Those 'TurboCache' cards have no 'Turbo' about them!

For the sake of another $5 or so, you may as well get an uncrippled video card.

Search for the details and reviews about them on "tomshardware.com".

An alternative is to run your machines "headless" with linux and not have any graphics display in the first place. Should run a bit faster also.

Man I just felt totally out of touch....WTF is a TurboCache card?

Take a look at TurboCache: Fast Name, Slower Speed over on TomsHardware.

"The "TC" abbreviation appended to the model number stands for TurboCache. Of course, despite what the name implies, this processor is in no way turbocharged, nor does it sport any integrated caches or embedded-DRAM. Instead, following the low-cost mantra that "less is more," there is still less to cards based on this processor - namely less local video memory. Indeed, "TurboCache" is a prime example of vacuous and exaggerated market-speak names."

"... To make up for this shortcoming, the card draws upon the PC's main memory. The new, very fast PCI Express bus is supposed to supply the necessary bandwidth. Nonetheless, this solution isn't exactly fast ..."


They are likely perfectly ok if you're careful not to use greater than the card's graphics memory size.

My BIG OBJECTION is the deliberately misleading Marketing description. Those marketing people may as well just openly admit to outright lying.

Happy crunchin',
Martin

Picture me shaking my head and laughing. I hope none of you fell for that market gimmick.

---

Those 'TurboCache' cards have no 'Turbo' about them!

For the sake of another $5 or so, you may as well get an uncrippled video card.

Search for the details and reviews about them on "tomshardware.com".

An alternative is to run your machines "headless" with linux and not have any graphics display in the first place. Should run a bit faster also.

Man I just felt totally out of touch....WTF is a TurboCache card?

Take a look at TurboCache: Fast Name, Slower Speed over on TomsHardware.

"The "TC" abbreviation appended to the model number stands for TurboCache. Of course, despite what the name implies, this processor is in no way turbocharged, nor does it sport any integrated caches or embedded-DRAM. Instead, following the low-cost mantra that "less is more," there is still less to cards based on this processor - namely less local video memory. Indeed, "TurboCache" is a prime example of vacuous and exaggerated market-speak names."

"... To make up for this shortcoming, the card draws upon the PC's main memory. The new, very fast PCI Express bus is supposed to supply the necessary bandwidth. Nonetheless, this solution isn't exactly fast ..."


They are likely perfectly ok if you're careful not to use greater than the card's graphics memory size.

My BIG OBJECTION is the deliberately misleading Marketing description. Those marketing people may as well just openly admit to outright lying.

Happy crunchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Man I just felt totally out of touch....WTF is a TurboCache card?

An addon video card that uses main system RAM as video memory. They do have some onboard memory of their own, but not much. ATI have the same thing available under a different name.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Do you know if the "TurboCache" PCI Express cards would hurt S@h performance like the on-board video does? ...

Those 'TurboCache' cards have no 'Turbo' about them!

For the sake of another $5 or so, you may as well get an uncrippled video card.

Search for the details and reviews about them on "tomshardware.com".

An alternative is to run your machines "headless" with linux and not have any graphics display in the first place. Should run a bit faster also.

Happy crunchin',
Martin

Man I just felt totally out of touch....WTF is a TurboCache card?

---

but I disagree here. It looks to me as if Intel has been very stubborn. They tried to stick with their P4s, thinking that it'd work for them. They did the same with RDRAM for a while. Same with 64-bit, which they only came out with after AMD showed that people will buy it after all. It seems to me that Intel finally figured out that even the basic P-III architecture that they gave up on was beating the P4.

They were "milking it", no doubt about it, but being stubborn wasn't the goal though imo @ least.

P4's are better than P3's @ certain operations (gaming being one iirc, & gaming's the BIGGEST market for their CPU's)...

BUT, certain variations (last of them) for P3's rocked for things... e.g.-> the LAST p3 (for laptops iirc) was better @ SETI #1 than std. P3's were/are. I know this because one of my teammates had one & was KILLING my P3 @ 1ghz (his was @ 1.1ghz iirc, but was WAY faster than mine, more than mere ghz/mhz would yield).

Actually, it's the Pentium Mobile line that is killing the P4s in every way, even at lower clock speeds. Those are based on PIII architecture. Intel had to find a way to increase the speeds of the PIII even more, which they've done with Conroe. (Recently, a motherboard manufacturer started making adapters so that people could run the mobile line of processors on PIII motherboards, with great success in speed.)

You can actually tell that Intel is nervous right now, I think. They bring out a chip thats 6 months away from production, put it up against AMDs best, and clearly have the lead (I'll ignore all of the conspiracy theorys that currently abound). But the question is, why?

Oh, I don't think they're nervous @ all... they just waited until AMD exhausted their patent safe + R&D "advantages" they had with their current CPU architectures (believe me, there's probably LITTLE doubt both sides buy the others' stuff, tear it apart, & improve upon it in THEIR stuff... I have literally seen this go down in other industries, illegal though it technically is - an "analog" is pretty simple to create, once you see how others implement the idea first).

Actually, one of them (I can't remember which off hand) won a lawsuit saying that one could use backward engineering on the other's chip. So yes, Intel knows what AMD has, and AMD likely has a good idea of what Intel has on the Conroe (though there's no way they can be certain, and may know nothing).

Yes, it might be. But this is where the conspiracy theorys come in. Say some of those people who really know what they're talking about (but seem to like AMD much more than Intel) are correct, and Intel rigged the show. Once Conroe comes out, stocks would then plummit, likely falling below what they're trading at now (though at $20 a share, they can't really drop far).

It is a good time to buy Intel, NOW, before this processor releases (buy low to sell high later, when the CONROE sales rush raises Intel stock value)... &, both parties play their share of games, no questions asked!

APK

Here I will certainly agree with you. You'd want to sell a little bit before Conroe comes out, just before (or just after) different places get the chips to benchmark (it's almost a certainty that someone in the media will have a chip in hand to benchmark and play around with prior to the public release). But Intel's allowing people from the media (anandtech among others) to get a look at their new chip is a marketing tool, both for sales and stock (which go hand in hand, of course).

Hopefully, I'm making sense here, as I'm a little drunk. But basically, I think you and I do agree on most points. The only thing I feel we disagree on is the P4's success - or lack thereof. To me, the P4 was an utter failure on Intel's part. There were only limited applications in which the P4 beat out the Athlon, and as you said, the most important is gaming - in which the P4 lost hands down.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't want you to think I'm some sort of AMD fanboy, because I'm not. I'm honestly hoping that the Conroe is as good as advertised. Of course, the main reason for this is greed - if Intel is competitive again, then prices on both sides have to fall (AMD for obvious reasons, Intel because they have to lure back lost customers). But I also feel that competition is always good. It forces each company to put out better products. Without competition, we'd likely have yet to reach the 2 Ghz barrier in processors.

---

Do you know if the "TurboCache" PCI Express cards would hurt S@h performance like the on-board video does? From reading about them just a little bit, I understand that they also share memory with the main system, though hopefully only when necessary (but that's what I would have thought of the on-board too). I can get one of these 64 MB (256 MB w/ Turbo Cache from system memory) cards for about $25.

Don't waste your money if your goal is to do any better than you have now. If coin is the issue (understandable) then just wait.

As for my gaming needs, I don't play games hardly ever. If I did, I would probably buy Civilization IV (likely) and possibly World of Warcraft (maybe not because I don't want to lose the time that many seem to devote to it). First-person shooters are highly unlikely.

If you want to either of those two games then you should be looking at a lot more graphics card than we've discussed here. That is if you want to take advantage of the beautiful detail and color those games are about. Not to even mention frame rates that won't make you insane with frustration. $130 for a card to make buying those games really worthwhile.

---

Without love, breath is just a clock ... ticking.
Equilibrium

If I did, I would probably buy Civilization IV (

Playing it as I type. LOL "stupid strikes", I mean come on I'm in the middle of combat. "sheesh, quit stealing my guys just because of a cash shortage, let them loot the defenders cities like any invading army would do."

Do you know if the "TurboCache" PCI Express cards would hurt S@h performance like the on-board video does? ...

Those 'TurboCache' cards have no 'Turbo' about them!

For the sake of another $5 or so, you may as well get an uncrippled video card.

Search for the details and reviews about them on "tomshardware.com".

An alternative is to run your machines "headless" with linux and not have any graphics display in the first place. Should run a bit faster also.

Happy crunchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

In any case, $40-50 will get you a card roughly equivalent to what you have on your mb (ATI X300).

Do you know if the "TurboCache" PCI Express cards would hurt S@h performance like the on-board video does? From reading about them just a little bit, I understand that they also share memory with the main system, though hopefully only when necessary (but that's what I would have thought of the on-board too). I can get one of these 64 MB (256 MB w/ Turbo Cache from system memory) cards for about $25.

As for my gaming needs, I don't play games hardly ever. If I did, I would probably buy Civilization IV (likely) and possibly World of Warcraft (maybe not because I don't want to lose the time that many seem to devote to it). First-person shooters are highly unlikely.

Look in the BIOS to see if thermal throttling is on. It should be there and if so, a company like Dell is going to activate it to protect their warranty coverage. It is designed to cut back on performance when a predetermined temperature is reached. Bet ya a buck that's it.

They also tend to remove such options from the BIOS CMOS Setup also. So you might have to try some other program to determine if BIOS as it enabled.

True. I wonder if PC Wizard or Sandra would show it. Never looked for that with them.

There should be a hack BIOS out there somewhere that would enable that feature and others. Warranty would be out the window though.

---

Without love, breath is just a clock ... ticking.
Equilibrium

Look in the BIOS to see if thermal throttling is on. It should be there and if so, a company like Dell is going to activate it to protect their warranty coverage. It is designed to cut back on performance when a predetermined temperature is reached. Bet ya a buck that's it.

They also tend to remove such options from the BIOS CMOS Setup also. So you might have to try some other program to determine if BIOS as it enabled.

Would you recommend that I send it back to HP and tell them where to put it?

Look in the BIOS to see if thermal throttling is on. It should be there and if so, a company like Dell is going to activate it to protect their warranty coverage. It is designed to cut back on performance when a predetermined temperature is reached. Bet ya a buck that's it.

Jim

---

Without love, breath is just a clock ... ticking.
Equilibrium

You may have something here, it [AMD] is a box from HP with no mods or overclock and by the same benchmark run on these systems I get the following results....[/quote]

There are benchmarks, and there are benchmarks.
Generally application & game based benchmarks actually give results that come close to matching reality.
Int, FPU, Whetstone etc synthetic benchmarks rarely, if ever, give any indication of a how a system will perform when actually using it (which is why i didn't bother showing any synthetic benchmarks).

Would you recommend that I send it back to HP and tell them where to put it?

Or at least compare it to another HP system using the same CPU & try to determine why it's running slow.
CPU detected correctly? Motherboard drivers all there & working? The usual stuff.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I've heard of "Buy the rumor, sell the fact" on purchasing stock. Maybe if the Conroe appears promising it would be apropos to buy the stock, but to sell it as soon as it is released. But I'm a firm believer that nobody knows when to buy/sell/short a stock. On the Conroe, I wonder how well that will stack up with the Pentium D 955 (if Intel ever gets all the bugs out of that processor)? One more thing: Wouldn't it be just as good to get two cheaper processors on one motherboard as to use just one cutting-edge one? About three years ago people who are now members of 2cpu.com were painting shorting strips on processors built for one-on-a-board operation in order to make them function two-on-a-board. That saved dough but, of course, voided the warranty.

Ha I have also heard "Buy on bad news, sell on good". If you think the long term prospects for AMD are good, then buy their stock now, or when Conroe actually starts making the presumed negative impact on AMD sales.

---

When we finally figure it all out, all the rules will change and we can start all over again.

I've heard of "Buy the rumor, sell the fact" on purchasing stock. Maybe if the Conroe appears promising it would be apropos to buy the stock, but to sell it as soon as it is released. But I'm a firm believer that nobody knows when to buy/sell/short a stock. On the Conroe, I wonder how well that will stack up with the Pentium D 955 (if Intel ever gets all the bugs out of that processor)? One more thing: Wouldn't it be just as good to get two cheaper processors on one motherboard as to use just one cutting-edge one? About three years ago people who are now members of 2cpu.com were painting shorting strips on processors built for one-on-a-board operation in order to make them function two-on-a-board. That saved dough but, of course, voided the warranty.

---

Now, it'll be a while before we know who is right,

TRUE, & I agree - time WILL tell.

but I disagree here. It looks to me as if Intel has been very stubborn. They tried to stick with their P4s, thinking that it'd work for them. They did the same with RDRAM for a while. Same with 64-bit, which they only came out with after AMD showed that people will buy it after all. It seems to me that Intel finally figured out that even the basic P-III architecture that they gave up on was beating the P4.

They were "milking it", no doubt about it, but being stubborn wasn't the goal though imo @ least.

P4's are better than P3's @ certain operations (gaming being one iirc, & gaming's the BIGGEST market for their CPU's)...

BUT, certain variations (last of them) for P3's rocked for things... e.g.-> the LAST p3 (for laptops iirc) was better @ SETI #1 than std. P3's were/are. I know this because one of my teammates had one & was KILLING my P3 @ 1ghz (his was @ 1.1ghz iirc, but was WAY faster than mine, more than mere ghz/mhz would yield).

You can actually tell that Intel is nervous right now, I think. They bring out a chip thats 6 months away from production, put it up against AMDs best, and clearly have the lead (I'll ignore all of the conspiracy theorys that currently abound). But the question is, why?[/quote ]

Oh, I don't think they're nervous @ all... they just waited until AMD exhausted their patent safe + R&D "advantages" they had with their current CPU architectures (believe me, there's probably LITTLE doubt both sides buy the others' stuff, tear it apart, & improve upon it in THEIR stuff... I have literally seen this go down in other industries, illegal though it technically is - an "analog" is pretty simple to create, once you see how others implement the idea first).

They do that, just to get the word out, to try to halt customer's buying the competition's stuff...

[quote]To me, it's telling. They need a way to get people to wait until Conroe comes out before making their next purchase. I think they did this to try to slow down sales of AMD processors (which will only work for those who want the latest and greatest).

Exactamundo, & I agree (see the last line I typed prior to this one)... you are "right-on-the-money" here imo!

Further, even if AMD does lose the performance lead temporarily, they need only drop their prices. Go back to the days when they were not as good, but price/performance ratio demanded people try them.

Yes, lol, and the "marketing magicians" work their wiles this way too... As the King of Ithaca from the film Troy said to the invicible Achilles:

"You have your sword, I have my tricks..."

Yes, it might be. But this is where the conspiracy theorys come in. Say some of those people who really know what they're talking about (but seem to like AMD much more than Intel) are correct, and Intel rigged the show. Once Conroe comes out, stocks would then plummit, likely falling below what they're trading at now (though at $20 a share, they can't really drop far).

It is a good time to buy Intel, NOW, before this processor releases (buy low to sell high later, when the CONROE sales rush raises Intel stock value)... &, both parties play their share of games, no questions asked!

APK

---

http://torry.net/authorsmore.php?id=1781

"The object's hull is made of SOLID neutronium: A single StarShip cannot combat it!" quote Mr. Spock, Star Trek original series, episode title: "The Doomsday Machine"

...my own P4 Prescott 2.8 oc to 3.0Ghz vs my own AMD 64 X2 4200. The older P4 kicks butt on the 64 bit AMD in almost every arena that I have been able to measure.

Then there is something seriously wrong with your AMD system.

You may have something here, it [AMD] is a box from HP with no mods or overclock and by the same benchmark run on these systems I get the following results.

Intel 2.8 Prescott AMD 64 X2 Dual Core 4200+
FPU 2518.2 Million Ops per sec. 2075.68 Million Ops per sec.
INT 4113.4 Million Ops per sec. 3845.83 Million Ops per sec.

This indicates that the FPU results from the AMD is about 21% slower than the Intel and the Int ops almost 7% slower.

The Intel system produces about 18% more Seti results on a daily basis than the AMD box. The speed of the Disk drives on the two systems is simular, with the AMD system having a larger and slightly faster of the two, and the AMD has twice as much RAM as the Intel box.
Would you recommend that I send it back to HP and tell them where to put it?

---

When we finally figure it all out, all the rules will change and we can start all over again.

Sure, but, will AMD be successful in that effort is the question...

Personally, I think Intel treated this like a boxing match - where one boxer will let the other "swing haymakers" endlessly, while they tuck in & take the beating but not getting knocked out... letting AMD exhaust their architecture's potential as much as possible & their R&D/patent safe stuff.

Just so they could (with the right timing) unleash this Conroe processor... knowing AMD's "outta gas", no more left to swing with (as one way of putting it, in keeping with my boxing analog).

Now, it'll be a while before we know who is right, but I disagree here. It looks to me as if Intel has been very stubborn. They tried to stick with their P4s, thinking that it'd work for them. They did the same with RDRAM for a while. Same with 64-bit, which they only came out with after AMD showed that people will buy it after all. It seems to me that Intel finally figured out that even the basic P-III architecture that they gave up on was beating the P4.

You can actually tell that Intel is nervous right now, I think. They bring out a chip thats 6 months away from production, put it up against AMDs best, and clearly have the lead (I'll ignore all of the conspiracy theorys that currently abound). But the question is, why?

To me, it's telling. They need a way to get people to wait until Conroe comes out before making their next purchase. I think they did this to try to slow down sales of AMD processors (which will only work for those who want the latest and greatest).

Further, even if AMD does lose the performance lead temporarily, they need only drop their prices. Go back to the days when they were not as good, but price/performance ratio demanded people try them.

Good, and I agree. Hence, why investing in Intel NOW, might be a good idea.

Yes, it might be. But this is where the conspiracy theorys come in. Say some of those people who really know what they're talking about (but seem to like AMD much more than Intel) are correct, and Intel rigged the show. Once Conroe comes out, stocks would then plummit, likely falling below what they're trading at now (though at $20 a share, they can't really drop far).

---

Thanks for pointing this out, guys... does anyone know if it matters if I get a cheap PCI Express card or a cheaper AGP card? I'm not planning on doing any serious gaming on the computer, but I want to know if it matters for other things. Forgive my ignorance, some of my favorite computers don't have any graphics cards... or monitors, for that matter!

Your board has an open PCI-x 16x slot. You are set to take the best card you can get. You do not have an AGP slot which is fine since that slot has been made obsolete.

You can find any number of cheap cards if you don't want to game with it. Though you did say serious gaming. Anything other than Solitaire or flash games and differences may start to show. Any shooters from the last 3 years or frankly anything recent or current will give a cheap card some troubles if you want 1024x768 resolution or more than lowered picture resolution.

In any case, $40-50 will get you a card roughly equivalent to what you have on your mb (ATI X300). For $60 you can get a nice step up - ATI X550 - which is essentially an X300 that's juiced up at the factory. The extra $10 seems like a good choice but that's only my opinion.

DO NOT confuse the PCI-x with a normal PCI slot (@kev) when you shop. Standard PCI graphics cards are still readily available, but they cost about the same as the PCI-x cards discussed ($40-60) but are much slower. Plus if you ever oc they're a bad choice and they'll still steal more cycles than a PCI-x card.

You'll be very happy you made the investment whichever you pick.

Jim

---

Without love, breath is just a clock ... ticking.
Equilibrium

You seem to believe that AMD will be sitting still for the next year.

I never said that, did I?

Sure, everything points to the fact that Intel will be in the lead for a good 6-12 months after Conroe comes out. But AMD is also working on new chips (AM2 isn't going to compete with Conroe right out of the box, unless they're hiding something big).

Sure, but, will AMD be successful in that effort is the question...

Personally, I think Intel treated this like a boxing match - where one boxer will let the other "swing haymakers" endlessly, while they tuck in & take the beating but not getting knocked out... letting AMD exhaust their architecture's potential as much as possible & their R&D/patent safe stuff.

Just so they could (with the right timing) unleash this Conroe processor... knowing AMD's "outta gas", no more left to swing with (as one way of putting it, in keeping with my boxing analog).

Yes, I like AMD processors.

Nothing wrong with that.

Granted, I'm not foolish enough to think that AMD will certainly have something to compete with Conroe right away (although there is a very slim possibility of this),

Good, and I agree. Hence, why investing in Intel NOW, might be a good idea.

but I'm also not foolish enough to believe that AMD will be losing everything because of Conroe. I'm sure AMD has some things in development for the next 18 months.

OH, they'll never "lose everything"... but, the possibility exists that Intel has looked over AMD's current architecture designs, & knows they have hit "limits" due to said architecture & materials used...

APK

---

http://torry.net/authorsmore.php?id=1781

"The object's hull is made of SOLID neutronium: A single StarShip cannot combat it!" quote Mr. Spock, Star Trek original series, episode title: "The Doomsday Machine"