differences between 965 and 975?

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-06-2006, 11:32 AM
pik-ard v1.1

heh. thought it looked familiar... just couldn't place it caus i'm not used to seeing them on the back.

Quote:

Back Panel I/O Ports

1 x PS/2 Keyboard
1 x PS/2 Mouse
1 x Serial port
1 x S/PDIF Out (Coaxial + Optical)
1 x External SATA
1 x IEEE1394a
2 x RJ45 port
4 x USB 2.0/1.1
1 x WiFi-AP Solo™ antenna jack
8-Channel Audio I/O

guess i should checked that list...

EDIT: hmm... but dont sata drives need seperate power connectors? though maybe there's some new sata thing that provides power... or maybe it splits and connects to both. or maybe we'll just wait and see.
06-06-2006, 12:08 PM
Torin

An external SATA drive would probably have it's own wall-plug power adapter similiar to how external IDE drives get their power.
06-06-2006, 12:28 PM
JoeBar

Yes it has its own power supply.
06-06-2006, 03:13 PM
n91htmare

Quote:

Originally Posted by pik-ard v1.1

heh. thought it looked familiar... just couldn't place it caus i'm not used to seeing them on the back.

guess i should checked that list...

EDIT: hmm... but dont sata drives need seperate power connectors? though maybe there's some new sata thing that provides power... or maybe it splits and connects to both. or maybe we'll just wait and see.

lol that rabbit is gettin to you man. haha

Don't the current USB and Firewire Drives have Extermal power source ?:)... same for external SATA..

Can we start saying good bye to USB/Firewire? who needs 400MB/s when you can have up to 3GB a second
06-06-2006, 04:48 PM
lutjens

Quote:

Really though... I would NOT base my decisions on quad core. Until there is a change in the FSB then quad core is a waste IMHO. You get away with it on the Server side since they will have dual independent FSB's and FBDIMMs..... desktop there isn't the bandwidth to take advantage of it. Again... IMHO.

My thoughts exactly...it may work, but how well is anybody's guess. Sort of like the old Xeon MP, running 4 CPUs on 1 lousy 100MHz bus...:rolleyes:

Of course, running two Clovertown on a Bensley board would result in a similar sort of bottleneck...albeit on a factor of two (one for each socket/bus). Each half of a Clovertown would roughly be equal to a Merom running on Napa (333MHz/2). But, as you say, the bottleneck would be more acute on the desktop side due to the 266MHz bus vs the 333MHz bus for Bensley.

What may work to alleviate this bottleneck would be something like a DDR2-800 situation with a 1:2 bus:memory configuration. Broadwater is bringing DDR2-800 to the table, so really all that would be needed is validation at 400 MHz, which considering many chipsets are running there already, shouldn't be entirely out of the realm of possibility.

Here's hoping, in any event...;)
06-06-2006, 06:14 PM
gone_fishin

975 is the enthusiast chipset and is the only one to support extreme edition processors, at least the boards made by Intel. If the intel made 965 boards won't support extreme edition why would the 965 boards made by other companies?
06-06-2006, 06:57 PM
Torin

Quote:

Originally Posted by gone_fishin

975 is the enthusiast chipset and is the only one to support extreme edition processors, at least the boards made by Intel. If the intel made 965 boards won't support extreme edition why would the 965 boards made by other companies?

Why would you think the 965 boards won't support EE chips?

They do, look here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2771

Chipset supports Conroe, why would Conroe EE be any different?
06-06-2006, 07:12 PM
pik-ard v1.1

Quote:

Originally Posted by n91htmare

lol that rabbit is gettin to you man. haha

Don't the current USB and Firewire Drives have Extermal power source ?:)... same for external SATA..

Can we start saying good bye to USB/Firewire? who needs 400MB/s when you can have up to 3GB a second

yea... i think it may be... i dunno why i messed up so much thinking about that one little sata port

hmm... and i just got a usb thumb drive. i wonder if sata will get to the point where there will be lightning fast sata thumb drives.. :confused: would be cool, though the design isn't as compact as usb ports. though of course they could rearange it just like there are more compact usb connectors
06-07-2006, 01:45 AM
FischOderAal

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutjens

My thoughts exactly...it may work, but how well is anybody's guess. Sort of like the old Xeon MP, running 4 CPUs on 1 lousy 100MHz bus...:rolleyes:

Of course, running two Clovertown on a Bensley board would result in a similar sort of bottleneck...albeit on a factor of two (one for each socket/bus). Each half of a Clovertown would roughly be equal to a Merom running on Napa (333MHz/2). But, as you say, the bottleneck would be more acute on the desktop side due to the 266MHz bus vs the 333MHz bus for Bensley.

What may work to alleviate this bottleneck would be something like a DDR2-800 situation with a 1:2 bus:memory configuration. Broadwater is bringing DDR2-800 to the table, so really all that would be needed is validation at 400 MHz, which considering many chipsets are running there already, shouldn't be entirely out of the realm of possibility.

Here's hoping, in any event...;)

yepp, Intel's Quadcore will lack performance due to the missing IMC (my opinion). that's why Intel introduced Dual FSB in Server boards (afaik).

but many 975X Boards have native DDR2 800 support, too. for example the P5WD2-E, P5WDG2-WS, P5W-DH... just to mention the ones of Asus.

well, but I still seriously doubt that 965 will beat the 975... I think Intel would rather bind a stone at the limbs of 965 than see the 975 being beaten by the 965...
that would be like a 7900GT beats a 7900GTX...
06-07-2006, 04:31 AM
Torin

Quote:

Originally Posted by FischOderAal

well, but I still seriously doubt that 965 will beat the 975... I think Intel would rather bind a stone at the limbs of 965 than see the 975 being beaten by the 965...
that would be like a 7900GT beats a 7900GTX...

The 975X is a Crossfire chipset, what is so hard to believe about a more barebones chipset (P965) beating it or at least equalling it in performance? You can't compare chipsets to GPU models... the GTX has faster and more memory, that's why it performs better, no similiar parallel can be made between 975X and P965.
06-07-2006, 06:56 AM
Gautam

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho

/sigh.... I don't understand why i have to keep saying this. 965 WILL outperform 975. I've seen the numbers, I've talked to the design engineers, I know what I am saying. Intel is pulling out all the stops on this one. It has little to do with only DDR2-800 support.... it has to do with the way the MCH works in 965 as opposed to 975. It's a newer, "better" chipset.... no way around it.

So, what do you have in store for us Crossfire users?
06-07-2006, 06:58 AM
FischOderAal

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho

/sigh.... I don't understand why i have to keep saying this. 965 WILL outperform 975. I've seen the numbers, I've talked to the design engineers, I know what I am saying. Intel is pulling out all the stops on this one. It has little to do with only DDR2-800 support.... it has to do with the way the MCH works in 965 as opposed to 975. It's a newer, "better" chipset.... no way around it.

the same way you "knew" Kentsfield wouldn't boot on 975? sry for that one...
06-07-2006, 07:08 AM
FischOderAal

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho

Wow... you're an idiot. If you look back I always said that I wasn't 100% sure on that one and that I would verify it. Guess what... I'm 100% sure on this one.

:stick: no need to call someone an idiot :slapass: if that's your niveau...

if you know you're right, fine. I only say that for marketing reasons for example this would be bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: and we've seen often enough that some products had integrated breaks, just to make them slower...
06-07-2006, 07:31 AM
Cooper

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho

Like I care.....

With that attitude you just might go outside :nono:

*NO ABUSING*
06-07-2006, 08:39 AM
Cooper

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho

WTF? Yea, cause what he said was SOOOOOOO polite. :rolleyes: Sorry if I don't hide my contempt for people in subtext... :rolleyes:

There`s no ofence in his statement. And please do try to behave yourself. Any misunderstandings take to PM.
06-07-2006, 08:46 AM
mine

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho

/sigh.... I don't understand why i have to keep saying this. 965 WILL outperform 975. I've seen the numbers, I've talked to the design engineers, I know what I am saying. Intel is pulling out all the stops on this one. It has little to do with only DDR2-800 support.... it has to do with the way the MCH works in 965 as opposed to 975. It's a newer, "better" chipset.... no way around it.

I am pretty sure that you know what you are saying this time ...
but would you do us a favor and
comment a little bit on the advantages of the 965 MCH ? " I know " isn`t very describing .
As far as I remember you refer to the "Intelfast memory Access" feature
and the DDR2-800 support ..
now ....
I see the first anand review of a 965 based mobu/ Conroe combi and guess what , I have some problems to see the big step ....

Thanks in advance for a little lesson in chipdesign...
06-07-2006, 09:21 AM
Cooper

So you mean the only advamtage of 975 over 965 is CrossFire support ?
Well, chipset been officialy presented - perhaps you might give us some comparative numbers (or at least %) ?
06-07-2006, 10:29 AM
Cooper

That`s a very nice boost. Conroe and specially Kentsfield would definatly benefit from that.
Anybody knows when will 965 based mobos will hit the market ?
Something tells me that`s gonna happen very soon and we`ll see a lot of comparative tests with 975 ones

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page