|
Intel P4 vs AMD
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
10. November 2005 @ 16:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
BroBear,
It ain't the models, it's the glue man!
Sophocles,
I'm not quite ready to get them yet. I go back to work full time on the 21st. Every couple of weeks I'll get some part of it until I have everything. Then I will be good to go.
I am going to get an Asus A8N-SLI-Premium MB, which is exactly the same as yours except there is no daughterboard but rather a chip built into the MB that controls the SLI. It also has the fan-less heat pipe system. Video will be 2 7800 GTXs. I also am going to take your advice and go with the Athlon64 Dual Core 4400+. Hard drives are another thing I have to look into more closely. I prefer Maxtor Diamond Plus drives. I know this sounds funny coming from an old guy like me because it wasn't tht many years ago that Maxtors and connors weren't even compatible with themselves (I swear that's true!). Western Digital seems to be the only one offering a 10,000 rpm SATA drive at this time but I have had recent problems with WD drives and 74GB won't do it for me. Size is another problem as XP doesn't like drives over 156GB and I am very leery of overlays. I had a 160 that I installed for a customer and all of a sudden it disappeared from XP. The machine would boot up but would not let you access anything on the drive because it didn't show in My Computer. The final solution was to install a pair of 120s, problem solved! I learned then that if you lose the overlay, you lose everything on the drive. I also learned that True Image 9 won't recover the overlay! I'll probably go with Maxtor 120 SATA drives and see how that goes. I also have to look into memory and find out what's best for this setup. Somewhere I read that this particular MB could run memory faster than 400MHz. I need to look into the pros & Cons of that. I figure maybe in the spring it will be ready. I've looked into a 20" wide screen monitor but they are just too expensive right now. I don't really like LCDs as they hurt my eyes but no one seems to build a CRT wide screen so I guess when the price comes down some I'll buy it. Right now I am using a Dell 1226H 19" CRT flat screen which is about the best 19 that Dell ever made. Let me put it this way, if it went down this would be the first monitor ever that I would have repaired. I run a screen resolution of 1280x1024 and it is awsome!
theonejrs
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
 |
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
10. November 2005 @ 16:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
You need service pack 2 for large HDs. No big deal. The larger drive platters yield more data speed. Use the newer bigger drives and use Sata. Preferably Raid 0 if you like speed. Just make sure to specify 4k clusters for the XP boot partition.
Donald
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
10. November 2005 @ 17:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
LOL Ozzy, I'm on your side of the pond. ASE is simply a shortening of NIASE.
There may be electrical components with a one hundred year history, but the PC as we know it is a relative newcomer. As late as the seventies the computers were still housed in large areas and sometimes with off site connections via terminals with the large reels. Chips and chip development have made the difference and most of that development has been over the past couple of decades, with the majority of major improvements over the last.
ECMs came into use with automobiles in the late seventies and early eighties. The task is to insure clean emissions, fuel economy, and nowadays a bit more performance. It was a sick pup when it first came on the market. ECMs are little more than a controller. PROMs are simply the programming for particular vehicles. Various sensors for barometric pressure, engine temperature, intake air flow, exhaust emissions, and throttle position (where old lead foot has the hammer down) are basic to the feedback for the closed loop circuit. I realize there's a bit more to it, simplified so as not to write another book, but the ECM is just a glorified control box, info in, command out.
The point being that an ECM is simply a control box. Either it works or it doesn't. It's nothing in comparison to a desktop or laptop PC. One merely needs to look at the function of the modern PC to see the difference.
The newer ECMs have some programmable variables, but that is a simplistic adjustment along emissions or performance lines. More or less the adjustments are along the lines of additional programming for the PROM. In relation to a PC that would be like changing a few BIOS settings. With the ECMs that's all accomplished with equipment and relies little on the input of a technician except to handle the controls. Read test equipment to see what the vehicle is doing and then adjust settings within specs to achieve the gain desired. Recheck to make sure things are within specs and working properly and the vehicle is on it's way.
Though PC components may be similar and do the same task, they often require "fine tuning" by the enthusiast builder. PC function is far superior to any ECM created to date. Just look at the many things a PC does and the ECM reads input and changes timing and fuel mixture. No contest, the ECM is a computer type control unit and the PC is a true computer. To think, PCs up until the past decade were little more than glorified word processors.
It's nice to hear you have your ASE certification. Sort of an indicator you're capable of good work on cars. Now when you get the A+ computer certification, that would indicate you could do good PC repair. Actually a lot of us hobbyists are doing it without that. LOL As Sophocles pointed out though, it still doesn't make one knowledgable about a lot of the finer aspects of PC building. I'm glad you got your problem fixed with a parts change, but that has no bearing on whether ATI makes a good card or not. If it didn't work for you, I'm not saying go back and fight with it. Your current system is working. However, when you do the next build, what happens if you run into a problem with an nVidia card? That's been known to happen as well. Being a computer enthusiast, you need to change your approach. Parts changing is okay for the fast paced auto repair business, but it leaves a lot to be desired when working with PCs. I remember there was a time when mechanics actually rebuilt things like they quiz about in those ASE tests.
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
10. November 2005 @ 17:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
Due to increasing demands from clean air legislation and some basic competition between manufacturers the moderm PCMs are true real time computers. Just at a lower power point, closer to old Pentiums and 486s. Cost if nothing else will keep them low power units.
But they do a lot more thinking than the early 80s fuel mixture and ignition only units.
The first electronic fuel injection that was the father of all that followed was invented and patented by GMs Rochester division in the late 50s and used tubes in the prototype. Bosch purchase the non USA rights and put it out as the first commercial use as the D-jetronic.
Then L-jet for the air meter type the LH for the modern Maf sensor type, both sold to Japanese interests.
Donald
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
10. November 2005 @ 17:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
theonejrs
Donald pretty much had that right on drives. Until 2000 service pack 3 or higher and XP SP1, the PCs were limited to 137GB drives. 98SE and ME require controller cards for drives larger than 137GB. There are some exceptions for certain chipsets which use drivers that provide BIOS support. Not really a big deal anymore, not that many people with 98 and ME left that are wanting to spend money on upgrades. I've had a 250GB WD on my current system for over a year. It's been trouble free. I had XP SP1 and have since added SP2. So, I don't know where that 156 GB deal came from, but I've not run into that situation.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
10. November 2005 @ 18:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
Donald,
Fuel injection goes back to the 1880s. Fuel injection was being used by Germany for aircraft in World War 2. Bosch was the developer of that, so they were into fuel injection before Chevrolet, though maybe not on cars. The US developed fuel injection for use in the Patton tanks. So fuel injection was nothing new when Chevy's Ramjet system came out in 57.
1949 was the first time I can recall fuel injection being used on a car. An Offenhauser using a Hillborn injection system, developed by Stuart Hillborn, was run in an Indy race. The Chevrolet's Rochester Ramjet system was brought out in 57 and borrowed heavily from the Hillborn system. It only lasted for 2 years except for some use in the Corvette which went up to 1965. The carburetor was much cheaper and easier to maintain. Automotive fuel injection wasn't very popular at the time. Bosch in Germany developed fuel injection that was used on Volkswagens and Mercedes in the 60s and 70s. So Chevrolet wasn't the first, and not the only developer at the time. Ottavio Fuscaldo of Italy was the first engineer to incorporate an electric solenoid to a fuel system coming up with the first electronic fuel injection. So GM didn't even get the first on that one either.
I'm aware fuel injection has been around for a long time before the advent of the newer systems. In 76 Cadillac had an electronic system on the Seville with individual injectors, using an old analog computer. The system was developed by Bendix, Bosch and GM. Digital Fuel Injection (DFI) was brought out by GM in 1980. The early Ramjet fuel injection had little to do with the new ECM systems. In fact when GM brought out the new digital system on the Cadillacs in 1980, they were using electronically controlled throttle bodies. Much of the GM line used electronic carburetors and then throttle body injectors and later individual electronic injectors.
ECMS have incorporated things in addition to just fuel and timing, I noted that earlier. They've actually developed into small onboard computers. There are climate control functions and the transmissions are now linked to the ECM system. Suspension and steering, engine controls, just about anything that can be linked to it, the engineers try to add to the onboard computers. There are more advanced applications than the originals, I mentioned some programmable aspects the first ECMs didn't have. I didn't mention onboard diagnostics either. As Sophocles says, I can get a bit wordy. Still the ECMs are simple computer control systems using feedback logic.
And as far as the new ECM systems are concerned, they still don't come close to being as involved as a new PC. Like you said, they're closer to the old Tandies, and those were little more than word processors. I remember some of the earlier PCs and if the user didn't understand programming language, word processing was about all they could do. That was before all the companies that were doing programming. I forgot, those word processing programs were on floppies, guess those were some of the first retail programs. LOL Just doing a spreadsheet that computed totals as you entered often required a good knowledge of something like DOS. Nowadays, no one thinks twice about Quicken or office suite programs.
I'm starting to wander. I'll just add that the ECMs of the 1980s were probably better than the desktop computers of the time. But with the developments in the nineties and later, the home PC has eclipsed the capablilities of an automotive computer. I don't think it is a matter of cost as just being efficient and supplying what is needed. With costs dropping on older computer technology, maybe the feedback system may stay at a low enough price that an onboard computer doesn't significantly raise the cost of a unit. But with the newer hybrid vehicles, as well as meeting increasing demands on current automotive packages, the automotive computer is continuing to evolve and in doing so may increase in cost.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. November 2005 @ 19:22
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
10. November 2005 @ 19:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
I was refering to electronic FI. Bosches first electronic FI was D-jet licensed from GM. No FI before this had a computer. The Corvette and early racing injection was considered mechanical.
Bosch did come up with CIS, but again the metering was mechanical.
Donald
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
10. November 2005 @ 19:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Fuel Injection
Chrysler had the first digital fuel injection. Here is the quote from Chrysler:
"First digital fuel injection: 1957 DeSoto Adventurer (Bendix aircraft system adapted for Chrysler use); again, 1981-1982 Imperial. It's worth noting that the DeSoto's system was very modern in design and had reliable capacitors and such been available, it would most likely have been very successful." By the way the original Desoto is still around and is in the process of being restored, complete with the original fuel injection! This is truely amazing since very few were ever sold.
Some early model 327 Corvettes had a different form of fuel injection. I've seen the Desoto and worked on the Vette!
theonejrs
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
10. November 2005 @ 19:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
The 76-79 Seville was the first US implementation of GMs original FI that the Germans called D-jet. This was an American only creation from many years before.
Before D-jet Mercedes used a diesel injection system for gas engines when needed.
Donald
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
10. November 2005 @ 19:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
theonejrs
Donald mentioned that. Much of the early fuel injection was mechanical. That was the type Hillborn developed for use on the Offy in 49 and what Chevrolet borrowed from for the development of their system. Of the modern computer assisted electronic systems, GM had the first in 76, a joint venture of Bendix, Bosch and GM.
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
10. November 2005 @ 19:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
I stand corrected by theonejr. It was Bendix not Rochester. At least the country was right. But Bosch did buy it, not develop it.
The production unit used transistors but the cost was about $150 per unit as opposed to $15 for a carb with about the same performance. So they sold it.
Donald
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
10. November 2005 @ 19:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
Donald
Bosch developed the D-Jetronic automotive fuel injection system primarily from patents they licensed from Bendix, not Chevrolet. It was used on the Type 3 VW engines in 67. The L-Jetronic, K-Jetronic and other systems were developed by Bosch. Bosch is still a major player in automotive fuel injection systems. As I noted before, they were a joint partner in developing GMs electronic fuel injection. A lot of vehicles use the German developed Bosch fuel injection.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. November 2005 @ 19:47
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
10. November 2005 @ 19:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
Actually the Caddy D-jet was a carbon copy of the original Bendix. But the parts came from Germany. They were the only ones using electronic at the time.
Donald
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
10. November 2005 @ 19:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
I was wrong about GMs involvement. Been too long since I read about it. Bendix to Bosch to GM with no real change to the design. Until L-jet there were few modifications to the Bendix design.
L-jet was the more popular one anyway. Thats the one used on the Bugs, BMWs, Nissans, Toyotas ect...
The Bendix Pre D-Jet was the grandad of all the electronic FI, whoever may be developing the new stuff now
Donald
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. November 2005 @ 19:53
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
10. November 2005 @ 19:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
The Caddy D-Jet was the Bosch system developed from the Bendix patents. Maybe Cadillac put some of the parts together, but they came from Bosch. That system was used on the 76-79 Cadillacs. But as I mentioned, VW used the Bosch D-Jetronic back in 67.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
10. November 2005 @ 19:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
Looks like we've been posting at the same time Donald. LOL
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
10. November 2005 @ 19:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think Caddy purchased the system complete for those years. All bosch stamped stuff. Although the computer didn't look very European.
Donald
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
10. November 2005 @ 19:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think the AMD vs Intel/I hate Radeon/Auto repair thread is a little off track.
Donald
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
10. November 2005 @ 20:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
I used to have a book that chronicled the details of the early electronic FI development. I can't seem to find it. It had mentioned the tubed prototype that ran well but would sometimes flood out under powerlines.
It is probably with my Eniac book. Another tube computer. Filled a very large room.
Donald
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
10. November 2005 @ 20:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
LOL Guess you missed where I mentioned the Italian making the first electronic gasoline injection system. The Italians had it first. Though Bendix may have patented the first automotive system. Bosch licensed the patents, but a lot of the Bosch work was Bosch, not Bendix. The system on the 76-79 Cadillacs was the Bosch, though it may have been developed from use of some Bendix patents. Bosch was actually the first with a digital fuel injection system, the Motronic system in 79. Guess that may be the reason GM had them on board for development of their system along with Bendix.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
10. November 2005 @ 20:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
To All,
Does anyone remember GM's CCC, Computer Controled Carburation? Was only used from about 83 til 85 or 86. That's why all the cars GM made that were CCC were junk! They were a nightmare. Some of the electrical and electronic adjustments were so poorly designed and unstable that you could set it up while on the emmisions computer and the settings wouldn't last long enough for the car to pass! My 87 Fiero with the VTech 4 (I just mention the VTech engine to piss off the Honda Guys) had throttle body fuel injection. All fuel injection have one beneficial quirk over carburators. As you went up in altitude the gas mileage went up. With Carburators, it went down, usually acompanied by clouds of black smoke. When crossing the rockies in 92, I got an amazing 46 mpg. It usually got about 35! Best car I ever owned! Wish I had kept it. Mind you this comes frome someone who has owned 2 Jaguar XKEs, 2 XJSs, 2 Mercededes 450 SLCs, a DeTomaso Pantera and a Lotus Europa!
theonejrs
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
10. November 2005 @ 20:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
Here's the way the history of the electronic system goes as I learned it. Rochester sold its technology to Bendix, who improved it by replacing many of the mechanical components with electronic ones. Bendix was the first to create a mass-produced electronic fuel injection system. Detroit failed to sell more than a handful of fuel injected cars however (like the DeSoto). That prompted Bendix to turn its rights over to Bosch, who continuously improved the system. In the early 1970's, when emissions and fuel economy became big concerns, the advances in electronics technology made fuel injection more acceptable and affordable.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
10. November 2005 @ 21:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
theonejrs
LOL Like some people with computers, the CCC systems were only as good as those that had to repair and maintain them. I had a 1981 Ninety Eight Olds. It had the electronic controlled carb. I had to rebuild it once in the mid 80's due to it having been mistreated by the previous owner. The car lasted till the mid 90's without another carb problem. It was still running great when a teenager ran into it while my wife was driving it. I repaired the car later and the carb was still functioning properly when I sold it. CCC systems weren't that much trouble for those who knew how they worked.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
10. November 2005 @ 21:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
You guys are killing me, my hands feel greasy just listening to all of this automotive chatter. I feel like I'm stuck on fantasy Island with all of Dale Earnhardt's living descendants discussing the value of Bosch's spark plug superiority over glow plugs.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. November 2005 @ 03:55
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
10. November 2005 @ 21:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
There was a funny thing I found out through GM. When making a drastic change in altitude while driving, it helped to stop the vehicle and restart it when performance dropped off. It was due to the MAP (Manifold Absolute Pressure) sensor needing to reset the reading to the ECM. It wasn't an issue unless you were doing something like crossing the Rockies. With altitude and atmospheric pressures changing drastically, the fuel mix wouldn't adjust properly. Regular mountains had little or no effect.
|
