Open Graphics Project is now taking pre-orders

Jeremy Chadwick koitsu at
Fri May 23 15:39:37 UTC 2008

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 08:15:53AM +0100, Dieter wrote:
> > I'm just curious here, but why PCI-X, why not PCI-EXpress ?
> > or is this obviously for development reasons.
> According to the FAQ,
> 	While most graphics cards now fit in PCI Express slots,
> 	PCI is more popular with users of FPGA kits. We have
> 	identified the parts necessary to support PCI Express,
> 	so if there is demand, we can build them.  In the mean
> 	time, we need to sell the PCI version OGD1 to bootstrap
> 	our efforts.
> 	PCI-X is backward compatible with your 32-bit 33MHz PCI slots,
> 	and OGD1 has been tested with several PC motherboards. Note
> 	that some PC motherboards may position components so that they
> 	interfere with the "extended" part of the PCI card edge for
> 	some slots.  OGD1 is 6.875in long and 4.2in wide
> 	(17.46cm x 10.67cm).  Some small form-factor systems do not
> 	provide enough room in one or both dimensions.
> There is a development advantage to PCI.  PCI is a bus, so it is easy
> to sniff the bus if things aren't working.  There has been some
> discussion about writing software to turn the OGD1 into a PCI bus
> sniffer, for developing other boards.
> If you are interested in buying a PCIe version of OGD1, OGP needs to
> hear about it.

I think what people (not just here, but folks on Slashdot as well) want
to know is: is the PCI-X choice *purely* for development reasons, e.g.
will the retail/non-development version (read: transistor-based, no
FPGA) of the card be PCIe?

If the manufacturer plans on keeping everything PCI-X -- dev cards and
commercial/retail cards -- they are making a *huge* mistake.

| Jeremy Chadwick                                jdc at |
| Parodius Networking              |
| UNIX Systems Administrator                  Mountain View, CA, USA |
| Making life hard for others since 1977.              PGP: 4BD6C0CB |

More information about the freebsd-hardware mailing list