Re: my question yesterday about low power PC suppliers
I hunted around on Google for a while and found an article on the (venerable) "Tom's Hardware" site about building a low power, but capable, system.
They built a 4Gb, Intel core 2 duo system that consumed only around 30 watts when running. I've ordered bits for a similar system, it uses a FoxConn motherboard with Intel G31 chipset. My parts cost for a 4Gb system with 7400 processor (the most expensive bit, 7300 was out of stock) and a 500Gb hard disk was about £250.
Compared with Mini-ITX systems and/or Intel Atom based systems this seems good value to me and gives me lots more processor power and room for expansion (i.e. adding hard disks).
When the bits come and I've built it I will report its actual power consumption.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Chris G cl@isbd.net wrote:
Re: my question yesterday about low power PC suppliers
I hunted around on Google for a while and found an article on the (venerable) "Tom's Hardware" site about building a low power, but capable, system.
They built a 4Gb, Intel core 2 duo system that consumed only around 30 watts when running. I've ordered bits for a similar system, it uses a FoxConn motherboard with Intel G31 chipset. My parts cost for a 4Gb system with 7400 processor (the most expensive bit, 7300 was out of stock) and a 500Gb hard disk was about £250.
Compared with Mini-ITX systems and/or Intel Atom based systems this seems good value to me and gives me lots more processor power and room for expansion (i.e. adding hard disks).
When the bits come and I've built it I will report its actual power consumption.
-- Chris Green
Wow 30 watts sounds very low. Id stay clear of Foxconn though, there Linux support has been quite poor in the past. It seems like they did try to fix the problem but at the start it seemed like they were trying to make there boards less stable on Linux: http://ubuntu-virginia.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=869249
Dennis
On 13 Nov 10:37, Dennis Dryden wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Chris G cl@isbd.net wrote:
Re: my question yesterday about low power PC suppliers
I hunted around on Google for a while and found an article on the (venerable) "Tom's Hardware" site about building a low power, but capable, system.
They built a 4Gb, Intel core 2 duo system that consumed only around 30 watts when running. I've ordered bits for a similar system, it uses a FoxConn motherboard with Intel G31 chipset. My parts cost for a 4Gb system with 7400 processor (the most expensive bit, 7300 was out of stock) and a 500Gb hard disk was about £250.
Compared with Mini-ITX systems and/or Intel Atom based systems this seems good value to me and gives me lots more processor power and room for expansion (i.e. adding hard disks).
When the bits come and I've built it I will report its actual power consumption.
-- Chris Green
Wow 30 watts sounds very low. Id stay clear of Foxconn though, there Linux support has been quite poor in the past. It seems like they did try to fix the problem but at the start it seemed like they were trying to make there boards less stable on Linux: http://ubuntu-virginia.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=869249
Apparently you missed the mgj59 followup blog entrys to that... personally I'd rather trust Matthew's judgement on things ACPI...
http://mjg59.livejournal.com/94905.html http://mjg59.livejournal.com/94998.html http://mjg59.livejournal.com/96129.html
(The last is just general talk about ACPI).
Foxconn are no more or less evil than any other motherboard manufacturer.
Thanks,
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:37:25AM +0000, Dennis Dryden wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Chris G cl@isbd.net wrote:
Re: my question yesterday about low power PC suppliers
I hunted around on Google for a while and found an article on the (venerable) "Tom's Hardware" site about building a low power, but capable, system.
They built a 4Gb, Intel core 2 duo system that consumed only around 30 watts when running. I've ordered bits for a similar system, it uses a FoxConn motherboard with Intel G31 chipset. My parts cost for a 4Gb system with 7400 processor (the most expensive bit, 7300 was out of stock) and a 500Gb hard disk was about £250.
Compared with Mini-ITX systems and/or Intel Atom based systems this seems good value to me and gives me lots more processor power and room for expansion (i.e. adding hard disks).
When the bits come and I've built it I will report its actual power consumption.
-- Chris Green
Wow 30 watts sounds very low. Id stay clear of Foxconn though, there Linux support has been quite poor in the past. It seems like they did try to fix the problem but at the start it seemed like they were trying to make there boards less stable on Linux: http://ubuntu-virginia.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=869249
It's an Intel chipset though which should be fairly OK for Linux, it's also hardly "bleeding edge" which should help.
There are alternative G31 based motherboards which should do almost as well (Tom's Hardware also tried a Gigabyte motherboard). If I get serious problems I can always try a different motherboard, they're only £30 or so for G31 based ones. However Tom's Hardware got the lowest power consumption with the FoxConn and it was cheap so I've gone for it.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:28:50AM +0000, Chris G wrote:
Wow 30 watts sounds very low. Id stay clear of Foxconn though, there Linux support has been quite poor in the past. It seems like they did try to fix the problem but at the start it seemed like they were trying to make there boards less stable on Linux: http://ubuntu-virginia.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=869249
If you read through the whole forum thread (and the liked continuation one) it seems that FoxConn (and/or AMI) have produced a fix for the broken BIOS/ACPI tables.
It also seems to me that some of the original accusations there were a little OTT - though that's still open to debate.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Chris G cl@isbd.net wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:28:50AM +0000, Chris G wrote:
Wow 30 watts sounds very low. Id stay clear of Foxconn though, there Linux support has been quite poor in the past. It seems like they did try to fix the problem but at the start it seemed like they were trying to make there boards less stable on Linux: http://ubuntu-virginia.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=869249
If you read through the whole forum thread (and the liked continuation one) it seems that FoxConn (and/or AMI) have produced a fix for the broken BIOS/ACPI tables.
It also seems to me that some of the original accusations there were a little OTT - though that's still open to debate.
-- Chris Green
Ye agreed, looking at it again the accusations do seem over the top. I hadn't read the story since it was first posted and after reading the mjg59 blog posts it seems the first guy was wrong and jumping to conclutions. Sorry for any confusion caused and thanks for the other posts Brett they put the whole thing in a new light.
I'd be interested to know how the board works out for you.
Dennis
On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 09:16 +0000, Chris G wrote:
Compared with Mini-ITX systems and/or Intel Atom based systems this seems good value to me and gives me lots more processor power and room for expansion (i.e. adding hard disks).
Yes it does...The current issue with the Atom is that although the CPU itself is very low power (2.5W TDP I seem to recall) it is partnered to a very hungry chipset (20W or so I think). I am amazed you can get C2D that low when you start to include a desktop hard drive etc.
It's insane that we have Atom boards with a fanless CPU and a fan on the Northbridge !
-
Brett Parker -
Chris G -
Dennis Dryden -
Wayne Stallwood