Like Heroes, Game of Thrones and ...
It's well worth it, trust me. There's more than enough CPU/GPU power to decode everything, even on 10 year old hardware.
You can blame JJ Abrams for making "LOST" suck on the Ending. The man can't write his way out of his own mystery boxes.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/Linus-blasts-intel-on-strangling-ecc-memoryf
Excerpt:
Sixty four gigabytes on a silicon wafer later as opposed to the sixty four kilobytes on two back in the day when the Atari 65XE created the blueprints for Stonehenge...
Excerpt:
Sixty four gigabytes on a silicon wafer later as opposed to the sixty four kilobytes on two back in the day when the Atari 65XE created the blueprints for Stonehenge...
AMD just need to be more decisive on it.
The Ryzen processors support ECC but not officially and the same goes for the motherboards.
Read the article when it was linked on Slashdot yesterday and one of the comments there was that people are happy to pay extra for the flashy LEDs on the modules that do stuff all but somehow they wouldn't pay extra for ECC.
Another comment was that there is a performance penalty with ECC both in ram in speed and due to the way ECC operates so which makes it even more unpalatable to the blinking lights crowd.
But if was that standard then ECC would probably cost less and be faster.
But then if ECC was supported on the core processors, people might be so keen to spent the money on the Xeons (or intel would be force to drop prices or increase specs).
Though the Pentiums(?) and i3s did support it at one point because they could be also be used in boards that would take the Xeon E3's but not sure if that's the case now.
I use a recent Pentium Gold 6400 for my desktop machine and it does not support ECC memory, I also have a much older Pentium E2220 which also doesn't support it, Pentium 4's also didn't so maybe here and there chips as of Sandy Bridge or so might have supported it but nope on Comet lake.
They must have dropped a bit later. Having look at the manual for the motherboard I had, it lists the Xeon E3 v1/v2, 2nd & 3rd gen core i3, pentium and celeron processors and that was Supermicro's X9 series, now the X11 boards that support the E3 v5/v6 still list pentium and celeron but anything later (E3-15xx) and they aren't an option.
Looks like Kaby-Lake-S and even Coffee Lake had it and then by the time coffee lake came around it was dropped.
And gods, intel's product ranges is a mess.
ECC was only an option for the i3, celeron, pentium on server and workstation boards (using the 200 series chipset).
If Intel is really worried about Product Segmentation between Consumer & Enterprise in regards to ECC, there are plenty of ways of doing it.
DDR5 is going to be this PCB efficient in real estate:
Imagine what they can do with that extra tall PCB, they can have 3-4 rows of DRAM in the future =D
Here's an example of Ultra Low Profile DIMM's that are single row in nature:
DDR5 already proves how short it could be, just re-work the PCB layout and I'm sure they can get it down to Ultra Low Profile like the DIMM stick above.
- Consumer/Prosumer ECC can be limited to:
- Single-Bit Error Correction & Double-Bit and higher Error Detection
- UDIMM = UnRegistered/UnBuffered Memory with ECC
- Doesn't support 'Load Reduced' or 'Fully Buffered' Memory Modules
- Can only have up to (2 rows of RAM Chips on both sides of the DIMM at most)
- Can only support "Standard Height" RAM Modules & "Half Height" RAM Modules which consist of 1-2 rows of RAM chips
- Enterprise can support up to "1.5x Height" / "2.0x Height" RAM Modules which consist of 3x or 4x rows of RAM chips
DDR5 is going to be this PCB efficient in real estate:
Imagine what they can do with that extra tall PCB, they can have 3-4 rows of DRAM in the future =D
Here's an example of Ultra Low Profile DIMM's that are single row in nature:
DDR5 already proves how short it could be, just re-work the PCB layout and I'm sure they can get it down to Ultra Low Profile like the DIMM stick above.
I don't know about the DDR4 variant but the DDR3 Xeon E3's required UDIMMs which were sometimes more expensive than registered ECC DDR3.
the UDIMMS also topped out at 8GB.
Never looked in why Intel when down that path. Maybe it was more of protecting more profitable products or whether it was also for the motherboards to take the pentium and celeron processors though outside of a NAS I'm not sure why you'd want ECC support on a low end processor.
I have s dual Xeon e5 board in my server which would can take 1TB if I used LRDIMM, 512GB regualar ECC-RDIMM but only 128MB if I used UDIMM.
My brother and I run a server, it is at the moment a AMD FM2 Athlon, on this thing we've got a few VM's running, even the lowest and cheapest AMD chips have Virtual machine support, Intel cut out this and more from their budget chips so you ABSOLUTELY need at least an i5 (I think) if you want to run a server, so yes, expensive CPU for which you need a board with and expensive Intel chipset etc etc etc,
I don't need a fast chip for what that server has to do, even that old FM2 chip is fast enough, now this thing is so old by now that there's a need to start replacing the hardware mainboard, CPU, PSU and the drives and it will again be an AMD probably a quad core Ryzen because that's all we need.
So instead moi buying a cheap Intel it will be a cheap AMD again..
I don't need a fast chip for what that server has to do, even that old FM2 chip is fast enough, now this thing is so old by now that there's a need to start replacing the hardware mainboard, CPU, PSU and the drives and it will again be an AMD probably a quad core Ryzen because that's all we need.
So instead moi buying a cheap Intel it will be a cheap AMD again..
ROFLOL, I'll believe it when I see it. Intel behaving.Or Intel could just start to behave.. and yes, the chances of that aren't all that good.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
You nailed it, artificial product segmentation is Intel's strategy.
Look at how many product SKU's they make for Consumer/Enterprise.
That's the Intel we all know and loathe.
A really long time ago our first "server" was a Pentium 166MMX this was a everything chip, desktop, laptop, server etc it did all, heck there were even dual socket 7 boards...
And you had chipsets from multiple vendors, Ali, VIA, SiS, also a single socket supported AMD, Cyrix, Intel, IDT and Rise CPU's.
Things sure have changed since then, when AMD came out with the Athlon Intel threatened motherboard manufacturers with not suplying any chipsets for Intel boards and don't forget the shenanigans they pulled when AMD brought out the AMD 64 chips.. deals with Dell, HP, etc so no OEM would buy AMD chips...
And you had chipsets from multiple vendors, Ali, VIA, SiS, also a single socket supported AMD, Cyrix, Intel, IDT and Rise CPU's.
Things sure have changed since then, when AMD came out with the Athlon Intel threatened motherboard manufacturers with not suplying any chipsets for Intel boards and don't forget the shenanigans they pulled when AMD brought out the AMD 64 chips.. deals with Dell, HP, etc so no OEM would buy AMD chips...
Intel is a convicted monopolist, no need to support them IMO.
AMD offers you better value for your $.
All my main machines have been AMD since a K6-233, after that Duron 700, 800 and 850Mhz, could trade my way up while building machines for other people. 
Athlon 2200+ Thoroughbred core, then a Venice core 3200+ after that a Brisbane 4450e, Phenom II 905e upgraded to a 955BE later on, after that a FX 8350 and now a Ryzen 2600+
Athlon 2200+ Thoroughbred core, then a Venice core 3200+ after that a Brisbane 4450e, Phenom II 905e upgraded to a 955BE later on, after that a FX 8350 and now a Ryzen 2600+
Last edited:
I figure that either the cable or lcd screen on my laptop is on the way out
(I'd tried messing with settings/drivers first - but using HDMI or VGA cables to other monitors and it's fine)
On it's own screen, it's a metronomic flashing of around twice per second. At the moment, I'm taking it to pieces for a visual check.
(I'd tried messing with settings/drivers first - but using HDMI or VGA cables to other monitors and it's fine)
On it's own screen, it's a metronomic flashing of around twice per second. At the moment, I'm taking it to pieces for a visual check.
Yep (took the hard drive out as I was going to test it on another setup to be really sure) and it flashes from start up (though at that point, I had no bootable drive in).
I'm not sure if I'm hoping it's the cable rather than the LCD as the cable is slightly easier to get a replacement for. (On the other hand, the monitor is actually slightly easier to replace as I only have to open one side rather than both bottom and top)
Yep sounds like the display cable. Also if you have it disconnected try cleaning the connector and the end of the cable where it plugs in with some isopropyl alcohol. Very good as a contact cleaner.
