Dual Opteron and PCI and PCI-X card placement?

[max_e_mum]

Hi there all

I know this mobo is old, but it is giving me the opportunity to play
with some Opterons, something I've dreamed about since I heard of their
existance 4 or 5 years ago.

MSI-9131 K8D Master F
2 x 248 CPU
2 x 1GB PC 2700 - slots 2 and 6
2 x Samsung 250GB SATA2 running RAID_0
1 x ATA133 WD 80-GB
Liberty 550w PSU
Titan Case
[Sound is still to come]

Note: Looking at the board with CPUs at the top
PCI-X slot #1: RocketRaid 2224 PCI-X Raid card (top)
This card can run 4 internal drives and four
external via fiber channel
PCI slot #2: VisionTek (ATI) X1300 Graphics card
PCI-X slot #3: VisionTek (ATI) Theater 500 Pro TV/ Capture card
(bottom)

I did want to put both graphic cards together on PCI-X slots 2 and 3,
but after trying things around, this is where they ended up working -
they did work in the begining, some features seemed not to work so I
moved the cards around.
I put the Rocket Raid on PCI-X slot one, because other mobo makers put
a SCSI raid off the 8131. I also get the feeling that the dual GB NICs
run off the 8131 so the two should work together OK.

I'm starting to get the feeling that maybe I should put the X1300 on
PCI-X slot-1 as it would get heaps of processing bandwidth from the
CPUs - which will improve my video pictures.

So that means I would be putting the RocketRaid down on PCI-X slot-2,
leaving room on the PCI-32 bus for a future audio card.

What have other found

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* (e-mail address removed):

I know this mobo is old, but it is giving me the opportunity to play
with some Opterons, something I've dreamed about since I heard of their
existance 4 or 5 years ago.

MSI-9131 K8D Master F
2 x 248 CPU
2 x 1GB PC 2700 - slots 2 and 6
2 x Samsung 250GB SATA2 running RAID_0
1 x ATA133 WD 80-GB
Liberty 550w PSU
Titan Case
[Sound is still to come]

Note: Looking at the board with CPUs at the top
PCI-X slot #1: RocketRaid 2224 PCI-X Raid card (top)
This card can run 4 internal drives and four
external via fiber channel

Nope. The RocketRaid 2224 is not a Fibre Channel controller but a SATA
II RAID Controller. The external ports are generic SATA ports, nothing more.

PCI slot #2: VisionTek (ATI) X1300 Graphics card

This board doesn't have PCIe or AGP. I'm not aware that the ATI X1300 is
still made in a PCI version. Are you _really_ sure it is an X1300? I
doubt it.

PCI-X slot #3: VisionTek (ATI) Theater 500 Pro TV/ Capture card
(bottom)

I did want to put both graphic cards together on PCI-X slots 2 and 3,
Why?

but after trying things around, this is where they ended up working -
they did work in the begining, some features seemed not to work so I
moved the cards around.
I put the Rocket Raid on PCI-X slot one, because other mobo makers put
a SCSI raid off the 8131.

I'm not sure what you want to say. I assume with "8131" you mean the
chipset (which is an AMD8131)? If so, there is no SCSI RAID "off the
8131". Even on-board SCSI controllers are connected to the PCI interface.

I also get the feeling that the dual GB NICs
run off the 8131 so the two should work together OK.

The NICs are also connected to the PCI interface, not to the chipset
directly like it's the case with more modern chipsets.

I'm starting to get the feeling that maybe I should put the X1300 on
PCI-X slot-1 as it would get heaps of processing bandwidth from the
CPUs - which will improve my video pictures.

Probably not. As I said I really doubt the card is an ATI X1300. If you
have a PCI gfx card (no matter what's the type) it is an 32bit gfx card
(the only PCI-X gfx card is made by Matrox, and this beast is just
painful slow). 32bit 33MHz PCI does a theoretical maximum of 133MB/s,
putting it in a 66MHz PCI-X-Slot will raise the theoretical(!)
throughput for this card to 266MB/s which is just painful slow compared
to AGP4x (1.066GB/s), AGP8x (2.133GB/s) or PCIe 16x (4GB/s). If the card
works at all (most PCI gfx cards only work with 33MHz and not with 66MHz
or more).

So that means I would be putting the RocketRaid down on PCI-X slot-2,
leaving room on the PCI-32 bus for a future audio card.

What have other found

You should be aware that the MSI K8D Master F mobo is a _server_board!
It has an onboard ATI Rage XL gfx chip which is old and slow but more
than enough for a server. This board lacks a sufficient interface (AGP
or PCIe) for a gfx card and thus is definitely the wrong board if you
want to build a desktop computer. PCI simply is too slow for anything
that is gfx related, period.

Benjamin

 

[max_e_mum]

* (e-mail address removed):

I know this mobo is old, but it is giving me the opportunity to play
with some Opterons, something I've dreamed about since I heard of their
existance 4 or 5 years ago.

MSI-9131 K8D Master F
2 x 248 CPU
2 x 1GB PC 2700 - slots 2 and 6
2 x Samsung 250GB SATA2 running RAID_0
1 x ATA133 WD 80-GB
Liberty 550w PSU
Titan Case
[Sound is still to come]

Note: Looking at the board with CPUs at the top
PCI-X slot #1: RocketRaid 2224 PCI-X Raid card (top)
This card can run 4 internal drives and four
external via fiber channel

Nope. The RocketRaid 2224 is not a Fibre Channel controller but a SATA
II RAID Controller. The external ports are generic SATA ports, nothing more.

Sorry, looked it up, its an Infiniband connector.

This board doesn't have PCIe or AGP. I'm not aware that the ATI X1300 is
still made in a PCI version. Are you _really_ sure it is an X1300? I
doubt it.

Go to the VisionTek site and have a look
http://www.visiontek.com/products/cards/retail/x1300_256pci.html
The X1300 was ported to PCI-E by ATI, but VisionTek have put an
interface on the card allowing it to run on a standard PCI bus. Why
they didn't port it to PCI-X?
Thus, this card is the best gfx card you can put on PCI
In SiSandra the card shows as PCI-E 1 / 16, but we all know that it is
not.

Why?

I'd say there is a bit of communication between these two cards at
times. Take the Matrox cards - some of their grabbers have
interconnects to their gfx cards.
Thus I got to thinking that if both cards sit on the same bus (not
thinking about PCI-X) then all vision processing can take place in the
same place and cut excessive chatter across the board.

I'm not sure what you want to say. I assume with "8131" you mean the
chipset (which is an AMD8131)? If so, there is no SCSI RAID "off the
8131". Even on-board SCSI controllers are connected to the PCI interface.

The chipset drawing that I have show that the AMD8131 is designed to
have U320 SCSI coming off it as well as the 64bit GB Ethernet - I have
2 x GB Ethernet, so I am assuming that it comes off this chip. Thinking
logically if there are 2 PCI-X buses A + B and the first one (A) has
only one slot and the other (B) has two slots - you would have to think
that "A" also has "other" highspeed bits off it.

The NICs are also connected to the PCI interface, not to the chipset
directly like it's the case with more modern chipsets.

The AMD8111 in the picture shows standard Ethernet coming off it and
the legacy PCI

Probably not. snip. If you
have a PCI gfx card (no matter what's the type) it is an 32bit gfx card
(the only PCI-X gfx card is made by Matrox, and this beast is just
painful slow). 32bit 33MHz PCI does a theoretical maximum of 133MB/s,
putting it in a 66MHz PCI-X-Slot will raise the theoretical(!)
throughput for this card to 266MB/s which is just painful slow compared
to AGP4x (1.066GB/s), AGP8x (2.133GB/s) or PCIe 16x (4GB/s). If the card
works at all (most PCI gfx cards only work with 33MHz and not with 66MHz
or more).
We work with what we have

You should be aware that the MSI K8D Master F mobo is a _server_board! Yep, I realize that.
It has an onboard ATI Rage XL gfx chip which is old and slow but more
than enough for a server.

It became inactive when I put the X1300 in

This board lacks a sufficient interface (AGP
or PCIe) for a gfx card and thus is definitely the wrong board if you
want to build a desktop computer. PCI simply is too slow for anything
that is gfx related, period.

Yes, I am fully aware that I am pushing rocks up a hill, but it will do
until I can upgrade to a more suited board - then I can retire it as a
media server.

But my main question is about card placement so as to get the best
processing power to each card, The HT bus has different bandwidths at
different places along the chipset, where cards are placed along this
line will have a direct impact on the whole processing power of the
board.
On other computers of mine I have found that some cards have a tendancy
to interfare with other cards - because of interupts etc. Over the
years there have been numerous postings to different sites about card
placement, as this board is "so old", I hoping to find others who may
taken similar boards down the same path and what their results for card
placement are.

 

[Mitch Crane]

Go to the VisionTek site and have a look
http://www.visiontek.com/products/cards/retail/x1300_256pci.html
The X1300 was ported to PCI-E by ATI, but VisionTek have put an
interface on the card allowing it to run on a standard PCI bus. Why
they didn't port it to PCI-X?

Because they would have only sold 2. By making it PCI they probably sold a
couple dozen.

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* (e-mail address removed):

Sorry, looked it up, its an Infiniband connector.

Then it's not a RocketRAID 2224.

Go to the VisionTek site and have a look
http://www.visiontek.com/products/cards/retail/x1300_256pci.html

Indeed. I wonder why they did this as PCI already became a heavy
bottleneck for much older GPUs like a Geforce FX5200 or Radeon 9200...

The X1300 was ported to PCI-E by ATI, but VisionTek have put an
interface on the card allowing it to run on a standard PCI bus. Why
they didn't port it to PCI-X?

Simply because there is no demand for it. PCI-X is only apparent in
servers and workstations. For servers a fast gfx card usually is useless
and a waste of ressources, some old GPU like the ancient ATI Rage XL on
your board does everything that's needed. And workstations do have
faster gfx interfaces like AGP or PCIe.

Besides that, only PCI-X 133MHz would be fast enough, and it still is a
shared bus where the bandwidth has to be shared between all devices that
are connected to it.

The chipset drawing that I have show that the AMD8131 is designed to
have U320 SCSI coming off it as well as the 64bit GB Ethernet

Then the either the drawing or your understanding of it is wrong. The
AMD8131 is nothing more than a HT->PCI-X brigde. It doesn't contain any
SCSI or network interfaces, it only connects the Opterons HT links to
two PCI-X busses.

Then there is the AMD8111 I/O Hub which brigdes the Opterons HT links to
32bit PCI and contains interfaces like USB, an 100Mbit NIC (which is
connected to the PCI interface and not used/connected on your MSI K8D
mobo like on most mobos with AMD8131/8111 chipset), ATA ports, Timer etc.

- I have
2 x GB Ethernet, so I am assuming that it comes off this chip.

The two NICs on your board are coming from a Broadcom BMC5704 dual port
GBit NIC which is connected to the 100MHz PCI-X bus. The K8D doesn't
have SCSI, and mobos which do have SCSI and use the same old AMD chipset
do have separate SCSI controller chips which also are connected to the
PCI interface.

Thinking
logically if there are 2 PCI-X buses A + B and the first one (A) has
only one slot and the other (B) has two slots - you would have to think
that "A" also has "other" highspeed bits off it.

The NICs are probably connected to "A".

But my main question is about card placement so as to get the best
processing power to each card, The HT bus has different bandwidths at
different places

Nope. All HT links have the same bandwidth.

along the chipset, where cards are placed along this
line will have a direct impact on the whole processing power of the
board.

Nope, it won't. Gfx card and TV card are 32bit cards so it doesn't
matter in which slot you put them. Plain 32bit PCI is enough for the TV
card but it's also a bottleneck for the gfx card. Putting them in PCI-X
slots won't change anything. BTW: PCI-X slots clock down automatically
to 33MHz as soon as you insert a standard PCI card into one of them.

Benjamin

 

[max_e_mum]

* (e-mail address removed):


Then it's not a RocketRAID 2224.

Here Mr know it all, heres the (expletive here) link
http://www.highpoint-tech.com/USA/rr2224.htm
see for yourself and eat your words

Indeed. I wonder why they did this as PCI already became a heavy
bottleneck for much older GPUs like a Geforce FX5200 or Radeon 9200...

maybe for people like me who dont want to have to put a 9200 or what
ever
I'm not into gaming

Simply because there is no demand for it. PCI-X is only apparent in
servers and workstations.

Gee - I thought I have a server board that I'm making work as a
workstation

For servers a fast gfx card usually is useless Doh!
and a waste of ressources, some old GPU like the ancient ATI Rage XL on
your board does everything that's needed.

Not what I want, maybe it would suit you

And workstations do have faster gfx interfaces like AGP or PCIe.

On the newer boards, when the opteron was first shown, it was only the
8111 and 8131.
Oh sorry - I forgot to put AMD in front (as if it were anything else)
Hey I got this setup rather cheaply - motherboard CPUs and ram for
about half price - secondhand - it had been a server now its going to
be a workstation - and that is final!

Besides that, only PCI-X 133MHz would be fast enough, and it still is a
shared bus where the bandwidth has to be shared between all devices that
are connected to it.


Then the either the drawing or your understanding of it is wrong.

Here you go again - off down your road of how you know everything
Knowing you, I doubt that you will accept this link as the image is for
a 4-way and we all know that I have a 2-way - so it can't be the same
http://www.tomshardware.com/2002/02/27/thg_visits_amd/page2.html
or
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/hammer-preview.html
The high performance workstation image also shows SCSI coming frpm the
8131


The

AMD8131 is nothing more than a HT->PCI-X brigde. It doesn't contain any
SCSI or network interfaces, it only connects the Opterons HT links to
two PCI-X busses.

and has an 8 bit link to the 8111 and a 16 bit link to the host

Then there is the AMD8111 I/O Hub which brigdes the Opterons HT links to
32bit PCI and contains interfaces like USB, an 100Mbit NIC (which is
connected to the PCI interface and not used/connected on your MSI K8D
mobo like on most mobos with AMD8131/8111 chipset), ATA ports, Timer etc.

The two NICs on your board are coming from a Broadcom BMC5704 dual port
GBit NIC which is connected to the 100MHz PCI-X bus.

and the PCI-X bus is connected to the hip bone, no, the 8131, so my GB
Nics are connected to the 8131 - didn't I say that?

The NICs are probably connected to "A".

Your coming around to my way of thinking

Nope. All HT links have the same bandwidth.

Wrong
The link from the 8131 to the 8111 is only 8bit, it's already running
the primary HDD and maybe sound soon, so thats enough for that bus

Nope, it won't. Gfx card and TV card are 32bit cards so it doesn't
matter in which slot you put them. Plain 32bit PCI is enough for the TV
card but it's also a bottleneck for the gfx card. Putting them in PCI-X
slots won't change anything. BTW: PCI-X slots clock down automatically
to 33MHz as soon as you insert a standard PCI card into one of them.

Doh! and I bet you were thinking that I thought if I plugged the X1300
into a PCI-X slot it would run at full 64bit 133mhz
You love stating the obvious Benjy

You are still missing the point

CARD PLACEMENT
all to do with chatter and interupts

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* (e-mail address removed):

Here Mr know it all, heres the (expletive here) link
http://www.highpoint-tech.com/USA/rr2224.htm
see for yourself and eat your words

Sorry then I was wrong. I have some OEM versions of the 2224 here that
don't have the Infiniband connector so I was assuming that the regular
version is the same. Shame on me.

maybe for people like me who dont want to have to put a 9200 or what
ever
I'm not into gaming
Gee - I thought I have a server board that I'm making work as a
workstation

What's your problem? You asked why there is no PCI-X version and you got
an answer.

Not what I want, maybe it would suit you

Probably not. I'm happy with my Dual Opteron 285 workstation...

On the newer boards, when the opteron was first shown, it was only the
8111 and 8131.
Oh sorry - I forgot to put AMD in front (as if it were anything else)

You really seem to have some issues.

Hey I got this setup rather cheaply - motherboard CPUs and ram for
about half price - secondhand - it had been a server now its going to
be a workstation - and that is final!

Ok, but then you have to live with it's limitations.

Here you go again - off down your road of how you know everything
Knowing you, I doubt that you will accept this link as the image is for
a 4-way and we all know that I have a 2-way - so it can't be the same
http://www.tomshardware.com/2002/02/27/thg_visits_amd/page2.html
or
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/hammer-preview.html
The high performance workstation image also shows SCSI coming frpm the
8131

You are probably talking about this image (if you refer to an image why
just don't you post the direkt link?):
<http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/hammer-preview/pic9.jpg>

And if you would really understand the schematics you had already
noticed that SCSI does not come from the AMD8131 but is a separate
controller which is connected to the AMD8131 via PCI-X. If it's soldered
on the mobo or made as an expansion card doesn't matter.

The
and has an 8 bit link to the 8111 and a 16 bit link to the host

These links are the HT links.

and the PCI-X bus is connected to the hip bone, no, the 8131, so my GB
Nics are connected to the 8131 - didn't I say that?

No, you didn't. Your writing lead to the impression that you think the
two NICs were integrated in the chipset like it's done with current
chipsets (i.e. nForce) which is simply not the case.

Your coming around to my way of thinking
Wrong

No, it's right...

The link from the 8131 to the 8111 is only 8bit,

....because it's unidirectional while the other side is bidirectional.
But still both links have the same bandwidth.

it's already running
the primary HDD and maybe sound soon, so thats enough for that bus
Doh! and I bet you were thinking that I thought if I plugged the X1300
into a PCI-X slot it would run at full 64bit 133mhz

Your posting lead to this impression, right.

You love stating the obvious Benjy

You are still missing the point

Which might be because you didn't make really clear what you want or
where your problem is.

Benjamin