Comment

Comment by helf

I see this a lot but I really don’t think it was/is that simplistic.

It’s added complexity and cost for something that rarely would benefit most consumers. Now, you can argue that the complexity and cost is a nonissue on modern setups and I would probably agree.

But Intel has long had desktop grade hardware with ECC support. The 440GX chipset supported ECC and I ran a Dell GX1 SFF with 768MB of ECC PC100 for yeeeears with a 450 MHz P3 and later upgraded to 1.4ghz tualatin-256 via a slotket adapter.

The 440HX /socket 7/ chipset supported ECC. And that’s a Pentium 1 chipset.

The 440BX/GX and 450NX supported ECC and that’s with desktop pentium 2 and 3 chips.

The 820/820E/840 supported ECC with desktop celeron and pentium2/3 chips

845/845e/850/850e/860 pentium4 chipsets support ECC

875/e7205/e7221/e7230 did with desktop pentium 4 and pentium d chips

925/925xe/955x/975x did with desktop pentium 4/pentium d/core 2

It’s more sparse now that they moved to the IMC, granted. But Intel has long had multiple chipsets per generation with ECC support for desktop grade hardware.

parent helf 3 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton