Hi there,

Being a newbie I throw myself at the mercy of the forum.
Small question - how come they didn't leverage the PCI Express and needed a new bus (excuse me, p2p interconnect) altogether?
On the protocol side, I imagine it is rather adequate.
And if pcix16 is good enough for display card, shouldn't it, or its senior brother, pcix32 be good enough, while leveraging existing h/w?






David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 8/28/07 wrote:
---------------------------
>Dear RWT Readers,
>
>I have waited a rather long time to put this article online (since February when
>I first started researching). As many of you know, Intel is in the midst of redesigning
>their entire system architecture. The last time something of this magnitude happened
>was when the split transaction P6 bus debuted in 1995 - a bus that lasted for roughly a decade.
>
>Next year, the Common System Interface will ship in two products (Nehalem and Tukwila),
>ushering in a new system architecture from Intel.
>
>I have put up an extremely in-depth report that is the work of roughly 5 months
>of research, studying Intel's patent disclosures. In this article, I describe CSI
>is exquisite detail, including the physical layer, link layer, coherency protocol
>and I provide some speculation as to how CSI will be used in future products.
>
>http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT082807020032&p=1
>
>I hope you all enjoy the read. I'd also like to thank everyone who helped with
>this article. I relied on the technical expertise of quite a few friends, and
>without their help this article wouldn't be nearly as compete or understandable.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>David Kanter