1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

New PCI card on old motherboard

Discussion in 'Intel' started by Grumble, Nov 27, 2004.

  1. Grumble

    keith Guest

    It took a while to refresh my 34YO memory (was thinking about this one
    the way to brunch ;-), but there is something here. ISTR at some point
    (PCI 2.2?) the spec *required* that 3.3V be supplied to the appropriate
    pins (A21, B25, A27, B31, A33, B36, A39, B41, B43, A45, A53, and B54),
    even in 5V slots, to support universal cards.

    According to my third edition Shanley and Anderson (covering PCI 2.1), it
    is "strongly recommended" that 3.3V be supplied in a 5V system, but not
    required. ISTR that PCI 2.2 made this a requirement (will check tomorrow
    with the fourth edition of S&A).

    So... If you're into hacking, you might wire in 3.3V to the connector and
    see. If the WiFi card has the two keyways (indicating a universal card)
    it should work in a 5V system if it has 3.3V on the bus. ...or replace
    the board, though I don't know which socket-7 boards would be 2.2
    compliant.
     
    keith, Nov 28, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Grumble

    keith Guest

    Socket-7 in general, though it may have been the ctappy OSs of the time
    from you know who. USB was all over the floor in those days. OTOH, the
    USB port on my Tyan 1598-C2 (ci. '99 super-7 and K6-III) works just fine.
    It even works with a USB 2.0 flash stick (Crucial Gizmo 2.0).
     
    keith, Nov 28, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Grumble

    Grumble Guest

    I'm not quite sure what a 'keyway' is. I assume it is the 'gap' between
    the golden pins? If so, my card has two such gaps.

    One gap in stead of pins 12-13 and the other in stead of pins 50-51.
    (If I've counted right...)

    No gap at pins 30-31.

    It seems I'm trying to fit a 3.3V card into a 5V PCI slot, then?
     
    Grumble, Nov 28, 2004
    #23
  4. Grumble

    Grumble Guest

    The document provided by RusH states:
    http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/conventional/conventional_pci/2_2sum1215.pdf

    The remainder of this paper gives an overview of the differences between
    revisions of 2.1 and the 2.2 draft version of the PCI Local Bus
    specification. This list is not comprehensive and the Final version
    should be used. [...]

    Chapter 4 Electrical Specification

    Section 4.3.4.1. Power Requirements, now requires the system designer to
    provide 3.3 V rail in the connector. Before it was not required, but
    system designer was to provide a way to add it.
    I guess I'll have to look for a PCI 2.1 compliant 802.11g adapter. The
    other solution is a so-called "game adapter" which provides an Ethernet
    to Wi-Fi (802.3 to 802.11) bridge. Although they are still somewhat
    pricey, in my opinion. (I have an ageless ISA Ethernet card handy.)
     
    Grumble, Nov 28, 2004
    #24
  5. Grumble

    daytripper Guest

    Delayed Transactions, probably...

    Roll-outs are often painful...

    /daytripper
     
    daytripper, Nov 28, 2004
    #25
  6. Grumble

    Grumble Guest

    Have you ever found a PCI 2.1 compliant 802.11g card?

    Have you tried the U.S. Robotics USR5416?
    http://www.usr.com/products/networking/wireless-product.asp?sku=USR5416

    The specs explicitly mention "PCI 2.1/2.2 compliant".
    http://www.usr.com/products/networking/wireless-product.asp?sku=USR5416&type=specs

    Have you tried a game adapter (Ethernet to WiFi bridge)?
     
    Grumble, Nov 28, 2004
    #26
  7. Grumble

    keith Guest

    Yes, a "keyway" is the slot through witch a key goes. The PCI connnector
    is "keyed", thus the "keyway" is the slot through which the key passes.
    Your card is thus a "universal" card and as such will work in a 5V or 3.3V
    PCI bus. *However*, it may require 3.3V on the connector which your board
    obviously doesn't supply. Thus it's not recognized because it has no
    power supplied.
    Sorry, the light isn't great in my "office". You are correct, it's 50-51.
    It's more like you're trying to fit a universal card into a slot that has
    no 3.3V. My bet is that if you even hack in one 3.3V wire from elsewhere
    this card will work. ...perhaps not reliably (may need more and lower
    inductance), but I think this is the problem.

    Yes, I was half-wrong (PCI version didn't matter). It appears that PCI
    2.2 is the problem, but only because your board doesn't follow the PCI 2.1
    recommendations. ;-) or is that :-(

    I did run into this four years or so ago. Fortunately the IBM servers I
    was designing for had plenty of 3.3V available at the PCI connectors.
     
    keith, Nov 29, 2004
    #27
  8. Grumble

    keith Guest

    Sure, you can hack it in! ;-)
    ISA? You're nutz! ;-) PCI cards are a dime-a-dozen. ...and they work.

    The other alternative is a USB to WiFi. I think I saw several of these
    while browsing about the web on the PCI 2.2 issue. I wasn't paying much
    attention to the trivia (like whether they actually work) though.
     
    keith, Nov 29, 2004
    #28
  9. Grumble

    keith Guest

    At configuration time? I think the real problem here is the lack of 3.3V
    at the PCI connector.
    Here M$ is king.
     
    keith, Nov 29, 2004
    #29
  10. Grumble

    RusH Guest

    like I said earlier, its only buzzword to make feature list bigger.
    This one doesnt like PCI 2.1 either.
    This is his only reliable option.

    Pozdrawiam.
     
    RusH, Nov 29, 2004
    #30
  11. Grumble

    Mike Smith Guest

    Woo, hoo... famous ol' motherboard, back in the day - one of the first
    to do 83 MHz FSB, IIRC. (I had its archrival, the Abit IT5H... ;-)
     
    Mike Smith, Nov 30, 2004
    #31
  12. Grumble

    keith Guest

    Oh, please! It wasn't the first and when it did it overclocked the piss
    out of everything on the board. The HX chipset was *never* rated for
    anything above 66MHz.
     
    keith, Dec 1, 2004
    #32
  13. Grumble

    Mike Smith Guest

    What's with the attitude? For one thing, I said "*one* of the first".
    For another, I never said it wasn't overclocking, nor did I imply that
    it was a no-brainer; i.e. that you didn't have to go looking for PCI
    cards that could handle the higher clock rate. But I guess some people
    just *live* to be nasty to others on Usenet, huh?
     
    Mike Smith, Dec 2, 2004
    #33
  14. Grumble

    keith Guest


    The "attitude" is because I spent a couple of years working to get the S7
    bus to 75, 83MHz, then 100MHz, which nothing from Intel ever did (indeed
    they made it impossible with their components). Specifications do matter,
    though lusers like you don't care about such trivia.
    Many didn't. If you want to play Russian roulette, please don't let me
    stop you.
    I guess some people just don't care about reliability or data integrity.
    Over-clocking rulz! <gag-cough>
     
    keith, Dec 3, 2004
    #34
  15. Grumble

    Mike Smith Guest

    Well, if you're so anal about specifications, then why were you trying
    to overclock? Can't have your cake and eat it, too. Me, I just did it
    'cause it was fun.
    Not when it's my own computer, I'm doing it for fun, and the machine's
    got nothing on it but games.
    Again, seriously - what's with the arrogant, uptight, holier-than-thou
    attitude? Who the hell are you, anyway?
     
    Mike Smith, Dec 3, 2004
    #35
  16. Ya' twit! I wasn't overclocking. There were *designs* that ran at
    75MHz, 83MHz, and (horror-of-horrors) 100MHz. In case you hadn't
    figured it out, I don't work for Intel. Sheesh!
    <back to the coffee thread?> Tried it, don't like it. I go for the
    real stuff (Green Mountain "Harvard Blend", thanks); one *large* cup
    before starting in to work each day - *HOT*.
    When one is paid to design reliable hardware, one designs reliable
    hardware. To do that one follows specifications, or writes them. One
    doesn't just throw a pile of parts on the floor and hope it works.
    It's really as simple as that.
    Some people do a little more than play Free-Cell with their toys. To
    some it's a serious business. If you're happy with crap...
    Unfortunately, you're not the only one who thinks this way, which is
    why we have so much crap.
    Keith
     
    Keith R. Williams, Dec 3, 2004
    #36
  17. Grumble

    mikele Guest

    I've have the usr 5416 in my PCI 2.1 and it and it works perfectly. I
    tried several other G (netgear, linksys and d-link), but none worked.
    If you can use a B also the d-link DWL 520 works in a PCI 2.1 slot.
    my configuration: Mobo Asus p2b-f, [email protected] Mhz, 256Mb pc100, win98se
     
    mikele, Jan 26, 2005
    #37
  18. Grumble

    keith Guest

    I think it was decided (two months ago, BTW) that PCI 2.1 allowed 3.3V on
    the PCI slot, but didn't require it. PCI 2.2 does, this the card
    specifies PCI 2.2. It's an iffy proposition assuming it will run on in a
    PCI 2.1 slot. Though it may be fine, there is no guarantee.

    I had a similar quandry looking for a sound card for my "antique" Tyan
    1598C2. The card I ended up with only claimed PCI 2.2 compatability, but
    it worked anyway. Claiminng spec conformance doesn't tell all.
     
    keith, Jan 27, 2005
    #38
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.