Q7pWj.71$vE.41@trnddc03...
>
> > >> I'm not sure I'll ever upgrade my processor, but I'm enough of a
> > >> traditionalist that I'd be inclined to stick with an Intel processor.
>
> > > I'm a huge Intel fan.... would never leave the chipsets.... but
> > > they've moved their focus from processor speed to multi-core
> > > processing and hyperthreading ram in order to service the
> > > multi-tasking 'office.' Dual and quad core processors (at much lower
> > > speeds) are all that Intel makes these days.
>
> > That's because they simply can't go any faster. A 3.4 gHz chip is running
> > at less that 4 light-inches per clock tick. Not much can happen in that
> > interval outside the processor. The pipeline efforts are very effective
> > but can only be stretched so far.
>
> I often wonder if heat is the only reason the dramatic decrease in proc
> speeds. On my latest build, I just went from $75 Intel P-IV's at 3.4 Ghz,
> to Dual Core P-D's at 2.2 Ghz and $145.00.... and they tell me that all
> they will be carrying when I go back, are Quad Core processors at $200 +.

The decrease in processor speed is not the only thing you should look.
"One of the two" Core 2 duo CORES going at 2.4ghz is faster than it's
p4 2.4 ghz counterpart.
Don't only look at the Ghz ... that was a mistake AMD understood with
their processors before intel did. Their 3ghz was comparable to a
3.6ghz on intel's part. Not so true now.

Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors

Carey Carlan wrote:
> "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <findme@m-a-m-s . com C/Odm> wrote in
> news:CS4Xj.7705$0h.831@trnddc02:
>
>> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d . com > wrote in message
>> news:Q7pWj.71$vE.41@trnddc03...
>>
>>> I'm not sure I'll ever upgrade my processor, but I'm enough of a
>>> traditionalist that I'd be inclined to stick with an Intel processor.
>> I'm a huge Intel fan.... would never leave the chipsets.... but
>> they've moved their focus from processor speed to multi-core
>> processing and hyperthreading ram in order to service the
>> multi-tasking 'office.' Dual and quad core processors (at much lower
>> speeds) are all that Intel makes these days.
>
> That's because they simply can't go any faster. A 3.4 gHz chip is running
> at less that 4 light-inches per clock tick. Not much can happen in that
> interval outside the processor. The pipeline efforts are very effective
> but can only be stretched so far.
>
> Most of the world can live with one process running at a very good but not-
> quite-so-fast speed as long as another (or three or seven others) can run
> at the same time at the same speed. That's what multiple cores buys you.

Synchronization of parallel processors can be a nontrivial problem.
Running out of CPU is Moore's way of telling you you are doing it
wrong.

--
Les Cargill

Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors

Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in
news:482d062e$0$31734$4c368faf@roadrunner . com :

>> Most of the world can live with one process running at a very good
>> but not- quite-so-fast speed as long as another (or three or seven
>> others) can run at the same time at the same speed. That's what
>> multiple cores buys you.
>
> Synchronization of parallel processors can be a nontrivial problem.
> Running out of CPU is Moore's way of telling you you are doing it
> wrong.

SMP design is maturing nicely (thank you IBM et al), and programmers have
been running out of CPU since Moore himself was involved. Parallelism is
the only way forward unless we scrap the whole silicon semiconductor thing
and jump to a different growth path like quantum computers or photonics,
etc.

Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors

Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail . com > wrote:
>Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in
>news:482d062e$0$31734$4c368faf@roadrunner . com :
>
>>> Most of the world can live with one process running at a very good
>>> but not- quite-so-fast speed as long as another (or three or seven
>>> others) can run at the same time at the same speed. That's what
>>> multiple cores buys you.
>>
>> Synchronization of parallel processors can be a nontrivial problem.
>> Running out of CPU is Moore's way of telling you you are doing it
>> wrong.
>
>SMP design is maturing nicely (thank you IBM et al), and programmers have
>been running out of CPU since Moore himself was involved. Parallelism is
>the only way forward unless we scrap the whole silicon semiconductor thing
>and jump to a different growth path like quantum computers or photonics,
>etc.

I think a better path forward would be to train programmers better, and
realize that expending some effort in producing tight code turns out to be
a big win in the long run if the code is expected to have much of a lifetime.

I see folks graduating from CS programs without any real programming skills
and without good algorithm analysis skills... and I thought that was much of
the point of the CS program in the first place?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail . com > wrote:
>> Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in
>> news:482d062e$0$31734$4c368faf@roadrunner . com :
>>
>>>> Most of the world can live with one process running at a very good
>>>> but not- quite-so-fast speed as long as another (or three or seven
>>>> others) can run at the same time at the same speed. That's what
>>>> multiple cores buys you.
>>> Synchronization of parallel processors can be a nontrivial problem.
>>> Running out of CPU is Moore's way of telling you you are doing it
>>> wrong.
>> SMP design is maturing nicely (thank you IBM et al), and programmers have
>> been running out of CPU since Moore himself was involved. Parallelism is
>> the only way forward unless we scrap the whole silicon semiconductor thing
>> and jump to a different growth path like quantum computers or photonics,
>> etc.
>
> I think a better path forward would be to train programmers better, and
> realize that expending some effort in producing tight code turns out to be
> a big win in the long run if the code is expected to have much of a lifetime.
>
> I see folks graduating from CS programs without any real programming skills
> and without good algorithm analysis skills... and I thought that was much of
> the point of the CS program in the first place?
> --scott

It went the way of EE grads being able to solder.

--
Les Cargill

Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors

Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> I see folks graduating from CS programs without any real programming skills
>> and without good algorithm analysis skills... and I thought that was much of
>> the point of the CS program in the first place?
>
>It went the way of EE grads being able to solder.

I don't think that EVER existed.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors

Carey Carlan wrote:
> Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in
> news:482d062e$0$31734$4c368faf@roadrunner . com :
>
>>> Most of the world can live with one process running at a very good
>>> but not- quite-so-fast speed as long as another (or three or seven
>>> others) can run at the same time at the same speed. That's what
>>> multiple cores buys you.
>> Synchronization of parallel processors can be a nontrivial problem.
>> Running out of CPU is Moore's way of telling you you are doing it
>> wrong.
>
> SMP design is maturing nicely (thank you IBM et al),


SMP is a lot better than it used to be, principally because we
have better controllers for serializing access to RAM.

> and programmers have
> been running out of CPU since Moore himself was involved.

I'm a bit tounge in cheek, but this is like saying an Arctic
expedition failed because they ran out of food. That's certainly
what happens, but there's more to it than just that.

Present software culture never gives any thought to
efficiency of execution.

> Parallelism is
> the only way forward unless we scrap the whole silicon semiconductor thing
> and jump to a different growth path like quantum computers or photonics,
> etc.

SFAIK, none of those are ready for prime time and it's not easy
to see how they could become so.

--
Les Cargill

Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors

Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in
news:482f248e$0$3369$4c368faf@roadrunner . com :

>> and programmers have
>> been running out of CPU since Moore himself was involved.
>
> I'm a bit tounge in cheek, but this is like saying an Arctic
> expedition failed because they ran out of food. That's certainly
> what happens, but there's more to it than just that.

You are jumping to the conclusion that if a programmer runs out of
memory he just gives up.

All the effort devoted in previous generations (and I was in some of
that) to speed and efficiency were done to make up for the lack of
cycles and space. When the programmer ran out of CPU or memory, THEN is
when he started devoting time and effort to making it smaller and
faster. Everything started with a reasonable efficiency level, but the
real crunch only came when we ran out of CPU or RAM.

Modern demands have changed. In the majority of my Windows
applications, my code is running for maybe 20% of the time. The rest of
the time Windows is in control. Update the screen? Call Windows. Write
to disk? Windows won't let me do that directly.

In my office, the efficiency required now is not efficiency of code--
it's efficiency of delivery. If I don't get task X done by date Y, I
may not eat on day Z (not quite that severe, but you get the idea).

I design my code. I run my code. I get my code operational, THEN can I
find the bottlenecks and fix them. Sometimes I have to wait for the
user to get the code to see what parts are used and what parts are
ignored. It is simply not cost effective to optimize everything all of
the time. Shaving 20% off code that only runs 10 milliseconds per
session is futile. OTOH, leaving code unoptimized that runs for seconds
or minutes can lose a contract or a client.

As a side note, most of the explosive growth in application size is part
of two separate evolutions. User interface design is growing
increasingly complicated as each generation of Windows offers more
screen widgets. Applications that use massive processing and memory
(such as DAWs and video) that were impossible a generation or two ago
are now growing down into smaller and smaller desktop computers.
Designing code for interface requires a thousand little routines that
fit into Windows here and there answering event calls and queuing
messages. The math portions of super-streaming jobs like audio and
video are coded in optimized compilers. Sure, I must design well at the
component level, but for bits and bytes, the compiler will override me.

In neither of those two worlds, the interface or big math, can I do much
to optimize my world beyond making simple, straightforward design
without excess baggage.

Time for me to get off my soapbox.

Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors

Carey Carlan wrote:
> Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in
> news:482f248e$0$3369$4c368faf@roadrunner . com :
>
>>> and programmers have
>>> been running out of CPU since Moore himself was involved.
>> I'm a bit tounge in cheek, but this is like saying an Arctic
>> expedition failed because they ran out of food. That's certainly
>> what happens, but there's more to it than just that.
>
> You are jumping to the conclusion that if a programmer runs out of
> memory he just gives up.
>

No. I am not.

> All the effort devoted in previous generations (and I was in some of
> that) to speed and efficiency were done to make up for the lack of
> cycles and space. When the programmer ran out of CPU or memory, THEN is
> when he started devoting time and effort to making it smaller and
> faster. Everything started with a reasonable efficiency level, but the
> real crunch only came when we ran out of CPU or RAM.
>

I know. That's why you start with ... that and work out from
there. How else are you supposed to identify
requirements that will be sinkholes?

> Modern demands have changed. In the majority of my Windows
> applications, my code is running for maybe 20% of the time. The rest of
> the time Windows is in control. Update the screen? Call Windows. Write
> to disk? Windows won't let me do that directly.
>

When last I checked, Windows is a program. Look, Windows is something
that sells itself as an engineering artifact but it's not. It a
cultural artifact. Ballmer sez "developers, developers, developers" - he
is not talking about engineering. He is talking about culture.

He's right, but that sort of thing never interested me.

> In my office, the efficiency required now is not efficiency of code--
> it's efficiency of delivery. If I don't get task X done by date Y, I
> may not eat on day Z (not quite that severe, but you get the idea).
>

I know. And that's all about people trying to keep the rank
and file in the office from going to sleep. What I have found is that
when you treat software problems as minimal-ization problems,
all the other stuff just goes away. You are done early, it works,
and all the "once more over the top, lads" hoo-ha just bounces
meaninglessly off the walls.

I admit this a strange way to look at the world.

I've been programming professionally for 25 plus years, and I
always call them back. They just don't have problems. I have gotten
one "can you help us" call, and I just asked if the guy had snapshot
the version that worked in the version control system. They said
"yes", and I didn't hear from them again.

> I design my code. I run my code. I get my code operational, THEN can I
> find the bottlenecks and fix them. Sometimes I have to wait for the
> user to get the code to see what parts are used and what parts are
> ignored. It is simply not cost effective to optimize everything all of
> the time. Shaving 20% off code that only runs 10 milliseconds per
> session is futile. OTOH, leaving code unoptimized that runs for seconds
> or minutes can lose a contract or a client.
>

To be fair, my goal with almost everything I have ever built was for
the software I wrote to be almost completely undetectable. I never ran
into a single instance in which I did not identify bottlenecks *first*,
then build around those. I can't say I have ever regretted
those choices. Sure, it looks like I'm messing around, but .... I'm
done early or on time, and it simply *works*. If I'm
late, it's because somebody missed some target upsgtream of me, and
then I throw instrumentation in it that comes very close to proving
the problem.

My main fun has been explaining in appropriate terms why the FPGA
is out of the interface contract or the vendor's booted something.

> As a side note, most of the explosive growth in application size is part
> of two separate evolutions. User interface design is growing
> increasingly complicated as each generation of Windows offers more
> screen widgets.

I usually wait the roughly ten years for those to be packaged in
something like Tcl/Tk before I bother with them. I messed around
with MASM32 for a while; great fun for Letwin style 'Doze stuff, but
that's about it. But 'Doze as a lifestyle choice ( and it is that)
was never an option.

> Applications that use massive processing and memory
> (such as DAWs and video) that were impossible a generation or two ago
> are now growing down into smaller and smaller desktop computers.

About '05, that simply was a solved problem. If a P4 wouldn't do it,
you were doing it wrong.

> Designing code for interface requires a thousand little routines that
> fit into Windows here and there answering event calls and queuing
> messages.

Indeed.

> The math portions of super-streaming jobs like audio and
> video are coded in optimized compilers. Sure, I must design well at the
> component level, but for bits and bytes, the compiler will override me.
>

I just found a defect in a compiler last week. An *old* compiler. Trust
noone.

> In neither of those two worlds, the interface or big math, can I do much
> to optimize my world beyond making simple, straightforward design
> without excess baggage.
>
> Time for me to get off my soapbox.

I have read you for years, and never known any of this about you.
Thanks.

--
Les Cargill

Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors

Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in
news:482fb8a9$0$20202$4c368faf@roadrunner . com :

> I usually wait the roughly ten years for those to be packaged in
> something like Tcl/Tk before I bother with them. I messed around
> with MASM32 for a while; great fun for Letwin style 'Doze stuff, but
> that's about it. But 'Doze as a lifestyle choice ( and it is that)
> was never an option.

I think I've found our point of division. I create Windows applications
exclusively and create a retail product that sells on the basis of looks
and first impression (who reads feature lists anymore?). I get few design
specs, no interface specs, don't know exactly who my user will be, and have
to design to a ridiculously bullet-proof (interface) level.

The part that keeps my design efficient is that I also have to support the
product. Does wonders for my structured design and clear documentation.

> > Applications that use massive processing and memory
>> (such as DAWs and video) that were impossible a generation or two ago
>> are now growing down into smaller and smaller desktop computers.
>
> About '05, that simply was a solved problem. If a P4 wouldn't do it,
> you were doing it wrong.

But the scale is changing. My friend with the SOTA 8 CPU Apple still
renders his video files overnight. Desktops continue their inevitable
growth line toward supercomputers.

> I have read you for years, and never known any of this about you.
> Thanks.

How do you think I can pay for all this cool audio gear?

Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors

Carey Carlan wrote:
> Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in
> news:482fb8a9$0$20202$4c368faf@roadrunner . com :
>
>> I usually wait the roughly ten years for those to be packaged in
>> something like Tcl/Tk before I bother with them. I messed around
>> with MASM32 for a while; great fun for Letwin style 'Doze stuff, but
>> that's about it. But 'Doze as a lifestyle choice ( and it is that)
>> was never an option.
>
> I think I've found our point of division. I create Windows applications
> exclusively

You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din :) I diverged from native
'Doze programming in 1988 and didn't do it again until I
found a version of Tcl/Tk in the mid-90s.

> and create a retail product that sells on the basis of looks
> and first impression (who reads feature lists anymore?). I get few design
> specs, no interface specs, don't know exactly who my user will be, and have
> to design to a ridiculously bullet-proof (interface) level.
>
> The part that keeps my design efficient is that I also have to support the
> product. Does wonders for my structured design and clear documentation.
>

Absolutely.

>>> Applications that use massive processing and memory
>>> (such as DAWs and video) that were impossible a generation or two ago
>>> are now growing down into smaller and smaller desktop computers.
>> About '05, that simply was a solved problem. If a P4 wouldn't do it,
>> you were doing it wrong.
>
> But the scale is changing. My friend with the SOTA 8 CPU Apple still
> renders his video files overnight. Desktops continue their inevitable
> growth line toward supercomputers.
>

Wow. I had no idea video was that hoggish - makes sense, tho'.

>> I have read you for years, and never known any of this about you.
>> Thanks.
>
> How do you think I can pay for all this cool audio gear?

:)

--
Les Cargill

Re: PC Motherboard Chipsets and Parts Vendors

On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:27:28 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
<nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote:

>This is my new HT PC. I think that with one alteration, one could record in
>the same room. The Zalman CPU cooler is running at 1400 rpm, which is the
>minimum achievable with motherboard control of the fan voltage at a minimum
>of 4 volts. The cooler is a very efficient heatpipe design that could run
>slower. The case is made of a composite of plastic and steel, and appears to
>be far more efficient at noise damping than previous efforts employing
>absorbent foam. Samsung drives are known to be the least audible of current
>hard drives, although they must be shock mounted because they do vibrate.
>
> 1SAMSUNG Spinpoint F1 HD753LJ 750GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM
>Item #: N82E16822152100
>Limited 30-Day Return Policy $129.99

Mike,

I'll add another endorsement for the Samsung Spinpoint F1, I got the
1TB model few weeks ago, and I have it mounted in an Antec NSK2480
case with the supplied rubber grommets that I assume are similar to
what you'd get with the Sonata case. It is astonishingly quiet.

To the same PC I also added thermostatic fan speed control, and have
since come to regard it as the best thing since sliced bread,
particularly for a PC which is going to spend a lot of it's time
more-or-less idling. (Not unlike me...)

-Nick