-
January 29th, 2001, 04:41 PM
#1
[RESOLVED] FCPGA vs Slot 1, what is better?
Gang, I have been trying to do some research on what processor type is better:
FCPGA or SLOT 1.
System's that I have put together have only been slot 1 not FCPGA. Since the Intel price cut is supposed to happen, I am wondering what type I should get for a high end upgrade. I have a 600e now but if the prices are going to make getting a 800+ for a steal then I would like to jump on it. A lot of the vendors I see are selling the FCPGA and not the slot 1. Any info on this would be greatly appreciated. Intel's site just goes into real technical documents. I am just looking for a simple explanation. Thanks all!!
Arty
------------------
Arty De Gaetano II
Software Developer
The Clayton Group
-
January 29th, 2001, 05:22 PM
#2
I would say the FCPGA would be better for high end computers.
The Slot1 is like getting a PS/2 mouse into a serial port...Just another adapter.
------------------
An obstacle is something you see when you take your eyes off your goal.
An obstacle is something you see when you take your eyes off your goal.
-
January 29th, 2001, 09:30 PM
#3
The Slot1 is basically Intel's attempt to keep AMD from creating CPU's that can run on the same motherboard. The FC-PGA package goes back to the Socket7 (sort of), it is obviously a different number of pins, but also cheaper to make. I would say that in a year, Slot1 CPU's would be a rarity to see in any online computer store, because motherboard makers are making Socket 370 boards, to accomodate both the older Celerons, and the newer FC-PGA Celerons and Pentium 3's. In short, FC-PGA is better, because it will be around for a while.
-
January 29th, 2001, 10:53 PM
#4
Socket is a superior interface. The slot design created a bottle neck in higher speed processors. The slot design is basically obsolete. I am not sure how much cheaper the socket is over the slot when you have to retool a manufacturing plant for $.01 worth the material per chip, if that!
------------------
You spend your whole life believing that you're on the right track,
only to discover that you're on the wrong train.
-
January 30th, 2001, 02:25 AM
#5
Registered User
I agree about FCPGA.
After all, Slot-1 won't be around for too long!
------------------
"Matter is passive. In spite of its power, it can't be controlled without the human mind." - Sokrates
My Hardware Info, Hardware Media and Computer History page
The wandering Odysseus of the web.
-
January 30th, 2001, 04:45 AM
#6
Slot 1 is better for overclocking tho'. Well so I've found... All my PCs are running slot1 overclocked. I don't buy a motherboard/CPU combo unless they overclock.
------------------
[ i N S A N i T Y 2 0 o 1 ]
-
January 30th, 2001, 05:43 AM
#7
-
January 30th, 2001, 05:53 AM
#8
Registered User
No one said anything about AMD!
Shulax26, asked our opinion about FCPGA and Slot-1 Intel processors. He didn't asked which is better. Intel or AMD!
Of course, you stated your opinion but this, you know, could start another Intel vs. AMD debate. And you know something?? I'm sick of it. Everybody here is sick of it!!!
------------------
"Matter is passive. In spite of its power, it can't be controlled without the human mind." - Sokrates
My Hardware Info, Hardware Media and Computer History page
The wandering Odysseus of the web.
-
January 30th, 2001, 06:52 AM
#9
Stay away from Slot1. You'll thank yourself in the future.
------------------
I once thought I was wrong but I was mistaken.
-
January 30th, 2001, 08:56 AM
#10
Well I just want to thank everyone for their time and information. I guess it is FCPGA all the way. Once again WinDrivers is the place to find all information!!!!!!! You guys are awesome!!!!
Arty
------------------
Arty De Gaetano II
Software Developer
The Clayton Group
-
January 30th, 2001, 12:54 PM
#11
Personally, I find that Slot -1 boards are more flexible, combined with a slotket adapter for the simple reason that if you need to test a SECC type CPU then you can. Also, you have the ability to run LARGE heatsink combo's with the adapter due to not worrying about Capacitors etc around the socket interfact on a socketed board.....
It has been proven on anandtech and many other sites that you don't really lose any signal strength etc when you use the adapter, so why lose the flexibility? Also, some intel boards and MOST non-abit/asus o/c-type boards don't let you adjust voltage or overclock celerons on a 100MHz FSB, nor use them in dual configurations.
Those are some arguments for the Slot 1 boards - thought I would play devils advocate.
------------------
If all you see is a beige metal box with wires and such, look again. Now turn it on....
-
January 30th, 2001, 02:41 PM
#12
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Darkpoint:
Don't buy intel. Hear how they hacked the p4 to bits at www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm. The athlon is simply a superior chip, and it overclocks pretty well (1ghz oc up to 1.5) from what i've heard.
</font>
Get a life man I am a 100% intel man but i dont go dogging people in the AMD boards. Keep those opions on the AMD board.
The real reason for Slot 1 was becuase
with the micron size of the new chips at that time they couldnt disapate the heat fast enough so they went to the slot1 they also did it so that no one else could use there boards which is a smart thing to beat competitors. Once they got the microns down so low on the 600+ they went back to flip chips becuase it is a smaller chip. The thing that sucks it they changed four pins on the Fcpga so that old socket370 celerons wont work in them that pissed me off. Still they are talking about changing slots again its simply a plot with the processor makers and board makers to make people buy more stuff new chip = new board. The plus about a slot one board is you can buy fc adapter and install a fc in it anyway later. X
-
January 30th, 2001, 08:59 PM
#13
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by x_789:
Originally posted by Darkpoint:
Don't buy intel. Hear how they hacked the p4 to bits at www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm. The athlon is simply a superior chip, and it overclocks pretty well (1ghz oc up to 1.5) from what i've heard.
</font>
Get a life man I am a 100% intel man but i dont go dogging people in the AMD boards. Keep those opions on the AMD board.
The real reason for Slot 1 was becuase
with the micron size of the new chips at that time they couldnt disapate the heat fast enough so they went to the slot1 they also did it so that no one else could use there boards which is a smart thing to beat competitors. Once they got the microns down so low on the 600+ they went back to flip chips becuase it is a smaller chip. The thing that sucks it they changed four pins on the Fcpga so that old socket370 celerons wont work in them that pissed me off. Still they are talking about changing slots again its simply a plot with the processor makers and board makers to make people buy more stuff new chip = new board. The plus about a slot one board is you can buy fc adapter and install a fc in it anyway later. X
Only partially right - it was the CACHE that wasn't able to run at full core clock until the Celeron 300A......that is why it was offboard and thus required the awkward SECC/2 cartridge type CPU's.
The Pentium Pro was too expensive to make and when it failed it bit intel's pocketbook a bit too much, so they put it outside the CPU until it was financially feasible (and technologically as well) to put it back in, and then go back to a socket. The socket to slot conversion also had a side-effect - Intel had the patents wrapped up to Slot 1 and that is why there is no AMD cartridge-type clone, and one of the reasons they adopted the Alpha EV6 bus
------------------
If all you see is a beige metal box with wires and such, look again. Now turn it on....
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks