VOGONS


First post, by Kahenraz

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I'm sorting through some of my accessories and found this which I know was used as a support for a Slot 1. The pins or whatever was supposed to pair with this have been separated from the support frame or they were damaged during removal and thrown away.

Does anyone know what was originally used to secure this to a motherboard? I have a lot of Slot 1 support frames but none that attach in a way that would work with this.

IMG_20210925_231622_resize_67.jpg
Filename
IMG_20210925_231622_resize_67.jpg
File size
216.01 KiB
Views
962 views
File license
Public domain
IMG_20210925_232617_resize_52.jpg
Filename
IMG_20210925_232617_resize_52.jpg
File size
164.78 KiB
Views
962 views
File license
Public domain

Reply 2 of 14, by Kahenraz

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Then it can be made complete again. Thank you!

Here is another one. I recall that this was used to add pressure on the top of an exposed PCB edge and not a cartridge. But I don't remember how it attached and it doesn't pair with the part I mentioned previously.

IMG_20210926_011505_resize_4.jpg
Filename
IMG_20210926_011505_resize_4.jpg
File size
203.49 KiB
Views
930 views
File license
Public domain

Reply 3 of 14, by Grem Five

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Kahenraz wrote on 2021-09-26, 05:16:

Then it can be made complete again. Thank you!

Here is another one. I recall that this was used to add pressure on the top of an exposed PCB edge and not a cartridge. But I don't remember how it attached and it doesn't pair with the part I mentioned previously.

IMG_20210926_011505_resize_4.jpg

My old Micron has that retainer.

Well close the center of my bracket is a bit different with only the one bent over edge and far enough out its made to work with a cartridge.

8GGtZBxl.jpg
DyIgXOEl.jpg
KqC6Anfl.jpg

Reply 5 of 14, by Kahenraz

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

It's very secure and prevents the CPU card or cartridge from coming loose during shipping. I think it was something that was popular among OEMs like Dell. The principle is the same as a socket retention clamp but is more secure and if you somehow break the plastic tabs you can just replace the whole mechanism. This is much better than if you were to break the retention hook on a socket where the only option for you is to either desolder and replace the entire socket or glue the heatsink to the CPU.

I actually really liked the slot loading CPU as a concept. But it definitely takes up a lot more space on the board.

Reply 6 of 14, by retardware

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Personally, I believe the slot CPU concept was a marketing thing.
After Intel introduced Slot 1, AMD had to introduce Slot A.

Looked cool.
But so much hassle with it. :vomit:
Pieces breaking off, transport senstive and all that, and in addition to the expensive wasteful unnecessary stuff it yielded high RMA costs.

I guess Intel got much bad feedback from the big OEMs and thus quickly abandoned the slot nonsense for Socket 370.
AMD must have been glad that the slotmania dissipated, and so neither Slot 2 nor Slot B ever reached the market 👍

Reply 7 of 14, by foil_fresh

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

when the cache was integrated into the die, there was no more point for the bulky slot 1 cards. and when heat became more and more of an issue, i'm sure the slot 1 heatsink/fan designs weren't good enough. bigger and better tower coolers started becoming a thing.

Reply 8 of 14, by Kahenraz

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
retardware wrote on 2021-09-27, 02:19:

Personally, I believe the slot CPU concept was a marketing thing.

It wasn't marketing. Moving the CPU onto a PCB was necessary to accommodate the external L2 cache.

If Intel was marking this as somehow better than integrating it on-die then THAT was purely marketing speak. The only benefit to packaging the processor in this way was as a cost saving to Intel. This can be demonstrated by comparing performance of the Coppermine CPUs to Katmai. Yes, there was a die shrink as well but the performance from the reintegration of the L2 cache was significant.

I'm sure there is a way to measure this but subjectively the performance uplift was profound.

Reply 9 of 14, by Disruptor

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
retardware wrote on 2021-09-27, 02:19:

I guess Intel got much bad feedback from the big OEMs and thus quickly abandoned the slot nonsense for Socket 370.

Sorry, I have to contradict you.
There were several technical troubles that lead to the solution with the slot CPUs.
Please ready my text to understand the die shrinks.

There was a need to integrate more L2 on the processor to improve the performance over the super 7 socket.
There was not enough space on the die to integrate such a big L2.

The first pentium 2 processors were Klamaths in 0,35 micron technology. The die size was 203 mm² with 7,5 million transistors.
After the die shrink to a Deschutes in 0,25 micron its size was 131 mm² (later optimizations led to 118 mm²) with same 7,5 million transistors.

At least Klamath's die size was too big to integrate transistors for a L2 cache. But external L2 over the CPU pins would have been to slow. Intel's solution was the slot 1 interposer that had an extra bus from the CPU to the cache modules. This gave a huge performance boost over the former socket architectures. However, at this time existing cache modules for the interposer were not fast enough. They never got over 350 MHz, so the clock had to be divided by 2 or 3 to the CPU die.

Next evolution was the Katmai in same 0,25 micron technology. It was a 128 mm² die with 9,5 million transistors. It's new KNI/SSE instruction set increased the performance but needed an amount of new transistors.Still remember, overclocking former slot CPUs with cache on the interposer was not that easy because the L2 modules already were running near their border.
However, it's time to watch the Celeron processors now. Intel tried to get rid of the external L2 cache. Intels first try was the not so famous Covington Celeron without any L2 cache. It was easily to overclock it from FSB 66 to FSB 100 and more. But without L2 it lacked so much speed that it fell back behind even the P200 chips. While Covington still was a 0,25 micron Deschutes without L2 it's die size was 118 mm² with 7,5 million transistors.
Intel tried the same thing with the Mendocino Celeron. But the integration of 128 KB L2 in the same 0,25 micron process led to an increment to 19,2 million transistors at 154 mm². Just try to imagine, half of the transistors just for the L2! Since it was integrated on die, it run with full speed without any divider.
Marketed with 300 MHz with 66 FSB it was too easy to overclock the Mendocino Celeron to 450 MHz at 100 FSB. It was the fastest processor at this time then, even faster than the 500 MHz Katmai with its quad size 512 KB L2 cache.

This was the future and the unification of the Katmai and Mendocino lines lead to the Coppermine architecture, and the die shrink to 0,18 micron made it possible to intregrate a bigger L2 cache.
With the integration of the L2 cache into the die its total capacity was halfed from Katmais 512 KB to Coppermines 256 KB. However the gains of the architecturial integration benefits were much larger than losing 50 % of its naked size.
Since so many mainboards and so many of Intels famous 440 BX chipset sold, there were so high demands from the market to continue the production of the CPUs in slot case for still a long time although they did not contain discrete cache anymore.
However, there was a demand for cheaper and smaller mainboards, so Intel developed the socket 370 - and this is where my story ends.

Last edited by Disruptor on 2021-09-27, 13:01. Edited 4 times in total.

Reply 10 of 14, by Gmlb256

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Kahenraz wrote on 2021-09-27, 02:41:
It wasn't marketing. Moving the CPU onto a PCB was necessary to accommodate the external L2 cache. […]
Show full quote
retardware wrote on 2021-09-27, 02:19:

Personally, I believe the slot CPU concept was a marketing thing.

It wasn't marketing. Moving the CPU onto a PCB was necessary to accommodate the external L2 cache.

If Intel was marking this as somehow better than integrating it on-die then THAT was purely marketing speak. The only benefit to packaging the processor in this way was as a cost saving to Intel. This can be demonstrated by comparing performance of the Coppermine CPUs to Katmai. Yes, there was a die shrink as well but the performance from the reintegration of the L2 cache was significant.

I'm sure there is a way to measure this but subjectively the performance uplift was profound.

That's something that is easy to overlook, the benefits of moving into Slot 1 was noticeable when one looks at the Pentium Pro CPUs instead which has the L2 cache die on the CPU socket and that alone brought high manufacturing costs. Once that cache got fully integrated into the CPU the benefits of using the slot system lost.

Even AMD moved briefly to Slot A for their first Athlon CPUs.

VIA C3 Nehemiah 1.2A @ 1.46 GHz | ASUS P2-99 | 256 MB PC133 SDRAM | GeForce3 Ti 200 64 MB | Voodoo2 12 MB | SBLive! | AWE64 | SBPro2 | GUS

Reply 12 of 14, by Jasin Natael

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Anders- wrote on 2021-09-27, 13:02:

Cost saving for sure, pentium pro was out in '95 (some 1.5 years before the pentium II) and that had an off-die cache at full speed. They could've used a similar approach for the consumer-cpu...
Another benefit of ditching S7 for the slot1 was that it no longer was possible to install a competitors cpu 😁

They COULD have done so, but not at a significant cost. There were technical limitations in regards to die yields that prevented them from doing so. This itself is what led to the slot 1 design, it was a cost saving measure.

They could bond the die and the cache at a later point in the process eliminating the risk of destroying the entire die in the process.

Those Pentium Pro chips weren't exactly cheap to make. That is the catalyst for why they developed the slot 1 to begin with. I would imagine it was a similar scenario for AMD, perhaps with a dash of marketing.

Last edited by Stiletto on 2021-09-28, 21:32. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 14 of 14, by Jasin Natael

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Grem Five wrote on 2021-09-27, 20:16:
retardware wrote on 2021-09-27, 02:19:

so neither Slot 2 nor Slot B ever reached the market 👍

They made Slot 2, the Xeons were slot 2.

That is correct. I still have two slot 2 PIII/Xeon CPUs, although the board is regrettably gone years ago.