Abit KD7 MoBo/Via KT400 chispset -CPU/FSB?

[Pzatch]

In quite a few years on building my own. I've found that the greatest and most notisable increase in speed comes from having the largest onboard cach as possable.

You'll find that Celeries come with the smallest cach in the Intell line. The difference in a 512 kb cach and a 1 mb cach is about 15 to 20% in noticable speed increases. All at the same clock speed. Some AMD's come with 2 meg the last I looked.

That and as few memory chips as possable. The more sticks of memory on the MB the slower the system. Sometimes the increase in memory by adding chips doesn't help in the long run.

Also if you want real speed increases go with a faster hard drive setup.

 

As you can probobly tell I quit trying to over clock because the heat was just causing way to many crashes. Why should I spend even more cash on a new cooling system? I have found that big numbers really don't mean big speed. But they do always mean bigger heat.

[aRTee]

bvc,

 

the basic problem is marketing.

 

To give you a slight bit of my background, since most may only know me for being a linux advocate (with my site and all)...

I'm an electrical engineer, microelectronics designer, analogue/mixed signal; during my studies I knew quite a few fellow students who were crazy about computers; I studied from 91 'till 97, computers went from 386sx to the first pentium IIs in that time, and win3.11 to win95 (98 ), or on a linux scale: linux 0.1 up to ehmmm CorelLinux more or less.

 

Being surrounded by freaks I picked up some stuff, in class I picked up other stuff, like basic computer architecture. RISC vs CISC etcetc.

I didn't like computers since they were too slow to do anything fun, like creating your own cd's, mixing audio, video capture and editing etcetc.

After finishing my studies, I found that computers had moved up, memory was more affordable, harddisk sizes became larger, so it became interesting.

I followed the market, and with my background, was capable of understanding more than many other people with an interest in computers.

 

Note that at university they had never explained the Intel x86 architecture. Reason: economically it was extremely successful, technically it was considered a disaster. The 386 was just a boosted 286, which was just a 8086 with loads of addons, the dx finally had the fpu integrated into the cpu, it was a mess...

When Intel had problems going to 66MHz (486), we were doing practical work on 99MHz RISC cpu's from HP. They were much faster, they could emulate a 386 and it would have the same performance as a 386 at 156MHz!!!

 

So later, I understood: the architecture determines what a processor is worth at a certain clockspeed, combined with the memory bandwidth.

 

Now, zoom back to the problem today: competing with different architectures.

 

Since the 386 AMD has been making Intel compatible cpu's, same architecture, same motherboard/platform, same 'environment'.

Hence, with a higher clockspeed comes a faster processor.

 

So clockspeed, expressed in MHz, became the bottomline to compare cpu's.

 

Then ( ?IBM and ? ) Cyrix had a flirt with 'ratings', they had a different architecture, their 150MHz 686cpu would run integer calculation as fast as a 180MHz Pentium (if I recall correctly)...

So how to sell this beast? Selling it for a 150MHz cpu would not do them much good, it was a better design, performing better. Clock for clock, it would handle more instructions.

 

So they stuck the rating 180 onto their 150MHz cpu's.

 

But it backfired. Floating point calculations had become more important, I don't remember why,.. and their '180MHz-equivalence' rated cpu's were not all that...

 

Since the Intel Pentium, other companies, including AMD, were not allowed to copy the cpu design. So by definition, they had different architectures.

From there on, things started to diverge. AMD had the K5 and K6 designs, which were partially from other companies, the first k6 was from Next if I remember correctly.

All in all, they had more or less the same performance as the Pentium (II) per clockcycle, except in floating point (fpu) performance, where AMD's cpus were quite a bit slower.

 

As it happens, fpu calculations are very important for games, so AMD couldn't sell as well.

 

Things changed with the AMD Athlon. That was an ace in the hole.

It was faster than the PIII, came earlier than Intel had expected.

It was faster clock for clock but also could ramp up faster, so AMD beat intel to the first 1GHz cpu.

 

MHz was still everything, since as before, the performance per clockcycle, called IPC (instructions per clock), went up with each new architecture.

 

Then Intel came with the P4. They were late, had had to alter their roadmaps to deal with the Athlon. Public statements of Intel in 96/97 about the AMD cpu were that it would probably start at 350MHz in 98/99 and be at 600MHz in 2000. And they based their roadmap on that. And on the idea that the K7 (athlon) IPC would not be higher than that of the PIII. Wrong on both counts, AMD managed to have higher IPC and reach 1GHz in 2000.

 

So they had to mop up. The p4 (willamette) was a too young born baby, it seemed designed to get high framerates in Doom, but that was all.

They had implemented very cool features, like the P4 tracecache, but not enough memory.

The p4 really needed/needs a very high memory bandwidth, that at that time only Rambus RDRam could give. But it was too expensive.

 

In any case, a P4 1.4GHz was not really faster than a PIII 1GHz. For the first time, a new generation actually had a lower IPC.

 

And there is the problem.

 

Marketing.

 

How could AMD sell its Athlon1.4GHz (Thunderbird) when Intel was offering its P4 at 1.8GHz at the same time, for the price it was worth, performance wise??

 

People don't know/understand IPC, processor architecture, cache and RAM bandwidth. But they can read: 1.8GHz and compare it with 1.4GHz.

 

Athlon/K7 has exclusive L2, 16-way set associative cache (on chip memory). The PIII has inclusive L2 8-way set associative cache, and the celeron 4-way, half the L2 cache of the PIII.

The P4 has trace cache, and has 20 pipeline stages.

 

All of this makes the difference.

 

So comparing an Athlon at clockspeed X with a P4 at clockspeed X is comparing apples and oranges.

 

But 'clockspeed X' is easy to write....

 

So for the next iterations of the athon, the Palomino, Thoroughbred/T-bred, and now the Barton, AMD decided to use the old Cyrix trick:

The Rating.

 

The thing that made Cyrix the one forgotten cpu maker. Very risky.

 

Marketing.

 

Stick 1800+ on it and price it lower than a P4 1.8GHz, but make sure it has the same or better performance, and you're set.

Originally, they had the standpoint that the rating numbers were comparing the new K7 iterations with the older Thunderbird (that went up to 1400MHz), since there were some slight architecture changes that indeed improved the IPC. So a 1800+ running at a real 1533 MHz (I think) is as fast as a (hypothetical) Thunderbird at 1800MHz.

Which explains why it is faster than a P4 1.8GHz, because a T-bird 1.8GHz would have outrun that P4 too.

 

Now they are getting closer and closer to shooting themselves in the foot again, ... the rating is now used more to compare to the P4. But the P4 has been altered, it has more cache, of which it greatly benefits (it is still memory hungry) and SSE2, and possibly some other architecture improvements.

 

All in all, the rating is just a number.

For all practical purposes, just check your wallet, and see what AMD or Intel platform that money will buy. Then check on benchmarks which of those cpu's performs best, and focus on the benchmark that looks most like your computer activities. If you don't play any 3d games, don't pay attention to those benchmarks. etc..

One other thing: you may want to check with which platform/cpu you can most easily upgrade.

Remember: memory upgrades are easiest, next are cpu upgrades (sometimes needing a new bios to properly recognise the cpu). No software hassle, just reboot and it works.

 

In the recent past, AMD has been better for cpu upgrades than Intel.

Today I'm not sure, since AMD has the 64-bit Athlon-64 coming on (clawhammer)...

 

On memory bandwidth: again, comparing apples and pears. P4 has 400MHz qdr ( = 100MHz x4 ), then 533 (133x4), now 666 and 800 Mhz. Athlon has moved from 200 to 400MHz (100x2, 133x2, 166x2 and now 200x2). But on Athlon it is 64 bit, and on P4 it is (if I remember correctly -- I'm now more focused on the upcoming AMD cpu's) 2 channels of 16 bit. Do the math.

The P4 architecture has always had more bandwidth, but also needs it more than the Athlon.

 

Basically, for a 2.4GHz P4 vs a 2400+ athlon, they are more or less the same speed, and where I live the athlon based system is cheaper.

 

Problem for the consumer: these numbers, they are just marketing. MHz and GHz... So what to make of it...?

 

Same for AGP. I don't think you really need or will notice a difference between AGP8x and AGP4x. 128MB of RAM on the video card tells me that it will rarely send any info through the AGP bus anyway....

[Ixthusdan]

aRtee,

Good summary!! I was using cyrix PR series processors on business machines, but gaming machines would burp. I switched to amd because building custom computers has always been touchy when the big boys build those everything-on-the-mb machines and sell them fairly cheap!

 

I always sold k6's against celerons, with no problems.

 

bvc, comparing a celeron to an athlon xp series is like comparing a souped up volkswagen to an indy 500 racer!! You might be able to drive both at the same speed, but the athlon will get there faster and take the curves like it was designed to. The celeron won't. :wink:

[bvc]

ooops....forgot about the cache :wink: Thanks everyone for reminding me why I hated my Celeron 600 (128 cache).

 

WOW! that helps my understanding a lot! Thanks aRTee! I've never paid much attention to this stuff. I didn't really touch a pc as far as owning one til Nov. 2000 and surely never thought I'd build one as I'm sure most don't, but there's nothing to it really. It's just a matter of part pickin :wink: IMO.

 

When it comes to the GeForce2 MX200 PCi things are weird. Games are better, for obvious reasons, but with things like the reallyslick screensavers (Win98se and RH9) the performance is worse and I don't get it. My games (In Win98se -Commanche4, and Collin McRae Rally) are being read mostly from the hd then the cdrom as far as data, and a screensaver is just a little screensaver, right?

 

My wife has gotten the BSOD twice when starting Win98se, no she didn't write down the error (I thought I taught her better ;) ), and sound/DVD's have jumped a few times as well (probably the crap AC97 codec, and yes DMA is enabled). None of which happened on the old sys. After reading the threads about this Abit KD7 I'm beginning to wonder if I should try another MoBo and think I will this weekend....I have 15 days with Fry's to return it. It took a half day Sat. b4 I gave and up, took it back to Fry's to find I had a bad cpu.

 

After being online last night for about 45 minutes I was running at 47c (my reading, the bios said sys=54c) which is 17 degrees hotter than the Celeron. I know they run hotter but isn't that I bit much? This is one of the issues mentioned in the abit forum and other forums with the KD7.

[Ixthusdan]

Amd's run hot. Compaq used to take a piece of cardboard from the powersupply fan and run it to the celeron processor in order to cool it. Even a k62400 had to have its own fan. So, with amd, you should buy a good fan. I like valcano 5 or 6 with an over sized heat sink. My xp1800 runs 123 F. You are running 138 F, which is not really dangerous for an athlon! I also go with at least two case fans. This stuf is all very cheap!

 

The agp has its own bus to the processor. When you are using pci, the bus is shared with other stuff. You really lose some of the benefit of any video chip when it has to wait in line, so to speak. I would suggest keeping the setup (including the ram :lol: ) and getting an agp card.

 

(It is so easy to spend somebody else's money)

[bvc]

It is just the fan that came with the heatsink, which is oversized, and I have an antec case with 2 case fans -1 front 1 back.

 

Good cpu fan and agp is next on the list!

 

Thank you for spending my money :wink:

[aRTee]

For your info, my athlon 2400+ (2GHz, 13x154MHz) runs at 52degC, if I load it it goes up to 67 or so.

 

I have some experience (from my past/first job) on high temperature electronics and laughed at loads of the first reports about the Athlon (thunderbird) power consumption.

 

It went up to 70W, which is much, compared to P1 or PII or even PIII.

 

Then people started to shout: hey this can't be good etc.

 

Who cares, if AMD says their cpu's can run this hot, and guarantee it, then it's fine with me. We had electronics that didn't consume so much, but still a few watts, and we used it at temperatures of 150, 180, 200 or even 220 degrees.

Yes, I am talking Celcius!!!!!

Even our chip providers would only guarantee 125degC or 85degC, they had no idea we could push their electronics so far.

 

My point: if the manufacturer says it's ok, and guarantees it, why would you care? Except about the power consumption, you do get the bill for that.

Oh and you don't want the inside of your case to heat up too much; the better cases have the power supply suck in the air from below, where the cpu is, not from the back.

That way, less heat stays in the box, so you hd's etc stay cooler.

Also, you can put an extra fan, if you want it quiet put it on 7 volts, there's normally a place for a fan right next to the cpu; make sure it blows to the outside.

 

BTW: The P4 uses as much power as the Athlon, so no big difference there. Yes, the P4 is larger (less power per area) and has a heat spreader. That last thing actually means there's an extra barrier for the heat to go through before getting out through the heatsink/fan....

 

Another thing: only since the t-bred did AMD put a temp sensor (partially) on chip, before it was the mobo that would read the temp from under the cpu. Of course then people suddenly had 10degC higher readings...

Anyway, don't worry as long as your onchip sensor tells you some temp below 75degC.

 

On graphics:

The Geforce MX series were ok until the standard gf2mx. All mx's after that are lesser parts and to be avoided. The GF4mx is only a GF3 in architecture, with some parts missing; same for the gf3mx....

What exactly are your problems with your gf2mx?

Just that windows crashes? That's normal :D

Anything else?

 

Small correction: agp does not go directly to the cpu, it is a separate channel to the chipset (southbridge, in case there are 2 chips in the set, some make combined chipsets, so actually only 1 chip); the pci bus is shared over all pci devices, including any onboard things, like audio, lan, cardreaders, usb, etcetc.

 

Normally, the cpu is connected to the northbridge, which links to the memory and the southbridge. The southbridge links to the agp, pci, etcetc stuff. Forgot where ATA/IDE goes, but I think it's on the southbridge too.

Basically, on the upcoming Athlon-64, the memory controller is integrated onto the cpu, so there's no northbridge..

 

On heatsinks:

My main thing in heatsinks is that they have to cool well, but at the same time be silent.

Bad thing: in shops they just have no clue... but anyway, read hardware forums, they will be able to tell you which hsf to avoid. Also, there are plenty of tests on the web on hardware sites.

[Ixthusdan]

Ah, yes, I forgot the little matter of the chip set. :wink: But the point is the agp has a "shorter less crowded" bus than the pci video card, which translates to an actual improvement in performance.

[bvc]

Oh and you don't want the inside of your case to heat up too much; the better cases have the power supply suck in the air from below, where the cpu is, not from the back.

That way, less heat stays in the box, so you hd's etc stay cooler.

Also, you can put an extra fan, if you want it quiet put it on 7 volts, there's normally a place for a fan right next to the cpu; make sure it blows to the outside.

I wanted a psu with dual fans, one being on the bottom, but sheesh.....another 30 bucks!....and if I got the antec case with that it was another 50 bucks. As I said above I have 2 already and it's only a 300W psu...I know, I know :roll: but I got a buget here :wink: wait, I'm so poor I don't even have a buget.....that requires money in the first place rt? :wink: I haven't looked into what vidcards require what psuW etc...so I don't know how much more this 300W can take yet. For the pentiums I've seen a 90degree angle clear tube/heatsink fan that directs the hot air rt out the back through the rear case fan, but I haven't seen it for AMD. Anyone?

 

What exactly are your problems with your gf2mx?

Just that windows crashes? That's normal

Video is not the cause of the crashes. Win98se crashing isn't normal for me. I recently lost a 1.5 year install of win98 tweaked bigtime in many ways, one of which was 98Lite...it rarely crashed. :P

Anything else?

Just as posted above. I guess via's pcibus can't handle what i810 could :roll: or the Realtek/via8233 AC97 codec 6.0 surround sound is recking havoc on the pcibus and taking too much from the video....which is my guess.

[aRTee]

30 bucks extra for the extra fan on the PSU? Are they mad?

Not worth it. 5 bucks for a separate fan is more than enough...

 

About the win98 crashes, true, if properly set-up and not (de-)installing stuff all the time, and not doing too many crazy things, one can live with it, more or less.

 

The pci gf2mx should perform very very close to the agp version, unless your pci bus is overly crowded. Shared IRQ's may also be a problem.

 

Can you tell me what cards you have in your machine, and what onboard stuff?

 

For instance, my mobo shares the IRQ on the AGP slot with PCI slot 4 (I think), so I left that empty; sometimes you can assign a different IRQ as well.

 

In any case, your pci graphics may be sharing too much with some onboard stuff, like the audio you mentioned.. maybe the 'slot-dance' can improve..?

[growler]

Sorry this may not be much help ... but try here. I found good advice for my Gigabyte GA7VRXP.

 

http://forums.viaarena.com/categories.cfm?catid=12

 

The Growler

[Ixthusdan]

www.noblepcs.com

 

good cheap fans

[bvc]

About the win98 crashes, true, if properly set-up and not (de-)installing stuff all the time, and not doing too many crazy things, one can live with it, more or less.

Heh, for the first year screwing with stuff and (de-)installing stuff all the time is all I did. This also means you have to spend a lot of time fixing stuff and hacking the registry. No need for that in linux.....I love it!

 

Can you tell me what cards you have in your machine, and what onboard stuff?

Gotta go to work, but I'll boot to Win98 latter and look at the irqs etc....

Then, I'll look at the /proc stuff and see if I find anything interesting between a normal RH9, ML9.1 boot and a ML9.1 kernel parameter noapic

Thanks everyone!

[root@localhost /]# lspci -vv

00:00.0 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8377 [KT400 AGP] Host Bridge

       Subsystem: ABIT Computer Corp.: Unknown device 1401

       Control: I/O- Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B-

       Status: Cap+ 66Mhz+ UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=medium >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort+ >SERR- <PERR-

       Latency: 8

       Region 0: Memory at e8000000 (32-bit, prefetchable) [size=64M]

       Capabilities: [a0] AGP version 2.0

               Status: RQ=32 Iso- ArqSz=0 Cal=0 SBA+ ITACoh- GART64- HTrans- 64bit- FW- AGP3- Rate=x1,x2,x4

               Command: RQ=32 ArqSz=0 Cal=0 SBA- AGP- GART64- 64bit- FW- Rate=<none>

       Capabilities: [c0] Power Management version 2

               Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1- D2- AuxCurrent=0mA PME(D0-,D1-,D2-,D3hot-,D3cold-)

               Status: D0 PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME-



00:01.0 PCI bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8235 PCI Bridge (prog-if 00 [Normal decode])

       Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR+ FastB2B-

       Status: Cap+ 66Mhz+ UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=medium >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort+ >SERR- <PERR-

       Latency: 0

       Bus: primary=00, secondary=01, subordinate=01, sec-latency=0

       BridgeCtl: Parity- SERR- NoISA+ VGA- MAbort- >Reset- FastB2B-

       Capabilities: [80] Power Management version 2

               Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1+ D2- AuxCurrent=0mA PME(D0-,D1-,D2-,D3hot-,D3cold-)

               Status: D0 PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME-



00:09.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV11DDR [GeForce2 MX 100 DDR/200 DDR] (rev b2) (prog-if 00 [VGA])

       Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B-

       Status: Cap+ 66Mhz+ UDF- FastB2B+ ParErr- DEVSEL=medium >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR-

       Latency: 248 (1250ns min, 250ns max)

       Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 11

       Region 0: Memory at ec000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16M]

       Region 1: Memory at e0000000 (32-bit, prefetchable) [size=128M]

       Expansion ROM at <unassigned> [disabled] [size=64K]

       Capabilities: [60] Power Management version 2

               Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1- D2- AuxCurrent=0mA PME(D0-,D1-,D2-,D3hot-,D3cold-)

               Status: D0 PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME-



00:10.0 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. USB (rev 80) (prog-if 00 [UHCI])

       Subsystem: ABIT Computer Corp.: Unknown device 1401

       Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B-

       Status: Cap+ 66Mhz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=medium >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR-

       Latency: 64, cache line size 08

       Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 11

       Region 4: I/O ports at d000 [size=32]

       Capabilities: [80] Power Management version 2

               Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1+ D2+ AuxCurrent=375mA PME(D0+,D1+,D2+,D3hot+,D3cold+)

               Status: D0 PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME-



00:10.1 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. USB (rev 80) (prog-if 00 [UHCI])

       Subsystem: ABIT Computer Corp.: Unknown device 1401

       Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B-

       Status: Cap+ 66Mhz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=medium >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR-

       Latency: 64, cache line size 08

       Interrupt: pin B routed to IRQ 11

       Region 4: I/O ports at d400 [size=32]

       Capabilities: [80] Power Management version 2

               Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1+ D2+ AuxCurrent=375mA PME(D0+,D1+,D2+,D3hot+,D3cold+)

               Status: D0 PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME-



00:10.2 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. USB (rev 80) (prog-if 00 [UHCI])

       Subsystem: ABIT Computer Corp.: Unknown device 1401

       Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B-

       Status: Cap+ 66Mhz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=medium >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR-

       Latency: 64, cache line size 08

       Interrupt: pin C routed to IRQ 10

       Region 4: I/O ports at d800 [size=32]

       Capabilities: [80] Power Management version 2

               Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1+ D2+ AuxCurrent=375mA PME(D0+,D1+,D2+,D3hot+,D3cold+)

               Status: D0 PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME-



00:10.3 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. USB 2.0 (rev 82) (prog-if 20 [EHCI])

       Subsystem: ABIT Computer Corp.: Unknown device 1401

       Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B-

       Status: Cap+ 66Mhz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=medium >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR-

       Latency: 64, cache line size 08

       Interrupt: pin D routed to IRQ 5

       Region 0: Memory at ee000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=256]

       Capabilities: [80] Power Management version 2

               Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1+ D2+ AuxCurrent=375mA PME(D0+,D1+,D2+,D3hot+,D3cold+)

               Status: D0 PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME-



00:11.0 ISA bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8235 ISA Bridge

       Subsystem: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8235 ISA Bridge

       Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping+ SERR- FastB2B-

       Status: Cap+ 66Mhz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=medium >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR-

       Latency: 0

       Capabilities: [c0] Power Management version 2

               Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1- D2- AuxCurrent=0mA PME(D0-,D1-,D2-,D3hot-,D3cold-)

               Status: D0 PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME-



00:11.1 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82C586/B/686A/B PIPC Bus Master IDE (rev 06) (prog-if 8a [Master SecP PriP])

       Subsystem: ABIT Computer Corp.: Unknown device 1401

       Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B-

       Status: Cap+ 66Mhz- UDF- FastB2B+ ParErr- DEVSEL=medium >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR-

       Latency: 64

       Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 0

       Region 4: I/O ports at dc00 [size=16]

       Capabilities: [c0] Power Management version 2

               Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1- D2- AuxCurrent=0mA PME(D0-,D1-,D2-,D3hot-,D3cold-)

               Status: D0 PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME-



00:11.5 Multimedia audio controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8233 AC97 Audio Controller (rev 50)

       Subsystem: ABIT Computer Corp.: Unknown device 1401

       Control: I/O+ Mem- BusMaster- SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B-

       Status: Cap+ 66Mhz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=medium >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR-

       Interrupt: pin C routed to IRQ 10

       Region 0: I/O ports at e000 [size=256]

       Capabilities: [c0] Power Management version 2

               Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1+ D2+ AuxCurrent=0mA PME(D0-,D1-,D2-,D3hot-,D3cold-)

               Status: D0 PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME-