Jump to content

Talk:List of Intel chipsets/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

ICH features table?

ICH..ICHx features table Alecv 16:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

fsb

all of the fsb speed entries claim to be megahertz, but are actually megatransfers per second. the fsb does four transfers for every clock, so a 200mhz fsb is doing 800 mt/s. -- user akb4, not currently logged in. 141.154.70.19 04:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's only true for the AGTL+ buses (P4, Pentium M, Core, etc). Older buses are 1 transfer per clock. --Swaaye 06:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely true, but within the scope of this discussion it is. PCI-X Buses are also capable of Multiple Data Cycles per Clock Cycle and are not AGTL+. PCI-X 266 and PCI-X 533 used 2 and 4 data cycles respectively to achieve their Bandwidth of 2,132 and 4,266 MBps with a bus speed of 133 MHz. Also PCI-E when first implemented was given a Data Cycles per Clock Cycle of 0.799 due to the overhead of the encoding method. I{nstructions}P{er}C{ycle}or Multiple Data Cycles per Clock {a more accurate description} is an efficient technique towards achieving higher throughput on a slower bus which may be best known for the use with the AGP bus {2x or 16x on a typical 32-bit bus running at 66MHz creates a throughput difference of 2000%, 266MHz vs 4266MHz} Therefore to determine {supposedly max possible, it looks like a .10 bit rounding down is common} Throughput on the FSB, I keep this formula handy-

(Width of Bus [# [Max]Bits possible during data transfer] * Speed [Giga-Mega-Hertz] * Clock to Data Ratio [[d]IPC [Data] Instructions Per Cycle]) / 8 (Bits to Byte)= Throughput of (any) Bus (limited to controller).

-[user:NathanDenig|NathanDenig]

Bearlake P35 chipset will also support PCI-e 2.0, just like the X38.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/06/06/p35_supports_pcie_2/1 http://www.nordichardware.com/news,6495.html 216.69.219.3 22:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

SMP?

Should "SMP" be used in the tables concerning chipsets supporting multicore processors? Technically, a multicore single package processor still does SMP and the chipset have to support SMP for it to work. A more fitting name could be "sigle CPU socket" or "multi processor" or "multiple CPU sockets".

Also, i875p does support multiple CPU sockets and and is in use with dual s-604 Xeons on popular workstation motherboards such as Asus NCCH-DL, Iwill DH800 and Asus PC-DL Deluxe. 91.135.34.232 21:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


Clean Up Mobile Chipsets?

I'm going to have a look at this tonight or this weekend, and give the mobile chipsets their own separate table - this way, they aren't all over the place. Suigi 20:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Done! Hope you guys like it. Suigi 02:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Southbridge?

Isn't the southbridge of Corporate chipsets (denoted with a "Q", e.g. Q33, Q35, Q965) use ICHx-DO southbridge, why is that written as ICHx-DH? Obviously there're shome mishtakes... --202.40.157.145 08:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

G31 chipset

I added the G31 chipset and as much as I could find from Intel's website on the G31. See: [1]. Maybe someone can fill in the '?' boxes. I wasn't sure what to put there. Hellcat fighter 10:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Core/Xeon chipsets?

Where are the 5000X, 5000P, etc? Frankie

We must add them to the article`a5b 14:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here they are! http://compare.intel.com/pcc/showchart.aspx?mmID=23663,24664,24665&familyID=9

What I'm trying to find out is what is the difference between 5000P and 5000X... I notice some boards have integrated graphics, is there a correlation?

Does the 946GZ Support Intel Core 2 Duo?

Does this chipset support Intel Core 2 Duo processors as well?? Just wondering because on the Intel website it says that it does http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/946PL_946GZ/index.htm and Acer's website as well. Any more information?? I think I have this chipset and desperately want to upgrade to Intel Core 2 Duo... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.252.43 (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Only certain manufacturers support Core 2 Duo's with the 946GZ. It is not offically supported. (Skilltim (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

G41 chipset missing

Just letting everyone know so that someone might add it. I would have to learn how to correctly format the content before adding it myself. The information about the chipset is here amongst other places - http://compare.intel.com/pcc/showchart.aspx?mmID=36518&familyID=10&culture=en-US —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.241.52 (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

VT-d compatibility

I guess the G45 doesn't have the VT-d capability. Should we change the info in the array, or am I wrong?

See here: [2]

(page 20, Intel Virtualization Technology (82Q45 GMCH only) )

Ben.oks (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Units

I see someone recently replaced the units with binary prefixes. According to WP:COMPUNITS:

"The IEC standard prefixes kibi-, mebi-, gibi-, etc. (symbols Ki, Mi, Gi, etc.) are not familiar to most Wikipedia readers, so are generally not to be used except under the following circumstances:

when the article is on a topic where the majority of cited sources use the IEC prefixes, when directly quoting a source that uses the IEC prefixes, in articles specifically about or explicitly discussing the IEC prefixes."

Since this article doesn't meet these criteria I reverted the units and added a footnote explaining the correct usage. Also, to avoid confusion or conflict it's better to stick with whatever units were used to create the article rather than changing them later on. Karsini (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Harware Virtualization Re: P45 Chipset

So far as Intel is concerned, Virtualization is available, which is contrary to the chart's contents. Howiknow (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not according to the official datasheet http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/specupdate/319971.pdf

Where are you getting this info from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.35.49.26 (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The list says that 945p (Lakeport) can support Celeron D processors but I am not sure?

I have a 945p and was looking at some Celeron D's which are Wolfdales and contain 45nm and 65nm technology. Will my motherboard be able to support anything other than 90nm technology (which I have now)?

Salad10203 (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The 945P does support Celeron D processors but these were based on the P4 design. You're possibly confusing it with the Celeron Dual Core which is the current design. The 945P will not support this processor. Karsini (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of "1" superscript note on "4gb" max memory spec under "4.1 Pentium 4/Pentium D/Pentium EE" and "4.2 Core 2" chipset sections

There's no reference to what the "1" note refers to on the 9-series chipsets when "4gb" RAM is supported (it appears as "4 GB1") - no link, no information, no nothing. It's a critical point, though - apparently at least the 945G chipset "supports" 4gb but only allows 3.2gb usable. So there's a key point that's missing here, and it seems that this "1" refers to that missing piece of info. Can someone with some experience in the area actually point out what this note is referring to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.170.142 (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't find what the superscript "1" refers to either. The ~3.5GB limitation refers to 32-bit platforms. Intel has conflicting information for the 945G, 946PL, and 946GZ chipsets. ARK says 4GB, but the datasheets say 8GB. Perhaps this is what it refered to. Juventas (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly the thing, though - even in the BIOS memory check, it sees 4gb (2x2gb) but only tests 3200mb - even under a 64-bit OS, on the board I was working with (at a computer shop; the system is long gone & don't remember the model). So it would have been nice to have solid confirmation instead of a dead-end superscript "1"! 75.10.116.183 (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The footnote was added here[3]. I was aware that the "missing" memory on 32-bit platforms went to MMIO, but I wasn't aware that the maximum memory supported by the chipset would exhibit this in the same way. It's good someone removed this footnote because this is not an issue specific to those four chipsets. It's bad that they left some pieces behind, I've now removed them. Juventas (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

PCI Express "Root Ports", not "Lanes"

On the Core i Series Chipset comparison table, shouldn't the column header "PCI Express lanes" be "PCI Express Root Ports" to be more accurate? A root port can have multiple lanes. FlyLikePurple (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Cougar Point

Intel could help standardize USB 3.0 with Cougar Point chipset this year By Murad Haddad Tuesday September 7, 2010, 10:51 am ET

Intel is expected to make the announcement during the company’s annual Developer Forum scheduled to take place September 13-15 in San Francisco.

http://business2press.com/2010/09/07/intel-usb-3-0-coming-with-cougar-point-chipset/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truerock2 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing was announced at IDF regarding USB 3.0 on series 6 chipsets. For all intents an purposes the series 6 chipsets still only have USB 2.0 ports. Shouldn't the wiki page reflect this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.77.56 (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

nm10

Anybody knows how the NM10 fits here? I think it's part of some pine trail platforms. TIA. Jmgonzalez (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The N10/NM10 chips are the PCH for the Pine Trail platform. It's functionally similar to the vanilla ICH7, even carrying the same PCI IDs, but it supports AHCI which is only supported on the ICH7R/DH/DO variants. Karsini (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

5/6 Series

I don't see why these are put in the same table. They're not compatible (5 is for Nehalem, 6 is for Sandy Bridge) and the main tag/article for the 5 series should not be used to describe the 6 series. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

ECC and "Core i Series chipsets"

The claim currently made: "Not listed below is the 3450 chipset (see Xeon chipsets) which is compatible with Nehalem mainstream and high-end processors, and with either a Core i5 or i3 processor enables unbuffered ECC memory"

I previously made a correction, stating that the 3450 chipset enables ECC only with Xeon-series CPUs, since the integrated memory controller of the others doesn't support it. I did this after searching for documentation confirming the original claim, yet all I found only seemed to confirm that ECC was only available with Xeons, regardless of the chipset. As you can see, my change has been reverted. Therefore, I'm raising this subject for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.215.192 (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Nehalem based CPUs communicate directly with RAM and it is the CPU's memory controller what determines whether ECC memory can be used or not.GL1zdA (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought. So, what do we do about the article? The reason I started this discussion topic is that I tried to indicate that, in the article, but someone(s) changed it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.215.192 (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's true that "officially" Intel wants everyone to think that the i3 doesn't support ECC. But see this thread http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=60512&start=60 where some random guy says that Intel assures him it does support ECC when used with certain chipsets. Somewhat more definitive is this HP Proliant server http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/13477_na/13477_na.pdf which is specified as supporting ECC, and yet HP will allow you to configure it with an i3 processor.

Regarding the Core i3 and ECC, please refer to this thread http://communities.intel.com/thread/24691?tstart=0. As I understand it, the Intel rep is saying that ECC is supported. http://download.intel.com/design/processor/datashts/322909.pdf Smackus (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

So what's probably happening is Intel has "backdoor" support for ECC, but only for big customers like HP and Supermicro. Intel would rather have the peons that buy retail believe that they need to pay up for a Xeon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.134.154 (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't view that site, at the moment. I think the key question is which i3 model he's using. Just because one i3 model supports it doesn't mean that all do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.215.192 (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, found the "smoking gun". Check out this Intel product brief. It's about one of the i3 chips and one of the i5 chips. http://download.intel.com/pressroom/kits/embedded/pdfs/Core_i5-660_Corei3-540.pdf The direct quote from there is "Error correcting code (ECC) memory is supported on both processors when paired with the Intel 3450 chipset." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.134.154 (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That document does not concern all i3 and i5 chips - it's titled "Intel® Core™ i5-660 and Core™ i3-540 Processors for Embedded Computing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.215.192 (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's not all i3 and i5 processors, but just a select few models. Certain i5 processors (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=48496) and all i7 processors explicitly state that ECC memory is not supported. In some 3450-related documents I've seen, they explicitly call out the i5 660 (under Specifications in http://edc.intel.com/Platforms/Core-Pentium-Xeon-3450/ they say "Based on 32nm process technology, Intel® Core™ i5-660, Intel® Core™ i3-540, and Intel® Pentium® G6950 processors include an integrated memory controller and graphics engine and feature dual core processing performance and ECC memory error correction."). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.215.192 (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Added Intel ref that 3400-series support ECC with i3 & i5 & removed "disputed" comment. Pol098 (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

945GL is missing

It is listed on this Intel page[4]. Snoofer (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

P35 and its RAM limits

The official RAM limit statements are apparently wrong. The P35 is listed everywhere as supporting 8GB DDR2 (4 slots á 2GB) or 8GB DDR3 (4 slots á 2GB) maximum.
At least the DDR3 limit seems to be wrong, because I'm using 8GB DDR3 (2x 4GB) on a P35 based motherboard which only has 2 DDR3 slots right now to post this :)
So apparently, the P35 itself is capable of addressing more than 2GB per slot (2GB per slot being the official statement), which would result in 16GB DDR3 (4x 4GB) support total.

Perhaps intel set the limits to those figures because DDR3 RAM sticks larger than 2GB simply weren't readily available at the time..!? It's been quite a few years since then after all..

Some proof-screenshots:
http://bambooz.pytalhost.net/stuff/mushkin2.jpg
http://bambooz.pytalhost.net/stuff/mushkin3.jpg

Motherboard specs can be found here:
http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=2740#sp
--Bambooz (talk) 08:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


Some of the information is certainly incorrect - Dell officially support 8GB of RAM on the XPS M1330, a PM965/GM965 based laptop. The artice states 4GB max. Karsini (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

X79 PCIe Lanes

Under the X79 chipset it lists 8 PCI-E 2.0, but Intel_X79 lists PCI Express 3.0 ×40 lanes and PCI Express 2.0 ×8 lanes; shouldn't that be reflected here as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.236.167 (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Early chipsets

Can someone clarify what a chipset is rather than a microprocessor like the Intel 4004 with supporting chips (eg 4001, 4008, 4009 etc). Do the 80186 family count as first because one of their supporting chips was a coprocessor? Billlion (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

See chipset - it's the sum of the glue logic w/o the standard components CPU, RAM and ROM all put in one or a few chips. More or less, they became popular with the 286 generation to save cost. Zac67 (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Intel 100 Series Chipsets

There have been reports out about the 100 series chipsets for several months now (see here: "Report: Specifications of Intel 100-Series Chipsets") so I am wondering why none of this info has been added to the article. Is it that the sources (like the one I linked) do not pass muster for Wikipedia reference standards? If not, I'd like to start incorporating some of this into the article. There is quite a bit of info provided in the one source I have provided alone, and there are a couple others I can dig up I'm sure. Let me know if I can help any.. thanks, Jchap1590 (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Well, back at the time I was against including that incomplete WP:CRYSTALBALL-like list of 100-Series chipsets into the List of Intel chipsets § LGA 1151 section, but another editor saw that as a priority, and we've ended up with a lot of question marks in that table. Moving forward, it would be great to turn those question marks into sensible data. Also, the above linked tomshardware.com article ends up in a 404 error? Any chances for providing a few other sources, please? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, Dsimic! It looks like the the "|" was included at the end of my hyperlink as "%7c" accidentally. Removing that from the URL should bring you to the proper address (I've fixed the link in my previous post). Here are some more sources I was able to dig up: "Intel Skylake 2015 Platform Details Revealed", "Intel Skylake-S Platform Specs Z170-100-Series Chipset by 2H 2015" and "Intel 100-series chipset specifications leaked".. available information still seems rather scarce.. let me know how else I can assist. - Thanks, Jchap1590 (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for providing those sources, they look fine to me. I'd say that you may freely go ahead and update the List of Intel chipsets § LGA 1151 section using the data provided in those references; also, adding some additional descriptions in prose would be nice. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Would you agree that List of Intel chipsets § LGA 1151 should be moved to a new section - 100 Series chipsets? I see it is currently located in the 5/6/7/8/9 Series section, which I believe to be incorrect. Skylake will be the first generation of CPUs mated for LGA 1151, which is supported solely by 100 Series chipsets. Jchap1590 (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Totally agreed, that's a separate series of chipsets. Furthermore, it might be good to rename other subsections of the List of Intel chipsets § 5/6/7/8/9 Series chipsets section so they reflect supported microarchitectures. The only exception would be the List of Intel chipsets § LGA 1366, LGA 2011, and LGA 2011-v3 subsection, but it could be renamed to List of Intel chipsets § Enthusiast platform. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm actually a little confused why this article is not merged with the Intel Xeon chipsets article. It would seem to me that one article would be best, perhaps divided into "mainstream", "performance", "extreme" and "workstation/server" main sections with sockets/pertaining microarchitecture listed as subsections. The List of Intel microprocessors article follows a similar format, incorporating all SKUs into a single article and I see no reason why the List of Chipsets article should not reflect that layout. Thoughts? Jchap1590 (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the Intel Xeon chipsets article should be merged into List of Intel chipsets. Perhaps it would be the best to clean up the List of Intel chipsets article first, and then place {{Merge to}} and {{Merge from}} templates to appropriate places so other editors can also chime in regarding the merger. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, I will start by working on improving the 100 Series section. Jchap1590 (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Great! I'll review it once you're done, and then we can place the merger proposal tags. Also, perhaps we should do a few more cleanups to the List of Intel chipsets § 5/6/7/8/9 Series chipsets section, by revisiting the subsection titles as described above. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

DMI Bus speed

I am confused with the DMI bus speed. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Media_Interface and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bit_rates DMI 2.0 has 2GB/s bandwidth, but it is shown as 4GB/s here in this article (perhaps bi-directional doubles bandwidth) DMI 3.0 however is even more confusing. The bit-rate is never specified and I cannot find this information elsewhere. Here in this page, it is listed as 8GB/s (need citation!), but the DMI main wiki page explicitly says the speed of DMI 3.0 is only rated as Giga-transfers per second, with unit 8GT/s, the bit rate relating to bus width is unspecified. 137.205.238.243 (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty much covered in Direct Media Interface. DMI is derived from PCIe, and PCIe 3.0 ×4 (8 GT/s, 120b130b encoding, four lanes) transfers up to 3,938 MB/s per direction. If you choose to simply add these together you're close to 8 GB/s. --Zac67 (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What chipsets support SLI ?

188.162.40.38 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

link - Not all motherboards with multiple PCI-Express x16 slots support SLI. Recent motherboards as of August 2014 that support it are Intel's Z and X series chipsets (Z68, Z77, Z87, Z97, X79 and X99) and AMD's 990FX chipset.[8] Aside from a few exceptions, older motherboards needed certain models of nForce chipsets to support SLI. SChalice 19:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Intel chipsets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Intel chipsets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done, the archived link above looks fine. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Intel_chipsets/Archive_1&oldid=1028722095"