Open Graphics Project is now taking pre-orders
koitsu at FreeBSD.org
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.com |
| Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ |
| UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA |
| Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |
More information about the freebsd-hardware