Amd XP
Amd athlon 64
Opteron
Pentium m
via-c3 series
Itanium series
Apple g3/g4/g5
Sparc proc's

Given the above products dont benift from a form factor shift, or ddr2 for that matter i suspect the whole btx thing is going to stagnate and vanish under intels marketing power.

the only one who needs ddr2 and btx is the p4...

Not that I care that much about the differences between ATX and BTX, but even though Intel and AMD are in competition, it would hurt both of them if the BTX standard did not reasonably fit an AMD 64 system. It would mean ATX exists longer, and maybe if there is no coming together between the two, AMD will make another *TX casing/layout standard that will work with its systems.

Wouldn't it be stupid if you had to buy a PSU adapter or a new PSU for an Intel box and AMD box? That's where it may go if they don't redesign BTX or AMD redoes their boards.

Since when does Intel control PC standards?

I know that Intel is a very big company and has a lot of influence in the industry but why do we need to use a standard they made which is incompatible?

Just look how they took care of the AC97 standard.

This is great news to me. I've hated the BTX form-factor from the beginning and I swore I would never buy into it unlessed ATX completely dissapeared.
It's too much to hope for, but I hope this makes Intel shoot itself in the foot like they did with RDRAM, giving yet another boost to AMD It's about time the damn whale gets harpooned.

First off, I never said squat about Intel conspiracy theories etc. My point was to say that the BTX standard amazingly benefits Intel. Since they have relied on speed to be competitive, they realized that the current ATX standard is insufficient to cool their chips. What a better time to try to roll out a new case standard, when PCI-Express is being rolled out. To me, that seems pretty clear.

I also never mentioned anything about destroying competition or hurting AMD's memory controller.

BTW, anyone who can't spell an easy word like "easier", should not tell me that my ideas are silly. In addition, I am pretty sure that Intel has a grasp at how hot their products in their pipeline will run. Using the same chip design with higher speeds can give them a good indication. Unless they come out with a totally new CPU design, they can guess it now.

I think AMD should just go along with the i/o panel, the expansion panel, and the mounting hole layout along with the general CPU placement. Memory can go anywhere, it's not like we will need to plug molex connections into sticks of memory anywhere in the near future.

This is a non problem. Give the Taiwanese 2 months, and they'll be selling cases that get around it. It's not difficult.

Also, it's not like the Pentium-M needs this form factor to survive. The Prescott and it's decendents did, but the P4's dynasty is coming to an end with no heirs.

ATX is fine, just leave it as-is. The CPU's don't get that hot, and even if they do (if you're overclocking, etc), there are other cooling alternatives.

Jeez. Chill with the P4 too hot conspiracy theories already. BTX was started way before Prescott heat issues. There is no underhanded, secret, devious intel plot to hurt AMD's integrated controller either.

Sheez, I wonder how many people run around with tin foil on their heads. BTX is not just for cooling CPU's. If you notice that all system components are heating up. Not just the prescott. Video cards, Hardrives, etc.

if intel tried to make a standard that they knew would destroy competition, the ftc would be all over them

btx probably wont go anywhere, as for amd's on die mem controller, perhaps a "repeater" in the pseudo-north bridge they use these days would solve that problem

Can't amd just tell them to ____ off? I don't see why amd can’t keep the ram slots near the processor. Who cares if they "prefer" to have it in another place.

#28 is right. Intel wants all the consumers to fund their ability to compete with AMD in the short-term. Intel needs the new standard, not AMD at this point. Instead of designing more efficient chips like AMD, they want to change the airflow so that they can slap another 1.5 ghz or so to their core design. The laughable part is that all of us will pay for it with new cases, new mobos, incompatibility issues etc. The capper is that they will pull the same crap a few years from now again when they need to hit 6.5 ghz and AMD is around 3.5 ;-)

Nah, I don't think it is conspiracy, seems pretty obvious to me.

The Inq has a Computex write up detailing a BTX spin session with Intel UK, and a talk with the Chieftec CEO: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16294

It's disturbing to hear that they dropped over a quarter million on tooling costs on a standard that Intel hasn't even finalized. Between the boat anchor, the similarity to the G5 case, and the production costs, it looks real ugly

Inq = rock of salt, as always.

It can't be that hard to make their own form factor that is physically compatible with BTX. Sure intel says that memory needs to be in line with the cpu, but really, i'm sure it can be moved around. as long as all the mounting holes line up, whats the big deal?

..........

Considering that AMD's processor includes a lot of northbridge functionality anyway, why not just put the processor where the northbridge is on the BTX specification?

I've always thought that BTX was a design by Intel to mess AMD about since AMD put the memory controllers on the processor. On the other hand, ATX could do with some revision to account for more modern design practices, but BTX is just too specific. The processor goes at place X (and backplate in chassis is pressed there and all that), and so on.

I don't see why ATX/BTX cases can't be made though - BTX does mount on the other side of the case from ATX. The BTX case I saw on the Inquirer (full sized) had 6 3.5" bays (4 at bottom front of case, 2 above power supply (heat issue?)) which is nice. Better cooling is a good idea, but why not make it more generic so the processor can be elsewhere in the "tunnel of cooling"?

picoBTX looks useful though, like that Shuttle SFF system. Handy to have the SATA ports towards the ports (and hence near the back of the drives) instead of under the drives. Having the southbridge / I/O chip near the back panel makes sense as well.

All in all, the only reason I can see for the BTX spec to be so darned specific about locations for on-board components like northbridge, processor, etc, is to mess around AMD. How mature.

It's probably safe to bet that AMD revises its memory controller to fix that problem with their next set of cores. It's not like they don't have time; ATX & BTX will coexist for a year or two even at all-Intel OEMs.

Yeah. You would think that as long as they fit the same kind of case, and accept the same kind of power connector (if that is to change too), they can do whatever they want, really.

(This was meant to be a reply to #12 :) )

AMD can also try going a different path. Mobos are already incompatible, and most cases accept several standards.

Hmmm interesting, it would be soooo cool to see Intel shooting iteslf properly this time around... if you look at it problems are just growing...

prescott
new socket - pins easy to break, but that damages the mobo instead of the processor, so mobo makers are more pissed off with intc
now this BTX radicalization that might not be neccessary if they are moving to pentium M architecture anyway...
lack of 64bits, and poor 64bit performance when it's actually enabled

did I forget anything

hopefully Intel will drown some 50% of marketshare in all that :) so that we have a better (more even) situation in the marketplace.

Heh... was this an intentional move on Intel's part, or just lack of planning/coordination? (Not that they would ever try to coordinate anything with AMD anyway...)

AT and ATX form factor co-existed for several years, and that wasn't so bad. I suppose this is a little different though, considering that making a "universal" ATX/BTX case is probably a lot more difficult than making a "universal" AT/ATX case was, since BTX is a much more radical departure from existing designs.

I guess the end result for consumers will be that you'll need to buy a new case if you decide to switch from Intel to AMD (or vice-versa).

I for one couldn't care less about BTX. I don't use intel chips in my enthusiast machines, so it's not a big deal. If AMD needs to make their own standard, or keep ATX, then the market will follow suit, based on customers needs.

Yet another RDRAM fiasco....would love to see it happen..hehe