FeRaL

From Bit-Tech.net

"Speaking to a tech session on small form factor systems, Intel's man in charge of BTX, Peter Brandenburger, announced that it was not planning to create any reference motherboards, chassis, systems or the like based around the ATX form factor."

__________________

Hak Foo

Man, is Intel arrogant.

Let's see:

Nobody's expressed any interest in BTX except for possibly a few large OEMs, and even them I'm not sure.

It's a solution to a problem which no longer is a problem-- namely how to cool the atomic-powered P4.

The other big benefit-- improved VGA card airflow-- can be achieved with ATX by merely relocating the graphics card works to the back of the card; one manufacturer now offers such a card.

But since Intel committed to BTX, they'll carry it on despite nobody wanting it. Who do they think they are? Sony (Minidisc, Betamax, Memory Shtick)?

Monsignor Funkibut

Nothing but good news for AMD.

Just continue to support the marketplace that Intel abandons and pick up beaucoup marketshare.

-MF

__________________

Jager

well they are going to force issues with alot of oem vendors who only do intels , ala dells mainstream setups, and thats really not the brightest idea coming down the pipe. i hope that intel wont be this dumb.

__________________

GiGaHuRtZ

Not really much different from when ATX surpassed AT, not a big deal, new standards come about and things change, No real reason to be up in arms about it.

__________________

musclecars&computers

I think intels doing this cause if u buy a full system then the board fry's u got to go out and buy an intel board.

__________________

Spectrum

It's bound to occur. People were probably upset when ATX replaced the AT form factor.

__________________

konai_konai666

Quote: Originally Posted by Jager well they are going to force issues with alot of oem vendors who only do intels , ala dells mainstream setups, and thats really not the brightest idea coming down the pipe. i hope that intel wont be this dumb.

Even in trust of the consumer, the promise of intel always vailed the dark truth; that even in thier great almighty evil genius, lately (AKA: "off and on since the Pentium 3") - there've been some serious management problems, or something..

__________________

The Dragon Reborn

Well.... what I heard was that most case manufacturers did not step on the BTX bandwagon because
it meant "re-tooling" whole production lines...and if that wasn't bad enough... they still would need
their "old lines" to serve the ATX fortm factor in all other non-Intel products...AMD & such....

I guess this one aint for Intel but for all major board manufacturers to decide, afterall... they make the boards....

TDR

__________________

Hak Foo

I think the end-of-day problem for BTX was that it offered no major benefits you couldn't get with ATX.

The ATX case allowed you to have lots of integrated ports without spending 30 minutes per build installing dozens of small ribbon cable plugs and ports.

Early models allowed you to eschew a CPU fan by using the exhaust of the PSU to cool the CPU, avoiding a cost item and a maintenence item.

The ATX power supply meant soft-power-off for all, the elimination of a 120v wire by the switch, and 3.3v mains without huge voltage regulators.

All of those were compelling. What does BTX do?

joecoin

Quote: Originally Posted by Hak Foo I think the end-of-day problem for BTX was that it offered no major benefits you couldn't get with ATX. The ATX case allowed you to have lots of integrated ports without spending 30 minutes per build installing dozens of small ribbon cable plugs and ports. Early models allowed you to eschew a CPU fan by using the exhaust of the PSU to cool the CPU, avoiding a cost item and a maintenence item. The ATX power supply meant soft-power-off for all, the elimination of a 120v wire by the switch, and 3.3v mains without huge voltage regulators. All of those were compelling. What does BTX do?

Here's a link to one mans opinion of what BTX will do:

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.ph...1&redirect=yes

__________________

Hak Foo

There's no reason ATX couldn't do a similar air-channel. All you need is to organize the NB and SB in line with the CPU.
Putting the graphics card in the same channel just means to put the graphics components on the "back" of the card, entirely doable. As I said above, I think a card is already available so.

Also, it may not be a worthwhile endeavour to put *all* those parts in the air channel. If the southbridge runs cool, or even the northbridge, why not file them elsewhere to get better design flexibility? I also note almost all NF4 boards, regardless of other design features, put the NB right near the PCIE16 slot, as though there's no other place it can be positioned... if BTX achieves an air-tunnel by sacrificing flow elsewhere, it could be a troublesome situation for parts which are hot but have to be located outside the channel.


ATX is a resilient standard. It's evolved from passive heatsinks and the PSU fan venting in the case, to active sinks and a PSU vent outside, to rear exhausts, and now to direct-to-CPU intakes. You could always make an air-tunnel mid-case, roughly where the 3.5 bays are on most ATX towers.
It also screams P4-centrism.

An air channel designed around a humongous processor heatsink. Organize the current draws around the CPU and bridges. I'd not be surprised if a 6800 drew more amperage and produced more heat than a Venice A64 or Core Solo.

joecoin

Quote: Originally Posted by Hak Foo There's no reason ATX couldn't do a similar air-channel. All you need is to organize the NB and SB in line with the CPU. Putting the graphics card in the same channel just means to put the graphics components on the "back" of the card, entirely doable. As I said above, I think a card is already available so. Also, it may not be a worthwhile endeavour to put *all* those parts in the air channel. If the southbridge runs cool, or even the northbridge, why not file them elsewhere to get better design flexibility? I also note almost all NF4 boards, regardless of other design features, put the NB right near the PCIE16 slot, as though there's no other place it can be positioned... if BTX achieves an air-tunnel by sacrificing flow elsewhere, it could be a troublesome situation for parts which are hot but have to be located outside the channel. ATX is a resilient standard. It's evolved from passive heatsinks and the PSU fan venting in the case, to active sinks and a PSU vent outside, to rear exhausts, and now to direct-to-CPU intakes. You could always make an air-tunnel mid-case, roughly where the 3.5 bays are on most ATX towers. It also screams P4-centrism. An air channel designed around a humongous processor heatsink. Organize the current draws around the CPU and bridges. I'd not be surprised if a 6800 drew more amperage and produced more heat than a Venice A64 or Core Solo.

A lot of the changes you propose are incorporated into BTX. You say that ATX has evolved, and it has, right into BTX. What's in a name?

__________________

Hak Foo

Quote: Originally Posted by joecoin A lot of the changes you propose are incorporated into BTX. You say that ATX has evolved, and it has, right into BTX. What's in a name?

Compatibility.

I can't bolt my ATX boards into BTX cases. Ironically, ATX was done as a superset of AT, so people COULD and frequently DID bolt AT boards into ATX cases. That makes transition a harder sell. OEMs can't just buy BTX cases now, and stick ATX boards in them until fully BTX-optimised boards show up.

joecoin

Quote: Originally Posted by Hak Foo Compatibility. I can't bolt my ATX boards into BTX cases. Ironically, ATX was done as a superset of AT, so people COULD and frequently DID bolt AT boards into ATX cases. That makes transition a harder sell. OEMs can't just buy BTX cases now, and stick ATX boards in them until fully BTX-optimised boards show up.

Valid points all. It's been my experience that current ATX motherboards require new ATX style PSU units. So, yes, you can use the case ($20?), but not the PSU from the AT system.

There are currently on the market ATX cases that have optional BTX mounting kits. I am running an Intel D915GMH motherboard, to my knowledge it is a "fully BTX-optimised" board. I'll admit I have not spent a lot of time researching this issue, additionally I'm not certain what you mean by fully optimised.

__________________

Hak Foo

I meant in the time period the transition took place. My last two AT mobos (a PCChimps M560TG and a FIC VA-503+) both had AT AND ATX power sockets. They could be bolted into ATX cases, if those were available.

A hassle-free transition will sell it more easily to dealers and manufacturers.

Only a small number of BTX-convertible cases exist, and they're expensive, require extra parts and effort for the conversion. Putting an AT mobo in an ATX case meant just swapping a backplate, and many older ATX chassis included both a "generic ATX" and an AT-friendly one.

joecoin

Quote: Originally Posted by Hak Foo I meant in the time period the transition took place. My last two AT mobos (a PCChimps M560TG and a FIC VA-503+) both had AT AND ATX power sockets. They could be bolted into ATX cases, if those were available. A hassle-free transition will sell it more easily to dealers and manufacturers. Only a small number of BTX-convertible cases exist, and they're expensive, require extra parts and effort for the conversion. Putting an AT mobo in an ATX case meant just swapping a backplate, and many older ATX chassis included both a "generic ATX" and an AT-friendly one.

Well, I've been building systems since 1994, and I never saw one of those early ATX cases that had the AT style backplate included. Usually the backplate comes with the motherboard. I freely admit I have not seen every case ever made, but I don't think it would have been any more or less common than the "small number of BTX-convertible cases" that you can presently purchase. Additionally, there are a large and growing number of BTX only cases available. It just seems to me that we are seeing another transition in this wonderful ever changing industry. I would compare this more to the change from XT to AT than from AT to ATX. (You remember XT, don't you?)

__________________

Hak Foo

Quote: Originally Posted by joecoin