Intel's agreement with the FTC
in [Chips]
|
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 7 Aug 2010 22:43 Yousuf Khan <bbbl67(a)yahoo.com> writes: > On 8/6/2010 6:14 PM, Robert Myers wrote: >>> It hasn't said that you need to keep the slots around, just the bus. >>> That means GPUs can be soldiered onto motherboards using PCIe lines >>> directly. >>> >> >> I *knew* you'd say that. Let's see what happens. >> >> Robert. >> > > That's the way discrete graphics in laptops are done anyways. Have you > ever seen a video card for laptops, either from ATI or Nvidia? The > mobile video "cards" are really just part of the motherboard. Plus > Atom systems will still need PCIe lines, because all modern PC-Card > (formerly PCMCIA) peripherals are direct extensions of the PCIe > interfaces. I thought PC Card was PCI, ExpressCard (which I've never actually seen in real life) was PCIe? -- As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
From: Yousuf Khan on 8 Aug 2010 00:26 On 8/7/2010 10:43 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > I thought PC Card was PCI, ExpressCard (which I've never actually seen > in real life) was PCIe? You're probably right. Yousuf Khan
From: Intel Guy on 8 Aug 2010 09:25 Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > I thought PC Card was PCI, ExpressCard (which I've never actually > seen in real life) was PCIe? If you've handled a video card made during the past 3 or 4 years, you've handled a PCIe card. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCIe Not to be confused with PCI-x http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI-X ExpressCard is a replacement for the PCMCIA or CardBus format: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Express_card One of the needs that fostered the development of PCI-X seemed to be giga-bit LAN cards. But there are plenty of conventional PCI giga-bit lan cards these days, so why was PCI-X needed for that?
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 8 Aug 2010 10:51 Intel Guy <Intel(a)Guy.com> writes: > Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > >> I thought PC Card was PCI, ExpressCard (which I've never actually >> seen in real life) was PCIe? > > If you've handled a video card made during the past 3 or 4 years, you've > handled a PCIe card. It's ExpressCard I don't think I've ever seen in real life. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCIe > > Not to be confused with PCI-x > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI-X > > ExpressCard is a replacement for the PCMCIA or CardBus format: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Express_card > > One of the needs that fostered the development of PCI-X seemed to be > giga-bit LAN cards. But there are plenty of conventional PCI giga-bit > lan cards these days, so why was PCI-X needed for that? -- As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
From: Jim on 8 Aug 2010 15:56
"Intel Guy" <Intel(a)Guy.com> wrote in message news:4C5EB04F.7F4B5043(a)Guy.com... > One of the needs that fostered the development of PCI-X seemed to be > giga-bit LAN cards. But there are plenty of conventional PCI giga-bit > lan cards these days, so why was PCI-X needed for that? PCI is 133MB/s shared among the entire bus. Gigabit is 128MB/s but if sending and recieving thats up to 256MB/s. Not a problem for the home user which isn't going to have another bandwidth hungry PCI card (maybe a SoundBlaster :P) and a HDD that is likely to slow to reach full speed. Wiki also mentions SCSI cards as another popular device. A few 15K RPM HDDs would probably read >133MB/s. |