Whatever happened to BTX?

[iRoNeTiK]

On a separate topic.

Whatever happened to....ROBOT JONES.

lol sorry topic title reminded me of that damn show!

 

[DocFaustus]

From a design aspect, there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a more effecient system. BTX will benifit many Intel users. Unfortunately, the traces to the ram were designed too long for AMD systems and would affect performance.

If I had to guess, I would say BTX would have been accepted if it worked with both companies.

 

[drizzt81]

QFT. Intel invented PCI, PCI Express, and USB, among other things

sure thing mate:

Board of Directors
The USB-IF, Inc. Board of Directors is composed of the following companies and their designated representative Directors:

Agere Systems - Dave Thompson
Hewlett-Packard Company - Alan Berkema
Intel Corporation - Jeff Ravencraft
Microsoft Corporation - Fred Bhesania
NEC Corporation - Katsuhiko Nakazawa
Philips - Geert Knapen

Microsoft Corporation
IBM Corp.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc
ATi....

I do not want to discredit Intel, however I think it is important to realize that most successful technologies have been created by a consortium of companies working together.

 

[Donnie27]

Correct. The new (Pentium M-based) Intel CPUs aren't like the 100+ Watt TDP Prescott CPUs. In terms of energy efficiency they are about equal to, if not better than AMD's offerings. With <50 Watt TDPs, there's no need at all for BTX.

Also, the one aspect of BTX which everyone seemed to be raving about (improved cooling) has been accomplished by big OEMs in ATX systems for a while now, through the use of ducts, whereby the air after going through the CPU's HSF is immediately forced outside the case.

At this point BTX is a solution in search of a problem.

Performance to Power Usage and Heat output ratio is better for Dothan/Yonah than anything AMD's got=P Now if Intel could bring the costs down, they'd have it made.

Donnie27

 

[pxc]

I do not want to discredit Intel, however I think it is important to realize that most successful technologies have been created by a consortium of companies working together.

Actually, you just did.

Intel did create USB, PCI and PCI-E.

USB2.0 was a "group" effort built on USB1.x, but USB1.0/1.1 was not.

PCI was solely created by Intel (initial slots were based on PCI 2.0 in 1993). PCISIG wasn't created until several years (edit) after PCI 1.0.

PCI-Express is a result of PCISIG, but it was Intel that proposed both 3GIO and the particular "Arapahoe" implementation that is now called PCI-Express: http://www.cmpnetasia.com/PrintArticle.cfm?Artid=11113

---

Anyways, back on topic. BTX is the biggest it's ever been. For people who build their own systems it's virtually non-existent, but in the OEM market it's very common for Intel-based systems. There are still no AMD BTX motherboards (besides the vapor MSI board, and no, there is not a technical reason for no AMD BTX boards, it's a market reason). ATX was also created by Intel as an improvement of the original IBM AT board layout. BTX is a very nice layout and it's a shame that it hasn't taken off in the DIY segment. Even AMD has 110W CPUs now and it would be very useful for any CPU.

 

[Donnie27]

sure thing mate:

I do not want to discredit Intel, however I think it is important to realize that most successful technologies have been created by a consortium of companies working together.

Intel came up with the tech (3GIO) and submitted it to the PCI-Sig. There are standards/steering committees for almost everything. Most of the time, they act as judges so Big companies keeps everything fair most of the time.

PCI-Sig press releases
http://www.pcisig.com/news_room/news/

Now please note the difference?

Globe Investor

About the PCI-SIG

The PCI-SIG is the Special Interest Group that owns and manages PCI specifications as open industry standards. The organization defines and implements new industry standard I/O (Input/Output) specifications as the industry's local I/O needs evolve. The PCI Special Interest Group was formed in 1992, and the organization became a nonprofit corporation, officially named "PCI-SIG" in the year 2000. Currently, more than 860 industry-leading companies are active PCI-SIG members worldwide. The PCI-SIG's current directors are employed by the following PCI-SIG member companies: AMD, HP, IBM, Intel, LSI Logic, Microsoft, Phoenix Technologies, ServerWorks and Texas Instruments. For more information about the PCI-SIG, and PCI-SIG membership benefits, contact the PCI-SIG by phone, at (503) 291-2569 (within the United States), or by fax at (503) 297-1090, or visit the PCI-SIG web site at http://www.pcisig.com.

About the HyperTransport Technology Consortium

The HyperTransport Technology Consortium is a non-profit organization managed by its members that is dedicated to promoting HyperTransport technology as an open, freely available industry specification for high bandwidth chip-to-chip communications. Membership in the consortium is open to any industry participant for a modest administrative fee and includes the right to royalty-free use of HyperTransport technology Intellectual Property. More information can be obtained from the HyperTransport Technology Consortium website at www.hypertransport.org. Advanced Micro Devices, Alliance Semiconductor, Apple Computer, Broadcom Corporation, Cisco Systems, NVIDIA, PMC-Sierra, Sun Microsystems, and Transmeta are promoter members and comprise the Executive Committee of the HyperTransport Technology Consortium. Companies interested in HyperTransport technology are invited to join the consortium. Consortium members pay modest annual dues and receive a royalty-free license to use the HyperTransport IP of the consortium members, gain access to additional technical documentation and may attend consortium meetings and events. To become a member, visit the consortium web site at www.hypertransport.org.

 

[Supasso]

Unfortunately, the traces to the ram were designed too long for AMD systems and would affect performance.

I have heard this a lot, but I think it's just a common misconception. I mean, just look at the picture. The RAM is still next to the CPU.

 

[Elledan]

Two things at which BTX fails:

Dual-CPU systems. The BTX layout allows for just a single CPU. This renders it essentially useless for the server market (where both ATX and E-ATX are doing an excellent job).

Heat-extraction efficiency. By having the cool, incoming air travel over the coolest parts first, the maximum amount of heat can be extracted from the system. In the case of BTX, some of the cooler parts (RAM, NB, etc.) are actually being warmed up.

BTX in many respects reverses back to the AT-layout.

 

[ProphetX]

Two things at which BTX fails:

Dual-CPU systems. The BTX layout allows for just a single CPU. This renders it essentially useless for the server market (where both ATX and E-ATX are doing an excellent job).

Heat-extraction efficiency. By having the cool, incoming air travel over the coolest parts first, the maximum amount of heat can be extracted from the system. In the case of BTX, some of the cooler parts (RAM, NB, etc.) are actually being warmed up.

BTX in many respects reverses back to the AT-layout.

Yes because dual cpu motherboards are so common to the mainstream user right?

Dualcore is too common for anyone to even think about a dual cpu setup. Look xbox 360 is triplecore, and quadcore processors are on the horizon.

Why would anyone even think about a dualcore setup anymore? Plus tomshardware did a shoot out between dualcore and dual cpu and dualocore easily blew it away.

So when even mentioning btx and dual cpu motherboards, only one makes sense. And its BTX

 

[CrimandEvil]

Gee, I didn't realize that [H]ard forum was filled with "mainstream users."

 

[ProphetX]

geez i didnt know that intel was trying to make BTX just for [H] users.

 

[Elledan]

Yes because dual cpu motherboards are so common to the mainstream user right?

Dualcore is too common for anyone to even think about a dual cpu setup. Look xbox 360 is triplecore, and quadcore processors are on the horizon.

Why would anyone even think about a dualcore setup anymore? Plus tomshardware did a shoot out between dualcore and dual cpu and dualocore easily blew it away.

So when even mentioning btx and dual cpu motherboards, only one makes sense. And its BTX

Yes, dual-core is more efficient than dual-CPU, but sometimes you want to have as many cores on a single mainboard as possible.

If you look at an existing (E-ATX) Tyan mainboard for the Opteron 8xx series with 4 sockets, you'll notice that with all sockets filled with dual-core Opteron CPUs, there'll be a total of 8 cores on this single board. What does BTX have to offer for the server market? Does Intel even have a CPU which scales past 4 cores?

So, BTX might be a funny idea for the average (OEM) desktop PC, but in the server market it fails hard.

 

[Donnie27]

Two things at which BTX fails:

Dual-CPU systems. The BTX layout allows for just a single CPU. This renders it essentially useless for the server market (where both ATX and E-ATX are doing an excellent job).

Heat-extraction efficiency. By having the cool, incoming air travel over the coolest parts first, the maximum amount of heat can be extracted from the system. In the case of BTX, some of the cooler parts (RAM, NB, etc.) are actually being warmed up.

BTX in many respects reverses back to the AT-layout.

No it's not. BTX can ship as Double Wide, Extended, NSX, Micro and even PICO.

NB and etc.. already get blowoff from the CPU heatsink already, unless you're suing a Duct doing reverse exaust, i.e. old Alpha Coolers.

 

[Donnie27]

geez i didnt know that intel was trying to make BTX just for [H] users.

It's not made "just for [H] users" LOL! It's a nice side affect. Like buying oversized heatsinks made for Faster processors, installing them on a Cheaper processor and overclocking.

 

[ProphetX]

Yes, dual-core is more efficient than dual-CPU, but sometimes you want to have as many cores on a single mainboard as possible.

If you look at an existing (E-ATX) Tyan mainboard for the Opteron 8xx series with 4 sockets, you'll notice that with all sockets filled with dual-core Opteron CPUs, there'll be a total of 8 cores on this single board. What does BTX have to offer for the server market? Does Intel even have a CPU which scales past 4 cores?

So, BTX might be a funny idea for the average (OEM) desktop PC, but in the server market it fails hard.

Of course it makes sense for servers. But the market in questions was the average pc user.

My grandama can live with out her dual cpu amd system.

 

[ProphetX]

It's not made "just for [H] users" LOL! It's a nice side affect. Like buying oversized heatsinks made for Faster processors, installing them on a Cheaper processor and overclocking.

i was being sarcastic.

My rig is actually a btx setup, and it is very good.

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

(A good example of this is when Intel developed PCI-E, and the "standards people" including AMD, bought off on it. Intel says, "Hey, we gots us here a gooder idea, PCI-Express." Booooooo, Intel is pushing another standard, boooooo, they're flexing their muscles, Prescott is hot, We the People don't use 8x AGP to full potential, they pay people off, etc, etc) And no, Intel didn't 'do' PCI-E on their own.

i personally dislike pci-e.. there's a much better standard out there, based off the HT link:
http://www.hypertransport.org/docs/wp/HTX_wp_final.pdf

 

[Oh4Sh0]

That's quite interesting.

 

[superkdogg]

My tin-foil hat says that Intel is allowing BTX to die since their next-gen procs won't need the cooler air and the only dreamed it up to keep Prescotts from throttling so bad that they function like Williamettes.

 

[ProphetX]

btx is by no means dying. Been to best buy or compusa lately. 90% of al pcs desktops there are btx. go to gateway, dell, and hp. Finding an atx desktop on any of these sites is like finding a 4 leaf clover.