Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ASRock Z370M-ITX/ac: Mini-ITX Motherboard With Dual NICs, WiFi, Triple Display For ~$130 USD

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    ECC support has been ONLY on C-chipsets since at least Sandy bridge, afaik. You can usually mount Xeons on other chipsets too, but ECC won't work (what's the point of a Xeon on such boards again?).

    Which means that you can find them used relatively easily, also older Xeons and other consumer-grade processors where ECC support was turned on.
    There's also a small section of consumer motherboards based on C-chipsets like https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard...-ECC-rev-10#sp that can take Pentiums and Celerons which, hilariously enough, are ECC-enabled while i3/i5/i7 are not

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by AndyChow View Post
      I use a usb-c to usb-a cable on my cellphone, and it works fine, does data transfer etc. I don't even really need a true usb-c port with pcie and video, I just like the socket better, and I'm sure more and more devices will have that port in the future, and not use the pcie lanes or carry video transmission
      Keep in mind I'm referring to male type A to female type C, so basically the exact inverse of what you have for your phone. What I'm getting at is you can use the socket to your liking, without having to get a board that comes with it.

      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
      Boards not using C-chipsets don't use the additional PCIe lanes of Xeons as they were not designed with Xeons in mind.
      I never paid close enough attention to that since it has never really been an issue for me to worry about, but I'll take your word for it.

      Where I live (low-end EU nation) the Xeons don't usually have a better value than a desktop counterpart until it's at least 2 year old (and can be found used for like 100$ less than an equivalent or even worse i7).
      In most cases that's true. But every once in a while there's an exception. Since Intel has barely had any IPC improvements in the past 3 or so years and intentionally breaks socket compatibility, it doesn't really matter if you get an outdated model anyway, if it suits your needs just as well (or better) than a newer model of the same price.

      Afaik no. USB 3.0 was plain rebranded as 3.1 Gen1. Any actual change (power and bandwith) happened in USB 3.1 Gen 2. (cough*fuck USB consortium*cough)
      On the surface, USB 3.0 is the same as 3.1 gen 1, but it is more than just a rebrand:
      https://www.startech.com/faq/usb-3.1-port-capabilities
      USB 3.1 gen 1 meets the same power delivery specs as gen 2, where as 3.0 does not. That being said, USB 3.1 can deliver up to 100W over the USB cable; something I am not keen of:
      http://www.usb.org/developers/powerdelivery/

      The Type-C adapter should work fine all the way down to USB 2.0 host ports though.
      Continuing with the information I just posted, the adapter should work for most devices, but not all. USB 3.1 sure made things complicated for a universal port.
      Last edited by schmidtbag; 10-12-2017, 03:34 PM.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by numacross View Post
        There's also a small section of consumer motherboards based on C-chipsets like https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard...-ECC-rev-10#sp
        They are workstation boards, also ASUS and others have at least one workstation board with the workstation-class chipsets (those that support the integrated graphics) and ECC support, but they usually make ATX or mATX, not mITX.

        that can take Pentiums and Celerons which, hilariously enough, are ECC-enabled while i3/i5/i7 are not
        Intel enables ECC support on some select processors (randomly selected by their marketing people?). I've seen i3 too with ECC support, and in seven gen they have an i7 with ECC support too, no i5 though.

        I usually get Xeons only just because I'm not in the mood to play hide-and-seek to get the right Pentium/celeron/whatever when I'm assembling a system that needs ECC.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
          On the surface, USB 3.0 is the same as 3.1 gen 1, but it is more than just a rebrand:
          https://www.startech.com/faq/usb-3.1-port-capabilities
          USB 3.1 gen 1 meets the same power delivery specs as gen 2, where as 3.0 does not. That being said, USB 3.1 can deliver up to 100W over the USB cable; something I am not keen of:
          http://www.usb.org/developers/powerdelivery/
          Uhm, could you point me to an official statement of what you said (that only 3.1 can deliver 100w)?

          By looking at the links and the docs it seems more like the power delivery is a random opt-in feature that is unrelated to USB version. (and is also theoretically available for USB 2.0 ports too? WTF?! Who the fuck thought it was a good idea?!)

          Continuing with the information I just posted, the adapter should work for most devices, but not all. USB 3.1 sure made things complicated for a universal port.
          Yeah, the only thing that can save the day is Intel/AMD dumping any USB 2.0 controllers from their chipsets.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by uid313 View Post
            Dual NIC on a cheap motherboard.
            Dual NIC on a mini-ITX board.
            Dual NIC on a boad that is not a expensive, high-end workstation motherboard.
            Not even sure what the point of a Dual NIC is on a board like this. You'll need a switch as expensive in order to use them properly, unless you want to use this board to run as your router...or have this PC connected to two separate networks for some reason.

            Originally posted by coder111 View Post
            Well, unfortunately no ECC support, which makes me uneasy about using something like this for a NAS box... I'll probably have to wait for RavenRidge, or use a Ryzen R3.

            I second Serafean- what about power use on this thing?
            If you want a good build for a NAS box, you could go with an Opteron. I recently got a SuperMicro H8SCM-F board, which is designed for server like use having dual nics, IMPI and ECC support. I used an Opteron 4365 EE, which has a TDP of 40W. The system draw is minimal. The 8 core Opteron is powerful enough to transcode a straight Bluray rip in Plex to a 720p video over a 5Mbps upload connection. Definitely worth a look.

            Comment


            • #26
              Several testing publications have found laptop board makers are installing the USB-C port, but wiring it up to the USB3 controller, so it isn't a true 3.1 spec interface and cant do pci-e or video.

              This was found to be disconcerting and ripe for consumer confusion because it would never run at the intended speed regardless.

              As USB 3.1 G2 becomes more integrated into the fabs, this will go away, but for now its truly buyer beware.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                Uhm, could you point me to an official statement of what you said (that only 3.1 can deliver 100w)?

                By looking at the links and the docs it seems more like the power delivery is a random opt-in feature that is unrelated to USB version. (and is also theoretically available for USB 2.0 ports too? WTF?! Who the fuck thought it was a good idea?!)

                Yeah, the only thing that can save the day is Intel/AMD dumping any USB 2.0 controllers from their chipsets.
                Powering a device through USB will become the norm. Apple's laptops do this already. Some Dell and HP's can. Phones have been doing it for years, though most of their setups were not according to the USB spec.

                And I also see no reason to get rid of USB 2.0, unless there are major cost savings in doing so. Most PC's still have USB keyboard and Mice, since we moved from PS/2 (for the most part). A keyboard and mouse have no need for more than what USB 2.0 offers, so why have 2 3.0 ports wasted on devices that can't use them?

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by audi.rs4 View Post
                  Powering a device through USB will become the norm. Apple's laptops do this already. Some Dell and HP's can. Phones have been doing it for years, though most of their setups were not according to the USB spec.
                  Ahem, you are talking of a device connected to a power adapter through a single port, I'm thinking about a motherboard that is supposed to be able to provide 100 watts to like 2-3 different host ports at once. Or for the very least must have a PSU that is capable of supplying 100W to a single port at any given time.
                  Which isn't the same thing. I know how OEMs size their PSUs (like 100-50W less than what the system would need at full throttle and hope it never needs that much).

                  Also I'm very fucking scared of people that will be running 100W through what would likely be random chinese crap cables just because they can. Every day will be a field day for firefighters.

                  That said, I'm more worked up about the lack of enforcement of the standards, and the lack of enforcement of some kind of visual aid to help end users tell at a glance what their port is capable of. I'm not against having a single port being a one-stop-shop.

                  A keyboard and mouse have no need for more than what USB 2.0 offers, so why have 2 3.0 ports wasted on devices that can't use them?
                  Nonsense reasoning. With a fast port I can connect anything I need to, with USB 2.0 ports I cannot. So it's the USB 2.0 that are wasting the limited port allotment on my laptop.

                  Besides, USB 3.0 hubs are cheap and with a single usb host 3.0 port connected to a USB 3.0 hub I can run keyboard, mice, a webcam, any amount of flash drives, and also a usb 3.0 hard drive at the same time with bandwith to spare (and this on USB 3.0, mind me).

                  So it's not like I cannot use all high-speed ports at the same time while also using a hub to connect low-speed stuff.
                  Last edited by starshipeleven; 10-12-2017, 04:46 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by numacross View Post
                    There's also a small section of consumer motherboards based on C-chipsets like https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard...-ECC-rev-10#sp that can take Pentiums and Celerons which, hilariously enough, are ECC-enabled while i3/i5/i7 are not
                    It's because intel had large volume OEM's that used the Pentiums and Celerons in embedded systems that use ECC. For example, I've opened up rack mount firewalls and other enterprise "appliances" only to find a Pentium or Celeron CPU powering the device.

                    The new Xeon D series has taken over the role for low power embedded appliances, so the i3/5/7 are strictly consumer products.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by audi.rs4 View Post
                      And I also see no reason to get rid of USB 2.0, unless there are major cost savings in doing so. Most PC's still have USB keyboard and Mice, since we moved from PS/2 (for the most part). A keyboard and mouse have no need for more than what USB 2.0 offers, so why have 2 3.0 ports wasted on devices that can't use them?
                      Don't forget microphones, speakers, joysticks and gamepads, printers, etc. There are a ton of USB devices that have very low bandwidth requirements. Agreed, no need to waste high speed ports on these low speed devices.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X