🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <zaitcev.920866218@mallorn>, Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@bogus.com> wrote:
>nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates) writes:
>>[...] If you've got a 64 bit card
>>on a 32 bit PCI slot, wouldn't it be better to redesign the PCI to be
>>64 bits as well for a better pathway to system RAM? Oops, can't do
>>that. Want to make a new PCI card that talks to the motherboard at
>>50Mhz rather than 33Mhz? Oops, can't do that.

>I have a lot of Sun computers at work with 66 MHz/64 bits PCI slots.
>You point may be a valid one, but not the example used.

   You're missing the forest for the trees. I was commenting on the
ability of console makers to design the bus to match all of the
hardware, despite legacy issues. Ok, you've got 66Mhz/64 bit PCI. Put
a video board designed for that in any 32bit/33Mhz PCI slot (of which
there are millions extant). Not gonna work too well. Now I make a
video board that wants 128 bits at 133Mhz, or 132 bits at 114Mhz, or
anything else. Oops, can't plug it in even your fancy workstations.
[Heck, you totally ignored my point of a 50.0Mhz PCI card above,
something that wouldn't work on your Sun.]

   As I said earlier in this thread, console makers are NOT shackled
by existing busses, memory designs, or anything else. They can make a
video chip with a 96bit wide bus at 87Mhz, or any other specs, and
they're totally free to do so. Just because PCI is available in a few
flavors doesn't counteract my original point-- you missed it entirely.

Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates - personal webpage http://www.visi.com/~nathan/  
# Network Programmer, Battlezone 2: see http://www.pandemicstudios.com
# NOT speaking for Pandemic Studios or Activision, ONLY myself
# "What are the facts, and to how many decimal places?" -R.A. Heinlein