On 8 Jan, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > On Thursday 08 January 2004 09:53, David O'Brien wrote: >> > or so ago was very reasonably priced at the time and performs well. My >> > suspicion is that the recent lack of ECC support may be due to AMD >> > wanting to move "serious" users over to their new 64 bit architecture. >> >> No, the problem is AMD isn't updating the 761 chipset to do 333 or 400 >> FSB -- thus few want to use that chip set today. AMD is not presureing >> VIA, ALI, nVidia, etc... to not produce ECC supporting motherboards. > > Double negative? :) > > It certainly irritates the crap out of me that you can't seem to buy an ECC > board that will fit a modern Athlon in it :( Same here. Before the Opteron and Athlon 64 stuff was released, I was wondering why AMD wasn't pressuring its partners in the other direction. There were no motherboards that I could find that supported both the latest Athlon XP processors (AMD's high end offering at the time) and ECC RAM. Anyone who wanted both this level of performance and ECC RAM was stuck with the Intel P4. This was especially puzzling since there were hints that at least the VIA chipsets of the time did support ECC RAM. I speculated at the time that AMD and/or the motherboard makers figured that they could sell all the fast Athlon XPs they could make to gamers, and that they hadn't quite planned for the delays in the 64 bit stuff. The lack of matching high-speed Athlon MPs also fit this picture. This is all speculation on my part and seems to me to have some sort of logic to it, but I have no idea if this was AMD's intent.Received on Wed Jan 07 2004 - 15:20:10 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:36 UTC