Talk:VIA C3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Well, I've decided to scrub the talk page, because I've done a complete re-write of the main page, and its just confusing to have comments that refer to something that no longer exists. I think the new page sets out the core generations relatively clearly. Why VIA chose to name things they way the did - don't know. I think the key point that emerges from the core table, is that the C5X (Nehemiah) was the key core revision, and the C5P (Nehemiah) is what emerged as the C3. The C7 is a core shrink to 90nm SOI, a new socket, with some tweaks to the encryption engine. Its NOT a new core, as such. More like the Palomino / Thunderbird etc revisions AMD made to the Athlon, so I don't see C7 deserves a new page. Presumably the C5X is the next generation P4 clone they expected to hit 3 GHz on one of the old roadmaps, 16 stage pipe, etc. But they figured out by trial and error marketing, that there was more money in the embedded market, than fighting a loosing battle for performance leadership. The embedded deals have been reported on theinquirer.net as now generasting major revenue / profits for VIA. Small, cheap, low power, seems to be a winning formula over raw performance, for many industrial clients. Timharwoodx 19:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.livejournal.com/users/libv/4494.html Quite funny. I should probably update the main page sometime to reflect the bus mess. Timharwoodx 21:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] "quantum" random number generators

I'm very skeptical about "quantum" in the description of the random number generators. It sounds like a marketing buzzword to me. I found some more detail on the implementation of the RNG on VIA's site[1], and it's clear to me that they're confused: they list four sources of randomness, one of which does have a quantum source (the first one), two of which have a thermal source (the next two), and one (the last one) which, I believe, can be either quantum or thermal, depending on the parameters. The last one is the one they actually use. I had edited out the "quantum" from the article text, but I reverted it because I'm not 100% positive that the source was not, in fact, quantum.

Does anyone know what the oscillators used to control the frequency in a CPU are? Is it a quartz oscillator? If so, I found this paper on frequency calibration which says that the primary limits to accuracy of typical quartz oscillators are thermal, not the fundamental quantum limits. --Dylan Thurston 05:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: As indicated in the article text, I found information on the VIA site written by someone who knows what they're talking about and edited accordingly. --Dylan Thurston 06:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the random number system is thermal. Quantum is a marketing term. You get this all the time with VIA. Their product names do not tie up to hardware like with AMD, Intel, NVIDIA, ATI, etc. That makes writing up their tech all the harder, since you have to get past the marketing. Timharwoodx 20:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C7 bus

Well, the C7 seems to be based upon the Celeron-M socket, in pin and electrical terms. I don't understand how VIA lost the rights to socket 370, but retained rights to Celeron-M. And if they are so confused about their bus rights, why not license the EV7 like AMD did? I've even seen an article that suggests VIA may get sued for using the Celeron-M socket. And why do VIA call the Celeron-M socket V4? Are they trying to hide their infringement of Intel IP? Its so hard to get good answers to some of these issues, because VIA are more interested in selling to China than America. Timharwoodx 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Pin compatible with the Pentium-M, but supposedly not electrically compatible, HOWEVER:

This reviewer seemed able to drop a Celeron-M into the same slot as the C7.

By harnessing VIA's unique Flexi-Bus Technology, the VN800 enables support for both the all new VIA C7-M™ and Intel® Pentium® M processors.

Thats the official VIA story on the bus.......supposedly the motherboards auto detect the CPU in hardware, and apply either the Intel or 'V4' electrical signalling routine. Just how different 'V4' is to Intel's Quad pump system, no-one seems to be willing to disclose, as they both use the exact same socket, and work on the same basic system i.e. base bus of 100/400, 133/533, 200/800 (MHz). Wonder if Intel has the lawyers looking at this one? Timharwoodx 22:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Even more mysterious. The first batches of C7 apparently DID run on the Pentium-M bus, both physically, and electrically. Again, we must ask, V4 looks like some excuse VIA thought up in a panic, because no-one told the Centaur design team, that VIA was loosing rights to Intel's sockets. Timharwoodx 13:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No-Execute Bit

Has Via claimed NX can protect against viruses? I know AMD has called it "Enhanced Virus Protection" on their chips. This is a bit of a misnomer, and Microsoft, who call it "Data Execution Protection" have the most accurate name. The article mentions NX guarding against viruses, but this isn't really accurate - most viruses work via legitimate means that NX won't prevent. NX certainly can protect against buffer/stack overflows, though.

I agree the marketing behind the NX bit is horrible. While it makes certain methods of exploit much more difficult, and therefore some set of exploits impossible, it is a good thing, but I think can be better represented here. Instead of saying "NX flag to reduce buffer overflows and guard against viral attacks", it would be better to say something like: "NX flag, which can make some types of software vulnerabilities more difficult to exploit, and therefore may help protect against some computer viruses." Or something like that. -- TDM 23:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions re VIA things like V7

Timharwoodx, I can address the various questions here re V7 bus & other Via processor things. But rather than write them here, I'd prefer to handle via email or phone. But if you want them here I can do that. i'm glennh@centtech.com

I'm here because I'm going to (soon) flesh out the Centaur Technology page.

[edit] cleanup: complete article rewrite requested

Most parts of this article must be rewritten from scratch into several smaller and more succinct articles: VIA C3, VIA C7, VIA Eden (processor), VIA CoreFusion and VIA Epia (*ITX motherboards) etc. If you want to keep C3, C7 and Eden in the same article, then the article MUST NOT be named VIA C3, but rather VIA Processors; but I think it's still a mistake to put C7 into the same pile as C3 Samuel and C3 Samuel 2 which are very slow and underperforming processors, compared to VIA C3 Nehemiah and C7 Esther line. Also, a separate article should be created to list available processors (all on the same page should be fine, i.e. List of VIA microprocessors), just like there is one such article for Core 2 called List of Intel Core 2 microprocessors. MureninC 17:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As the first step, I've created VIA CoreFusion article just a few minutes ago. IMHO, next step should be the creation of the List of VIA microprocessors, updated and revised from the information in this very article. MureninC 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we should put Nehemiah into it's own article VIA C5, and explain VIA's marketing shortcomings, also giving a link at the top of the VIA C3 page that Nehemiah is described in VIA C5 page but is last-minute marketed as VIA C3. These are really entirely different product families, and IMHO now we have a clear example that the discussion of it all together is just too messy in one article. MureninC 03:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced MureninC understands how technology articles are authored in the WIKI. The methodology used, and you will see this on NVIDIA, ATI, AMD, Intel pages, so it is well accepted, is not to group devices by marketing materials, as MureninC seems to think it should be done, but rather on a technical basis, by core type / generation. The reason C3 and C7 share the same page, is that they are different revisions of the same core. We had a discussion about this, and that point was agreed. So you must be very careful when creating new pages, to be sure there is some kind of clear novelty or major variation in the core. In the case of C3 to C7, from a technical point of view, I just can't see that. The core of the chip was NOT changed between C3 and C7! So I see no justification for separating those two revisions. If we did that, then for example, the 'Thunderbird' and 'Palomino' AMD Athlon cores would require new pages. Now as for a list of VIA processors, I would say good idea. Finally, VIA Epia is a motherboard solution, so should be written up on the VIA motherboards page, I already created. I will challenge any attempt to split C3 and C7 into different pages, as inconsistent with the editing clearly applied and widely accepted in comparable IT sections of the WIKI. I wrote the VIA C3/C7 page, so I have some knowledge of these matters, and last time this came up, everyone agreed there was no good justification for different pages for the same basic thing, regardless of marketing claims. Timharwoodx
Timharwoodx, your argument doesn't stand, as it is based on incorrect premises: Geode (processor)#Geode NX is based Mobile Athlon, but is still described on a distinct 'marketing' page; Athlon 64 X2 is described on a page separate from Athlon 64 FX, although both pages feature Windsor cores. Article about C3 and C7 should be split, because they describe completely different technology, and description of each processor is already too lengthy and too tangled, and it's hard to see which parts of the article describe which family of the processors. (Granted, VIA did a bad job with C3/C7 name distinction, as Nehemiah should probably have been put into C7 family, but this is not a good excuse on keeping the C3 and C7 articles together.) Everyone is tired by now on clicking links that say 'VIA C7' from other parts of the wikipedia, only to end up on a page that describes at least two distinct processors not sharing much in common. If you want to see a very good exemplar of how to write about VIA Processors, I suggest you go to the German wikipedia, and check out their VIA C3/VIA C7/VIA Eden descriptions. They are much more appropriate, well-identified and clearly put together that this very article in the English wikipedia, which is a complete mess, with constant jumps around C3, C7 and whatever else VIA and its predecessor has produced. The fact that you've played a major role in writing of this very article doesn't do you any good as far as this discussion is concerned, as the article is nowhere near the quality of most other wikipedia articles. MureninC 18:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Timharwoodx: Excuse me for responding to an old comment, but where was this discussed previously? Note that there is no policy on "authoring technology articles on Wikipedia", decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. A conclusion that was drawn on AMD and Intel articles might not apply here. The fact that you wrote this article does not make you any more authoritative for making decisions either, per WP:OWN (which you seemed to imply, sorry if I am mistaken). -- intgr 05:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. The original Geode chip was based upon an old Cyrix design, i.e. A DIFFERENT CORE. WHICH IS WHY IT HAS A NEW PAGE! So that example you cite in fact confirms my view 100%, that only new cores deserve new pages. THANKS FOR BACKING ME UP ON THAT POINT. As for the dual core Athlon, I tend to agree it should be on the Athlon 64 page, but I can't chase down all the nonsense that goes on in the IT section. Having reviewed your new pages, I notice your writing is poor, lacks details or sources, and borderlines on marketing. You completely ignore my point, that more or less the entire IT section is grouped according to core, exactly as I stated. Your own hand chosen example of Geode proves this. I will exmaine the German version now, and see if it makes any sense. But I don't see why if the German version is wrong, the writer fooled by inaccurate marketing on the part of VIA, the English version should copy an error from the German version. Timharwoodx 19:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

http://66.249.93.104/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&langpair=de%7Cen&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIA_C3&prev=/language_tools

Well, I've now read the German version, google translates it fine, and frankly its complete rubbish. The author clearly has no basic grasp of processors at all, and is utterly incapable of distinguishing technical features from marketing hype. IDT WinChip | VIA Cyrix III are on different pages, despite being THE SAME PRODUCT. C3 and C7 are on different pages, despite being THE SAME PRODUCT!. You think honestly think a confused attempt to recycle VIA press releases is writing? I'll fight you on this. The accepted writing scheme is clearly grouping by core, and I don't see why errors in the German WIKI should be brought over into the superior English text. I'm a technical writer, not a press release recycler. Recycling press releases is marketing, which is strictly banned from the WIKI! You need to read the standing WKI content guidelines sometime - its obvious you've never done any such thing. Timharwoodx 19:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any point in discussing this issue further with you. You use personal attacks as a way of accomplishing your ”let's junk it all together“ hype, and you've completely missed the point that I've stated. If C3 and C7 is the same product, then why the whole article consists of some subsections that are labelled C3 and some that are labelled C7, and the rest few paragraphs have a clear relationship with neither C3 nor C7? MureninC 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved some content to WinChip page. Added a link on my VIA navbar. I think splitting that out a bit more clearly is a fair point, since the Winchip / VIA Cyrix III WAS a different core. Timharwoodx

Now that's really helpful, now products that are known as VIA C3 are described on a page titled WinChip. What are you trying to accomplish? Are you saying that we are all stupid here by believing that Samuel 2 is VIA C3, and should now call it WinChip as per your will? Stop your nonsense, please. MureninC 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I thought the page as it stood was very good. Although you stuck so many tags on it I lost count, and said it was one of the worst pages in the WIKIPEDIA. Certainly it was vastly superior in terms of analysis to the German pages, which contain no real analysis or technical insight at all – I’ve read them. In fact confused is the word I would use for the German pages. They are a random mix of facts, bits from press VIA releases, and extracts apparently pasted out of parts databases. No real attempt to edit any of this jumble at all. Lack of editing is one of the biggest concerns in the WIKIPEDIA, and the German pages fall into exactly that sort of category. Unedited jumble.

You've just created 2 new pages, Core fusion, and EPIA. Having called my writing one of the worst pages in the WIKI, let’s go over your content, shall we? VIA_CoreFusion

CoreFusion should not be confused with platforms marketing initiative of other manufacturers, as CoreFusion is a term describing the actual part of hardware, whereas Intel Viiv and Intel Centrino purely describe a marketing concept. Put it in other words, Centrino is a combination of specific parts assembled by the manufacturer of the end product, whereas CoreFusion is a combination of parts already soldered together by the manufacturer of the said parts.

Firstly, why do we need to explain what the Centrino platform is in an article about Corefusion? Centrino is a platform, Corefusion is a single package chip. I fail to see any obvious link. Your description of Centrino is wrong. It’s a specific chipset combination, strictly. Corefusion is not a soldered together chip, it’s a single package integration of CPU and Northbridge. You then proceed to post direct links to the VIA website, INSIDE THE MAIN ARTICLE, and not as they should be, either referenced, or in an ‘external links section, violating style guidelines.

EPIA

Now the first thing I do not understand here, is that EPIA is a marketing term for VIA’s chipset solutions. I have already created a page for VIA’s chipsets, yet you ignore that, and create a new page based upon a marketing term. Again, we see this persistent pattern in your thought process, of seeking to recycle VIA press releases into the WIKIPEDIA, and your stubborn refusal to engage at a technical level with VIA’s product lineup. The EPIA page probably requires a redirect to the chipsets page, frankly. But that would require technical understanding, which you so obviously wholly lack.

I would say your new content is marketing for VIA, which I am tempted to put up for deletion straight away, as they contain no real content, technical analysis, etc, and just post links to the VIA website. MARKETING IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE WIKIPEDIA. Posting links to the VIA website is not writing a WIKI article, as you seem to think. You slam my work as the worst page in the WIKI, then enter marketing!

VIA frequently recycle the same old products, with new names, and new press releases. Its become a bit of a joke in the industry. Now you say, every time VIA issues a new press release, the WIKIPEDIA should create a new page, and start promoting the 'new' product. If the new product is the same as the old product, then all it deserves is a footnote on the existing page or mention under ‘roadmap changes’ etc., which is what I created on the C3 page. Given the C7 is essentially a process shrink with a few new features, as AMD did several times with the Athlon core, there is no technical reason for a new page. If that was so, we would have to split the Athlon page into 6-7 new pages, which I don’t think anyone would agree with.

As for the Winchip, you do understand the Winchip was the same thing as the VIA Cyrix III? VIA put the chip through some process shrinks, but really it did not change. That was a stop gap solution, until the revised 16 pipeline core came out. Again, we come back to following the technology in the articles, not the press releases. I think you had a point, in that the old Winchip core should not be on the C3/C7 main page, which is why I moved it. I'll research this further, to follow exactly how VIA marketed the old Winchip core.

If you think the WIKIPEDIA is an outlet to recycle VIA press releases, and promote VIA products, as apparently you do, I must warn you, the editors will not support you on that line. Not putting marketing into the WIKIPEDIA is one of the biggest red lines there is. New product = new page. New marketing does not equal a new page. That’s how we do it.

Your complaint it seems to me is with VIA, whose marketing does not follow the technical development of their products. Yes, their marketing is a mess. We know this. Generally when AMD, Intel, etc introduce a new core, they give it a new name, and market it differently. With VIA, the marketing seems somewhat random, and unrelated to technical features. I agree its annoying, but there is really nothing I can do about it. Timharwoodx 11:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope the changes I've just made to the Winchip page and C3 page clear up for you what happened with the C3. Basically, VIA's chip was getting so far left behind by AMD and Intel, the marketing department decided they needed a new name, even though the 130 nm product had no new features. Hence C3 was born - which was NOT A NEW CHIP AT ALL. The real C3 was introduced later, with tis 16 pipeline s and full speed FPU. It was marketing trying to compensate for technical delays in developing the revised core. Timharwoodx 11:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WinChip / C3 / C7 chaos

First of all, thanks to Timharwoodx for you nice opinion about my work at the german wikipedia. I can assure you that I know what I'm writing about! But I also get your point that Nehemiah and Esther are basically the same core. That's right, but VIA decided to ship this revision with a new name and therefore I think it should have it's own article VIA C7 but it should be clearly explained that Nehemiah and Esther are mostly identical (could be made better in WP:DE!). Also Samuel, Samuel2, Ezra and Ezra-T are more or less identical and mostly only die shrinks. But why is Samuel and Samuel 2 not explained at VIA C3? Yeah the first one was sold as Cyrix III, nevertheless, it's the same core without L2-Cache. Samuel 2 was sold as VIA C3, but I can't find it in the VIA C3 article. It's completly illogical that this cores are discribed in the WinChip article!

You have to think about the people which search for informations and want to know something about a VIA C3 processor. They don't know which core it is as it's not mentioned anywhere on the processor. So they find this VIA C3 article and ghet basically no informations just some words about VIA marketing rubish. But that don't help them! If they search for VIA C3, the want informations about VIA C3, no matter whar core revision are identical and which are not! Have a look at Athlon 64 and Opteron or Athlon 64 X2 and Opteron where also some cores are sold with different names. I also don't agree that the Athlon 64 FX doesn't have it's own article since it's really different now from the Athlon 64 but that's an other construction site.

So, I can just request that you make a huge rewrite of the whole WinChip, C3 and C7 articles and make them readable for people who don't know anything about this processors. I guess, we made good work at the WP:DE (it's not perfect that's clear) and other WPs also followed our example and thoughts. Thanks for reading - stickedy - --89.54.40.133 08:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/a/Talk%7EVIA_C3_3e73.html"