Intel "Bearlake" chipsets info. You will like!!!

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
TWO 16 lane video cards will be accommodated in some chipsets. And Express 2.



DDR3 1333MHz memory!



lots of additional goodness.



http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4588
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 40
    zandroszandros Posts: 537member
    Yup. And it still requires a separate Firewire controller.
  • Reply 2 of 40
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,960member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zandros


    Yup. And it still requires a separate Firewire controller.



    Yup. at a big $0.75 a chip.
  • Reply 3 of 40
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross


    Yup. at a big $0.75 a chip.



    The underlying component cost isn't the whole picture. Even so it certainly is not a significant factor in a MacPro, but it is "yet another thing" for a mini or other low cost machine.



    Regardless, the Bearlakes look like some exciting product. I'm going to have to give serious though to replacing the G5 next year when I can get an 8-way Core architecture machine with a chipset and high performance memory subsystem.
  • Reply 4 of 40
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,960member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Programmer


    The underlying component cost isn't the whole picture. Even so it certainly is not a significant factor in a MacPro, but it is "yet another thing" for a mini or other low cost machine.



    Regardless, the Bearlakes look like some exciting product. I'm going to have to give serious though to replacing the G5 next year when I can get an 8-way Core architecture machine with a chipset and high performance memory subsystem.



    Of course, everything adds to the cost.



    It isn't a major factor, which I wanted to point out.



    Actually, that $0.75 is what I can buy the chip for in 10 unit quantities. I would imagine Apple would pay quite a bit less.
  • Reply 5 of 40
    Question? What is a $0.75 chip? It costs 75c?
  • Reply 6 of 40
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,960member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iGrouch


    Question? What is a $0.75 chip? It costs 75c?



    You can write it either way. I prefer the former.



    I like consistancy. When saying two dollars, you wouldn't say two hundred cents.



    But when you write out more than one number at a time, they have to track.



    So, you wouldn't write:



    $2.00

    +

    .....75¢



    You would write:



    $2.00

    +

    $0.75



    I just write it that way all of the time.
  • Reply 7 of 40
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross


    Of course, everything adds to the cost.



    It isn't a major factor, which I wanted to point out.



    Actually, that $0.75 is what I can buy the chip for in 10 unit quantities. I would imagine Apple would pay quite a bit less.



    Incidentally, do you have a datasheet link for the one you refer to?
  • Reply 8 of 40
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,960member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Programmer


    Incidentally, do you have a datasheet link for the one you refer to?



    I don't have an actual datasheet, but this one comes fairly close.



    http://www.cast-inc.com/cores/c1394a/index.shtml



    You can go down to the bottom of the page for more datasheets and info.



    Are you planning on developing something with Firewire?



    I haven't done any for a while. I'm leaving Firewire.
  • Reply 9 of 40
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross




    I'm leaving Firewire.




    I would be interested in knowing why, and what you are replacing it with?
  • Reply 10 of 40
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,605member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by snoopy


    I would be interested in knowing why, and what you are replacing it with?



    fiberwire















































































  • Reply 11 of 40
    I told 'em to call it Fi'ahWi'ah 'cuz it sounded cooler...but NOOOOO, they stuck with the lamer FireWire name and look where it got them.
  • Reply 12 of 40
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross


    I don't have an actual datasheet, but this one comes fairly close.



    http://www.cast-inc.com/cores/c1394a/index.shtml



    No 800 Mbit/s support.
  • Reply 13 of 40
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,960member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by snoopy


    I would be interested in knowing why, and what you are replacing it with?



    For everything possible - SATA.



    Certainly, I'm getting rid of my Firewire drives. I'm in the process of putting those PATE drives inside into converter SATA enclosures, and have bought my first four drive ESATA tower.



    I'm tired of the unreliability of firewire. SATA is also much faster than even Firewire 800.



    We should have been running 1600 speeds for a good year or more, and should be getting ready for 3200. But, it's been held back for so long, it's become a dead issue.



    I'm afraid that the only thing it will be good for is camcorders.
  • Reply 14 of 40
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,960member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aplnub


    fiberwire



















































































    Long post!
  • Reply 15 of 40
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,960member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chucker


    No 800 Mbit/s support.



    Yeah, you're right. Sorry, I forgot. It's the one I was using.



    I haven't been around Friday. If I have time Saturday, I'll try to look one up.
  • Reply 16 of 40
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross




    . . . I'm tired of the unreliability of firewire. SATA is also much faster than even Firewire 800.



    We should have been running 1600 speeds for a good year or more, and should be getting ready for 3200. But, it's been held back for so long, it's become a dead issue.



    I'm afraid that the only thing it will be good for is camcorders.




    I'm disappointed to hear such bad news about FireWire. Can I get your prognosis on the future of this interface? Might it be replaced as a general purpose, high-speed interface, or does it have some unique advantages that can keep it going until it is finally upgraded? I seem to remember it can be used peer-to-peer or something like that, and it can be used at a reasonably long distance, maybe a few hundred feet. Sorry I'm uninformed about such things.



    Maybe it could be saved by ripping it out of the hands of a committee and just given to Intel to play with. Intel would already have a customer for it, Apple, and if FireWire were speeded up it may really catch on.
  • Reply 17 of 40
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,437moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross


    Certainly, I'm getting rid of my Firewire drives. I'm in the process of putting those PATE drives inside into converter SATA enclosures, and have bought my first four drive ESATA tower.



    I'm tired of the unreliability of firewire. SATA is also much faster than even Firewire 800.



    What interface will you use on the esata tower? USB2? If so, in what way do you see it being more reliable than firewire i.e what firewire issues have you had?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by snoopy


    Can I get your prognosis on the future of this interface? Might it be replaced as a general purpose, high-speed interface, or does it have some unique advantages that can keep it going until it is finally upgraded?



    One advantage is that practically every digital camcorder exclusively has a firewire port for video capture. This means that support for it will have to continue for a long time.



    I hope that someday we manage to get one interface that deals with everything. I can see it going wireless too. There are articles about USB3 going the wireless route. This means no ports necessary whatsoever.



    This would be great for fast setup and keeping clutter to a minimum. Also for sharing devices like a RAID backup.
  • Reply 18 of 40
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin


    What interface will you use on the esata tower? USB2?







    eSATA is the interface.
  • Reply 19 of 40
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin




    What interface will you use on the esata tower? USB2? If so, in what way do you see it being more reliable than firewire i.e what firewire issues have you had?




    Thought I don't know much about these things, I would expect the interface to be SATA. Whether anyone makes an SATA PCI card for interface, I don't know. I have a friend who is an electrical engineer developing circuitry for printers. He is using SATA to pipe signals around in the printer. At least it's SATA cable. I may be mistaken about the signal itself.



    Quote:



    I hope that someday we manage to get one interface that deals with everything. I can see it going wireless too.




    My impression is that wireless is slower than we can get by cables. Why not GHz Ethernet? That's fast. My house is wired for GHz Ethernet to every room. It is not running at this rate yet. Also, I may be odd, but I try to minimize the RF energy my family and I are exposed to. We have no interest in cell phones for example, and we live far from high tension wires, cell phone towers and TV towers.



    I still have a suspicion that FireWire may have some unique advantages over other interconnect schemes. If so, I hope they get on the ball and update it.
  • Reply 20 of 40
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by snoopy


    Thought I don't know much about these things, I would expect the interface to be SATA. Whether anyone makes an SATA PCI card for interface, I don't know. I have a friend who is an electrical engineer developing circuitry for printers. He is using SATA to pipe signals around in the printer. At least it's SATA cable. I may be mistaken about the signal itself.







    My impression is that wireless is slower than we can get by cables. Why not GHz Ethernet? That's fast. My house is wired for GHz Ethernet to every room. It is not running at this rate yet. Also, I may be odd, but I try to minimize the RF energy my family and I are exposed to. We have no interest in cell phones for example, and we live far from high tension wires, cell phone towers and TV towers.



    I still have a suspicion that FireWire may have some unique advantages over other interconnect schemes. If so, I hope they get on the ball and update it.



    802.11n can _theoretically_ go up to 540Mbps, or a little over half of what gigabit ethernet can theoretically go up to, so wireless is catching up. So while wireless will likely always be slower, it's not by that enough that it's worth the inconvenience of being wired down.
Sign In or Register to comment.