FIRST LOOK: ULi M1697 for Athlon 64/x2

51 Comments

View All Comments

• Scarceas - Thursday, December 15, 2005 - link

  I presumed that ULI provided Anandtech with the sample to review... if you think about it, there are some wierd angles on that... A big deal like that isn't hammered out in a couple of days. ULI "brass" knew the sale was coming.
  
  It's kind of wierd, IMO, to send out stuff for reviews as you're going under.
  
  I suspect that nVidia will sit on any tech they acquire, and not implement it. I was sorely disappointed that they sat on the GigaPixel technology a few years back, and there was of course more from the 3dfx acquisition that they never implemented.

• IRQ Conflict - Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - link

  Too bad this chipset is doomed before it even gets implemented LOL!http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_28250.html">Link

• Puddleglum - Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - link

  https://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_28250.html">https://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_28250.html

• Torched - Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - link

  Bad link on above post. You can read about Nvidia buying out ULi http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28333">here

• IRQ Conflict - Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - link

  wierd, it was working yesterday? Oh well nVidia's following M$'s lead again. I can still smell the embers of the 3dfx acquasition.

• Peter - Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - link

  And yet again, we're seeing Anandtech experts (?) evaluate the RAM controller properties of an AMD64 chipset.
  
  Hello?
  
  The RAM controller is in the CPU, folks. Time to acknowledge that and skip that step in a chipset review.

• Puddleglum - Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - link

  Peter, this is what you were referencing:

  quote:
  

  ---

  While the M1697 has basic voltage adjustments and an excellent range of memory adjustments, there are no memory voltage adjustments at all on this board revision. As a result, we decided that it was not reasonable to do any overclocking tests on this Reference board, since we could not use our standard test methods to evaluate OC capabilities.

  ---

  I don't see the words "controller" or "chipset" in there, and yet you say that the article evaluates the RAM controller properties of the chipsets. What he said about the lack of memory voltage adjustments was not referencing the chipset, but the method that Anandtech uses to overclock their boards.
  
  How did you come to think that the article mentioned the RAM controller?

• Peter - Thursday, December 15, 2005 - link

  I'm referring to the following statements on page 4:
  
  >Memory Stress Testing: Since this is a new chipset, the best setting for tRAS was first determined.
  
  >This means that any setting from 6 to 11 tRAS will work well with this chipset.
  
  >*7T was determined by MemTest86 benchmarks to deliver the widest bandwidth with the ULi M1697 chipset.
  
  For anyone who's looked at the block diagram on page 2, it should be bleeding obvious that the RAM isn't the chipset's business at all.

• Cygni - Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - link

  Uhhhhh... havent used many A64 boards lately? ;) The ability to run low latency timings is very highly regulated by the board and chipset. You cant just drop any stick of ram in any board and get identical timings.
  
  The memory controller may be on the chip itself, but this doesnt eliminate the board and chipset from the equation whatsoever.

• Peter - Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - link

  AMD64 architecture totally eliminates the chipset from anything that is even remotely to do with the RAM bus. That's the point, and you're not getting it either.