Most powerful BTX form factor PC

[Bill_Bright]

I'm afraid SATA also originated with BTX and was added to ATX later.

Sorry, but that is not true. A quick bit of homework with Bing Google show the SATA interface was introduced in the year 2000 while the BTX Form Factor did not appear until late in 2004.

So while BTX boards certainly supported SATA, SATA came out years earlier and were found on ATX board years earlier too.

 

[Retrorockit]

I just knew every BTX I ever saw had them. The last "old" ATX I bothered with was an AMD K6=III+ AGP Voodoo 5500 setup.
The problem with BTX was partly political because the afetrmarket didn't want to buy into a form factor that was controlled by Intel. Then the market where they were accepted caused them to be cheapened to run as 95W core 2 office computers. There is only one unlocked BTX performance motherboard that I'm aware of and it had an Nvidia chipset that had driver issues with the move from 65nm to 45nm CPus and the 1333 fsb. It was one of the Dell XPS series. I've never owned one but it still has it's fans in the LGA775 world. The locked BIOS BTX workstations can be overclocked with unlocked CPUs, and usually have dual GPU slots.
I'm not sure I see the point in having a pissing contest over which 15 year old form factor was better. I had a Dell Dimension E520 BTX in 2nd place at CPUZ with a QX6800 for a couple years (2015-2017?)with a stock Dell BTX cooler and upgraded fan. I have better coolers and fans now which I've listed here for others. Unfortunately ASFIK no one has gotten a 45nm C2Extreme to run on that board.
It's stilll on the top 10 list.
http://valid.x86.fr/top-cpu/496e746...d652043505520513638303020204020322e393347487a

 

[Bill_Bright]

I just knew every BTX I ever saw had them.

Sure! That's because SATA had already been around for several years and established itself as the clear successor to EIDE. And not just because it was a faster interface, but also because the motherboard connectors took up much less real estate and the cables, being much smaller also, were much easier to manage and barely hindered air flow.

The problem with BTX was partly political because the afetrmarket didn't want to buy into a form factor that was controlled by Intel.

Where do you keep getting this information? The ATX Form Factor was developed by Intel and is still mostly controlled by Intel. And the entire industry, including AMD, retailers, and more importantly, consumers don't have a problem with that. If not for the ATX Form Factor Standard, the build-it-yourself industry (and Newegg) would not exist - just as there is no thriving build-it-yourself notebook industry.

BTX did not favor Intel products over AMD, for example. And AMD had yet to enter talks into buying ATI. So it was not about Intel leading the way and others not willing to follow.

It failed because ATX was working just fine - especially after case makers realized they could easily move power supplies to the bottom without having to flip everything else upside down - or actually into a mirror image. It failed because users very quickly realized they could not put their perfectly good ATX motherboards in BTX cases. Nor could they put BTX boards in their perfectly good ATX cases.

Okay, you said "partly" political but in reality, all business is political - even non-profits. But BTX didn't fail because politics got in the way of the industry coming together on a new standard. No! The reality is, BTX failed because "WE" the almighty "consumer" didn't want it.

 

[Retrorockit]

IBM lost control of the AT form factor which created the aftermarket PC clone industry. IBM subcontracted everythibg but the BIOS. When aftermarket BIOS became available the aftermarket PC industry was born. The aftermarket didn't want another indusrtry giant to get control of the computer industry like IBM did originally.
BTX was needed for 3.8GHz 130W Pentium4 and Pentium D Netburst CPUs. Unitl Core2 came along Intel was planning for 4GHz Netburst CPUs and AT couldn't handle it. Core2 never went much beyond 3.3ghz, and 130W so BTX was no longer needed. At the time BTX was created it was a big improvement over AT/ATX. When the chipset and memory controller moved onto the CPU it no longer served any purpose. It didn't "fail" at all. I'm not awrae of any AMD BTX motherboards with the CPU turned 45* to the board. But then again I never looked for one.
Every Dell LGA775 Optiplex was a BTX. many HP computers also. Somebody bought them by the millions. You the aftermarket consumer never had the chance to buy an unlocked BTX mother board, case or high performance cooling system. You were never offered that choice. You can barely find pictures of an aftermarket BTX motherbord, much less get your hands on one. You the "almighty" consumer didn't "decide" anything.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Again, where do you keep getting this information? Because it is not correct. Many clones used the AT Form Factor. My first PC, a Gateway 486 from 1991 was an AT. ATX didn't come about until 1995. All this is easily verified with a little homework with Bing Google. I recommend they be used.

so BTX was no longer needed.

BTX was never needed. It wanted to be, but it never was.

At the time BTX was created it was a big improvement over AT/ATX.

First, AT was long gone, so not even a factor. And second, no it wasn't a big improvement. That was its problem. If it had been, maybe it would have succeeded.

When the chipset and memory controller moved onto the CPU

Huh? The chipset is located on the motherboard.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I think it is important to remember that the ATX Form Factor standard and the hardware industry have a long history of adapting quickly to advances in and in new technologies.

The first ATX boards supported PCI graphics. But then AGP came about and the standard (and motherboard makers) quickly adapted.

When the USB interface was introduced, the ATX standard (and motherboard makers) quickly adapted, and continued to quickly adapt with each new version of USB.

When SATA came out, the ATX standard, motherboard makers and drive makers quickly adapted.

When PCI Express came out, the ATX standard, motherboard makers, PSU makers and graphics card makers quickly adapted.

Same with DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort.

As 3.5" drives overtook 5.25", ATX cases adapted. As the floppy phased out, all adapted.

What happened when those 130W power hungry CPUs came out? The standard adapted, PSU makers adapted and motherboard makers added the +12ATX supplemental power connector to all their boards. No need to come out with an entirely new board and case form factor standard.

When surround sound became popular, the standard and motherboard makers integrated 4.1, 5.1 and 7.1 support.

When network interfaces became small enough, they too were integrated with the motherboards.

When graphics cards became voracious power eaters, no problem! The ATX standard quickly adapted and cards started coming with supplemental power connections and PSU makers added extra power leads just for those power hungry cards.

Now ATX motherboards support M.2.​

There are many more examples out there, but I trust the point has been made.

One of the ATX Form Factors greatest advantages is its ability to quickly adapt to the latest technologies. If it was not able to do that, then, maybe, BTX would have succeeded and supplanted ATX.

I am NOT saying BTX was bad. It was actually an excellent concept. It just wasn't needed. And it didn't offer any significant advantages that were good enough to entice multiple industries to totally revamp their lines or to entice consumers to replace their ATX compliant products. So it failed.

 

[Retrorockit]

Multiple industries did revamp their lines to conform to BTX. Basically the IT/ business (industry) sector served by Dell, and HP. There are probably more BTX LGA775 computers than ATX.
Why don't you go back and read the first post in this thread.
This thread is for people who are interested in BTX. Obviously you have better things to do.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Can't you let this go? I have read this entire thread. And I'm fine with people interested in BTX. What I am not fine with is the posting of clear (and easy to verify) falsehoods about SATA, BTX's history, why it failed, etc.

Yes, multiple industries did "add" BTX product lines. No one (including me) is disputing that. But what happened? It didn't take off in the market. General consumers didn't want it. Big corporations didn't want it. For whatever reason, it failed to supplant ATX, so Dell and HP abandoned it.

It does not matter if it was a superior form factor. It is how a product is accepted by the market that matters. Read up on the Betamax vs VHS war to see how it works.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

ATX didn't come about until 1995.

Most PCs were still AT in 1995 and 1996. Those were still the pre-ACPI days, even though with APM, Windows 95 can shut down the PC for you, IIRC. Why did ATX not even get used, a lot of the time in 1995 and 1996? LOL

My family's 1996 IBM Aptiva C32 (Pentium 133 with 16 MB EDO RAM) (Probably 60ns or 70ns by default) was AT, which they got in early 1997 or sometime real late in 1996, IIRC.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

Sorry, but that is not true. A quick bit of homework with Bing Google show the SATA interface was introduced in the year 2000 while the BTX Form Factor did not appear until late in 2004.

AFAIK, SATA didn't exist on motherboards being sold before 2003 (officially) I couldn't find a lick of SATA in 2000. 2000 was still the PATA days, when UDMA 100 was the rage! Much less SATA existing on socket 7! All you will find I bet, are pre-UDMA PATA ports. And UDMA 33 PATA ports on super socket 7.

Revision 1.0a was released on January 7, 2003.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Why did ATX not even get used, a lot of the time in 1995 and 1996? LOL

There's a common-sense answer to that. ATX changed EVERYTHING in many industries within the personal computing industry. Cases had to be redesigned and case factories retooled. That takes time. PSUs had to be redesigned and factories retooled. Motherboards had to be redesigned and retooled. And all those industries and manufacturers had to coordinate all those efforts so Industry A didn't have huge stockpiles of parts with no where to go and Industry B didn't have huge stockpiles of parts waiting for other industries to catch up.

So of course it took time - You cannot turn an aircraft carrier running at full speed around (and totally retool it at the same time) on a dime. But it sure was not because the industry (or consumers) were reluctant to change (except for IBM itself). As it was, ATX systems started to hit the market in force in 1996.

Can you imagine the effort and coordination it took to get all those competing manufacturers to agree on one form factor? A form factor that was designed to allow consumers to mix and match components from different brands? But they did it and without it, there would be no build-it-yourself PC industry - just as there is no (or nothing significant, anyway) build-it-yourself notebook industry now. No way is any one going to get Dell, HP, Acer, Samsung and Lenovo, etc. to all agree on one "non-proprietary" form factor for notebooks.

It may be the ATX PC looked the same on the outside as the AT PC, but it was totally different inside. Voltages changed. Cable connectors changed. PSU wiring changed drastically - gone was the huge wiring harness/power switch that ran from the front of the case all the way back and hardwired to the PSU. Component shapes and mounting screw locations changed. All the parts manufacturers had to make changes and build up inventories. It was a HUGE logistics undertaking.

Entire industries within industries cannot, and it would be silly to expect them to change course the day after new form factor standards are finalized and approved. Plus, all the PC makers and vendors needed to fulfill current contracts and wanted to deplete their current inventories of AT systems rather than incur total losses on units not sold.

All that takes time.

My family's 1996 IBM Aptiva C32 (Pentium 133 with 16 MB EDO RAM) (Probably 60ns or 70ns by default) was AT

Please, we need to be realistic here. Your sample-size-of-one experience does NOT render moot the whole point. Start with the fact the Aptiva line was introduced in 1994 - before ATX was ever announced - not to mention IBM was aggressively trying to quash the "clone" industry for which the ATX Form Factor was all about. IBM's refusal to wholeheartedly embrace the ATX Form Factor is a major reason their PC division failed and they had to sell it off to Lenovo who immediately migrated to ATX.

 

[Retrorockit]

I see we now have a thread completely about ATX computers.
Bill your argument about the almighty comsumer makes about as much sense as saying that Chrysler K cars are better than Porsches because more people bought them.
You should change your name to Mr. OTX. Expert on all things OT.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Gee whiz. Still can't let it go huh?

Bill your argument about the almighty comsumer makes about as much sense as saying that Chrysler K cars are better than Porsches because more people bought them.

That's total nonsense on so many fronts, its really pathetic. As is the thought you dredge up this dormant thread (again!!!) just to trollishly criticize another. And you accuse me of running it OT?

Your analogy is so inapplicable, it makes no sense at all.

(1) BTX was intended to "replace" the ATX industry "standard". A standard all manufacturers willingly agree to comply with. A standard designed to accommodate interchanging components regardless the manufacturer so the consumer can be assured voltages, connectors, screw holes, and physical dimensions of the components will all be compatible.

(2) The Porsche was never intended to "replace" the K cars. Porsche parts were never intended to go in K-cars, or the other way around. And car makers have never got together, willingly or otherwise, to develop a "standard" for interchanging parts. Ford parts are not compatible with GM parts. Never have been and likely never will be.

Let it go!

 

[EarthDog]

Gentlemen...let's stick to the subject and move on. No more of this back and forth... a point was made multiple times previously but both sides can't seem to let it go. Move along guys!

 

[EugenMezei]

Quiet. I enjoy the silence.

The flea market seller accepted my low offer and so I have a Dell Optiplex 745 now. Did know nothing about BTX before, but guess what, it sits next to my i5 and that one almost got retired. I prefer starting the Dell.

Performance wise it is nothing to write home about, but after dropping in a Q6700, 8 GB of RAM and an NVS 440 graphics card (just for the reason to connect 4 monitors) all bought on the cheap it does exactly what I need.

Running the i5 (ATX tower) I can work all day for hours, yes. But I noticed the noise gets me tired.
I had AT and ATX computers and the fans were always a problem. Sooner than later the tiny fans on the CPU and the GPU, often on the PS become loud. Changing them is not difficult, but when the computer ist crammed away and not easily accessible, I am too lazy.
For sure I prefer a single big fan running at low rpm and doing this noiseless for decades.


Now that I got the taste of BTX (my Optiplex 745 is practically not to hear) I am looking for a somewhat better model.
Priorities are 1. Silent up to not audible 2. Cheap.
Than in the following order:
- it should accept as much memory as possible. 8 GB are fine for now (and I already have it in the 745) but 16 or even 32 or over would be nice in the future. DDR2 or DDR3, no matter. DDR3 will come cheaper, I guess.
- I will accept Core2 processors, preferably the faster ones, but i3-i5 or even i7 will be nicer (if still on a budget)
- two PCI-e slot at x16 will be also nice, just so I still can use my 4 monitors
- aditional x1 or/and x4 PCI-e slots
- 2 PCI slots (or FW integrated)
Tower or minitower is ok. Rather no small format factor.

What would you recommend?

 

[Bill_Bright]

I had AT and ATX computers and the fans were always a problem.

I understand the fans with the AT boxes being a problem because 80mm fans were pretty standard and they had to spin fast (and most loudly) to keep the innards cool.

But ATX has nothing to do with fan noise. Neither does BTX. I've got an Antec ATX case with a 200mm "Big Boy" fan on top that barely spins but moves massive amounts of air in total silence. And my computers sit on or near the floor so a top mounted fan would be pretty close to my ears.

And of course, the fact a case is BTX or ATX has nothing to do with the computer's performance.

As for your BTX priorities, none of them have to do with BTX. This is especially true when it comes to the amount of memory - which is all about the motherboard.

A "mini" tower may not support 5 slots. I would look for "mid" tower.

Quietness will depend on which fans are in there and whether the case has any sound deadening features.

What would you recommend?

As far as I know nobody makes BTX cases anymore. So I recommend a good ATX case. I like Fractal Design and don't hesitate to recommend them. If I were building a new computer for me today, I would get the Fractal Design Define R6 without hesitation.

If you are really stuck on BTX consider this - unless you can find one currently in production, it likely will not support USB 3.x. That may not be important to you today, but it might in the future. It also may not support fans larger than 120mm. While you can get some quiet 120mm fans, 140mm fans tend to be quieter.

 

[EugenMezei]

Me: I want an apple.
Bill: I recommend you a pear.

 

[Retrorockit]

4.32GHZ BTX

I finally got back to overclocking these things. I fired up a Dell XPS 420 just to test some 4GB DDR2 800 modules I had to see if they were low density Dell compatable.
One thing led to another and it ended up with a QX9650 @4.32Ghz, 12GB DDR2 800, GTX1060 6GB.
The hard part was making a custom BTX air cooling setup to handle this. No aftermarket parts available.
I've only tested it outdoors in 90*F. Florida weather, and the fan at stock PWM speeds. There may be more in it.
The Dell T3400 workstation is the same thing except with dual GPO support. Throttlestop 6.00 and SetFSB both work on these. There is probably a 400fsb pinmod coming also.
Photos and screen shots post#946,947 here.
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...cking-desktop-pcs.235975/page-38#post-4320486

For Optiplex 745 QX6800SLACP can go 3.73GHz with Throttlestop 6.00
For other Opti 755,760,780 E7500 333fsb tapemod to 3.67GHz
Opti 380 can handle X5470 Xeon swap and 8GB DDR3 1066 low density RAM.
for Optis AFC1512DG 150x50mm fan fits. Coolers D9729, and T9303 work.
For the mid tower TJ258 is the good stock cooler. getting the big fan on one is a project.
TJ258 heatsink with 8mm heatpipes. Then splice the front of an Optiplex cooling shroud to match the big fan

 

[fastvan67]

Hello Guys! I know this is waking the dead, but...

A friend just gave me his old XPS720. Victim of a lighting strike.
I was considering going back with the same board but noticed some talk about the BTX boards. So I read the whole discussion about the BTX here. So is there an agreement on what exactly IS the best i7 compatible BTX board?

 

[Retrorockit]

Hello Guys! I know this is waking the dead, but...

A friend just gave me his old XPS720. Victim of a lighting strike.
I was considering going back with the same board but noticed some talk about the BTX boards. So I read the whole discussion about the BTX here. So is there an agreement on what exactly IS the best i7 compatible BTX board?

BTX was intended to allow Pentium 4 single core, and Pentium D 2 core CPUs to run at speeds up to 4Ghz stock. The Core2 architecture made those instantly obsolete. BTX hung around for the rest of the LGA775 era. But when the memory controller went onto the CPU with the i series chips it no longer served any purpose. So BTX is exclusively LGA775. There are workstations, office computers, and a couple OEM gaming rigs that used it. But no aftermarket support to speak of. No way to update them to newer CPUs.