backtop

Hardware BTX: Now With 24% Adoption Rate
Kristopher Kubicki (Blog) - June 17, 2006 1:23 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 32 comment(s) - last by WhoBeDaPlaya.. on Jun 26 at 10:52 AM

Intel's two year BTX adoption forecast
Remember BTX? It's more prevalent than you might think

On November 15, 2004, Intel officially announced the launch of BTX with the promise the new form factor would provide a scalable efficient motherboard layout design while reducing overall costs. 18 months later Intel put out an internal forecast detailing the adoption rate forecasts for Balanced Technology Extended form factor, or BTX.

Intel's forecast for BTX on Intel-based PCs is set at 36% by the end of next year.  Intel already projects the adoption rate of BTX for the first half of 2006 to be at 24%.  The answer for this is very simple, simple builders are using BTX and en masse.  The channel availability of retail BTX motherboards does not even register on Intel's 1H'06 forecast, but the document does claim BTX will account for 5% of new system DIY builds by the end of this year using retail and channel components. 

The same BTX adoption forecast puts system builder adoption of BTX as high as 21% for Intel-based PCs.  92% of Dell desktops, 98% Gateway Intel desktops, and 65% of Lenovo desktops are using BTX form factors.  The document goes on to detail that HP is also adopting BTX for its Intel PC lineup; the company's business BTX line will launch later this year while the consumer Intel PC line has differed the BTX conversion decision until 2007.   Regardless, three of the top four US system builders are using BTX at least in majority.

Although 24% seems a tad high for the BTX adoption rate, it's no secret that channel sales of BTX are less than spectacular.  There are four flavors of BTX: BTX, MicroBTX, NanoBTX and PicoBTX.  The BTX form factor allows for smaller BTX motherboards to be compatible with chassis designed for larger flavors; thus a NanoBTX motherboard is compatible with a MicroBTX chassis.  However, with slow adoption on large BTX cases, almost all motherboards geared for the retail channel are PicoBTX. This assures compatibility with the most cases, but in effect also assures that any new channel BTX motherboards will have only the most basic of features.  Unfortunately, when compared with mature FlexATX and MicroATX motherboards, PicoBTX falls short on features and maturity.

Along with ATX, BTX has another format competitor: proprietary design.  Intel does not only accept proprietary designs, the company actually encourages them for projects like the Mobile on DeskTop (MODT) initiative.  Intel's documentation claims custom designed motherboards are limited to only the smallest of PCs, and should not compete with PicoBTX.  However there is virtually no advantage for a motherboard manufacturer like Shuttle or Biostar to adopt BTX over a custom design for a SFF -- assuring the non-standard designs from ever entering the retail marketplace.

There is one thing that is very clear for 2007: there will be no Intel-branded SFF motherboards if we are to believe internal Intel roadmaps.  Since the majority of motherboard manufacturers use Intel reference designs to engineer channel motherboards, without ATX reference designs many may simply adopt BTX only.

BTX is still a chicken-egg problem. There are a few BTX supporting chassis, but channel motherboards are relatively modest and offer virtually no advantage over ATX designs at this point.  The system builders have been quick to adopt BTX, which accounts for such a high adoption forecast.  Unfortunately, with a rift between OEM and channel adoption, motherboard manufacturers are forced down two separate design paths -- a cost us consumers later burden.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
AMDs fault
By Nexworks on 6/17/2006 2:02:48 PM , Rating: 2
I blame the slow retail adoption of BTX on AMD. If it werent for them and their "our chips arent as hot as Intels so we dont need no stinkin new form factor" attitude we probably wouldnt be stuck these days with ultra hot video cards that are upside down.

Anyone whos played with a new Dell system can attest to how cool and quiet their systems are thanks to the BTX design with 1 large fan cooling both CPU and case. Who would have thought that we would see the day when Dell systems are the cutting edge and custom built rigs are stuck with the "old and busted" ATX design. Sigh. Bring on Conroe Intel so we can stick it to AMD!




RE: AMDs fault
By Falloutboy on 6/17/2006 2:15:37 PM , Rating: 1
its not about they don't need it (well they don't) but its more of a problem of because AMD has an on die mem controller it makes it problemmatic to build a BTX form factor a64 motherboard. and if they did it would be much more expensive because I beleave it would force them to more layers on the PCB not a huge issue wuth the build it yourself crowd since we tend to spend some good money on a board. but at the OEM level is more of a problem because every dollar there counts when making a cheap system.


RE: AMDs fault
By MDE on 6/17/2006 3:56:28 PM , Rating: 3
Gateway is already selling BTX based AMD desktops. Walk into Best Buy and probably every Gateway desktop is BTX.


RE: AMDs fault
By stmok on 6/18/2006 12:09:30 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
by Falloutboy on June 17, 2006 at 2:15 PM

its not about they don't need it (well they don't) but its more of a problem of because AMD has an on die mem controller it makes it problemmatic to build a BTX form factor a64 motherboard. and if they did it would be much more expensive because I beleave it would force them to more layers on the PCB not a huge issue wuth the build it yourself crowd since we tend to spend some good money on a board. but at the OEM level is more of a problem because every dollar there counts when making a cheap system.


You sir, are full of it.

This has nothing to do with AMD. There have been BTX mobos for AMD CPUs for quite a while now. Maybe you should give Google.com a try.

The main reason for the slow adoption is because of the manufacturers in Taiwan. All their tooling and manufacturing capability has been matured for ATX. Do you know how much it costs in both time and money to convert from one standard to another? You cannot do it with a click of your fingers. It'll take years.

When ATX was introduced, that was a necessity. There were so many variations of the AT standard, it wasn't funny. Not all mobos fit in perfectly with AT cases. It became a fustrating exercise. (I guess many people here are too young to know what using AT form factor was like).

But BTX is a different story. Everyone knows BTX is one of those band-aid technologies that was aimed to help deal with the P4's thermal issues as speed scaled higher. (as in an Intel only problem). The reluctance to accept BTX with open arms becomes obvious. Its cheaper for Intel to promote a standard than it is to figure out ways to solve the thermal issues of an inefficient CPU. Essentially, BTX was shifting the thermal problem to the mobo and case manufacturers. (You could view BTX as a "pass the buck" standard).

Now that the Core 2 is coming, it seems a bit pointless in this respect. (Its thermal footprint is MUCH LOWER than the P4 class of CPUs). And as it matures and more cores get slapped in, the problem of thermal issues will eventually reappear, no matter the form factor.

Aside from that, BTX doesn't offer major advantages. As in, the reasons Intel uses to promote for the change isn't great enough for manufacturers to be eager to dive in.

Sure, BTX may eventually become the next standard, but it doesn't seem all that worth it when the existing standard does fine. Need a small solution? Use Mini-ITX form factor.

Yes, this standard was started by VIA, but its backward compatible with ATX, and there are mobo solutions for both Intel and AMD CPUs, coming in this form. (Hell, Computex 2006 demonstrated many manufacturers adopting this standard quicker than BTX...Why? Because its ATX compatible. Manufacturers don't need to re-design and re-tool everything as they do for BTX).

This is a thing about standards...If you come up with something new, and its backward compatible, people will adopt this quicker than if it wasn't. No one wants to change, unless they really have to.


RE: AMDs fault
By josmala on 6/18/2006 1:43:55 AM , Rating: 2

But BTX is a different story. Everyone knows BTX is one of those band-aid technologies that was aimed to help deal with the P4's thermal issues as speed scaled higher. (as in an Intel only problem).

This is totally bull... BTX has other advantages that are even better with lower power CPU. Firstly BTX is design where Graphics cards fan, chipset fan, and CPU fan are all replaced with single large case fan. Getting the air in next to cpu and air out next to graphics card. Now with more efficient cooling also means that you can run the fan at lower speeds so you have quieter system also.


Its cheaper for Intel to promote a standard than it is to figure out ways to solve the thermal issues of an inefficient CPU. Essentially, BTX was shifting the thermal problem to the mobo and case manufacturers. (You could view BTX as a "pass the buck" standard).

This is false. You seem to be standard fan boy who doesn't realize that cpu design takes time. Core2 design specs was made about same time as BTX standard, so basicly intel KNEW that core2 was coming when they started BTX steam roll.
As for rolling out and designing and promoting standard being cheap it is definitely not. Here's interesting thing to point out, 3ghz core2 has thermal design power of 80W Several pentium 4 models have thermal design power of 76W .
You probably could clock core2 even higher and get TDP of 110W.
Got the point? For many cores if you can give it slightly more power and better cooling you can clock it higher. Do not fool yourself, if athlon FX surpasses Core2 extreme at somepoint the core2 extreme will have new version that has extreme cooling solutions.

Besides the BTX is not passing the buck, its intels design.


Sure, BTX may eventually become the next standard, but it doesn't seem all that worth it when the existing standard does fine. Need a small solution? Use Mini-ITX form factor.

I like the less fans for standard design. I like my computer being quiet, I actually spend 20% of my computers price for getting it quiet. If btx would become THE only standard for new stuff it would make getting quiet computer a lot cheaper and easier.


This is a thing about standards...If you come up with something new, and its backward compatible, people will adopt this quicker than if it wasn't. No one wants to change, unless they really have to.

DELL and several other OEMs seems to disagree, according to the article. Its probably because they can dictate what goes to their systems completely. If they get quiter systems with new form factor without any exotic and expensive cooling solutions they adapt it. If graphics card design assumes it goes for BTX case you can cool it with either large heatsing instead of fan, or small heatsink instead of large heatsink. Since the fan is already suplied by BTX case, its the same fan that cools the CPU. Sure I already own too good ATX case to go for BTX anytime soon, but next case I'm going to buy is BTX if possible.


RE: AMDs fault
By masher2 (blog) on 6/19/2006 11:42:39 AM , Rating: 3
> "BTX has other advantages that are even better with lower power CPU. "

Logically, a flawed statement. The advantage of BTX is cooling; the lower power chip, the less cooling it needs, and therefore the less advantageous any cooling improvement becomes.

> "Besides the BTX is not passing the buck, its intels design. "

I agree with the prior poster's assessment. BTX is a way for Intel to "pass the buck" on cpu cooling. It puts more of an onus on the case and case manufacturer than the ATX standard does. Thus-- quite obviously, to anyone but you-- there is less responsibility on the CPU manufacturer.

There are other problems with BTX as well. Sure its an improvement over ATX...but it gives the CPU central position in cooling. The graphics card(s) sit square in the waste heat from the CPU. But in a few years, graphics cards may be by far the largest heat source in a system...if you have an SLI rig now, they already are. Were I (or anyone but a CPU maker) to design a new case standard, I think I'd give the graphics subsystem at least equal billing.




RE: AMDs fault
By WhoBeDaPlaya on 6/26/2006 10:52:53 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure you'll enjoy having your vid card(s) get the sh*t cooked out of them :P


RE: AMDs fault
By Wolfpup on 6/19/2006 4:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
He's not full of it-I remember reading the exact same thing. The on-die memory controller makes it harder to place the RAM further from the CPU. Also of course there's less need as the Athlon 64 runs cooler than the Pentium 4.

(And plus AMD has no interest in pushing BTX one way or the other.)

So all around I think it's fair to say AMD has slowed BTX adoption rate.


RE: AMDs fault
By SkAiN on 6/23/2006 5:25:50 AM , Rating: 2
"its more of a problem of because AMD has an on die mem controller it makes it problemmatic to build a BTX"
Seriously, that's just outright lies and Intel fanboyism. Motherboard layout has NOTHING to do with the K8's on-die memory controller.

Get a clue before you post.

Stoopid fanboi


RE: AMDs fault
By killerroach on 6/17/2006 2:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
If I recall correctly, the BTX design isn't all that great considering the rise of powerful GPUs, that such a cooling design does not very efficiently cover them as well. So while it may be good for a cheap Dell system, it may not be the thing for everyone.


RE: AMDs fault
By ddopson on 6/17/2006 2:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
"cool and quiet" is all in how you put it together. My dell system gets pretty loud when the cpu fan spins up (on cpu load). My HP system on the other hand, is whisper quiet.


RE: AMDs fault
By Yawgm0th on 6/17/2006 5:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
AMD doesn't make its own motherboards or even its own chipsets anymore. It is not responsible for any form factors or the implementation of any form factors and never has been. AMD has absolutely no say in whether BTX is adopted. But you can think whatever your fanboy spirit tells you.


RE: AMDs fault
By Googer on 6/21/2006 11:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
AMD does have a prototype motherboard for BTX, but I am not sure if it has yet made it to production.


http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/editorial/display...


ATX vs BTX
By Zepper on 6/18/2006 5:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
There are quite a few cases out now that mount ATX mobos "upside down" for those with hot vid cards (a very small percentage of the case market). BTX is likely never to gain much percentage in the hobbyist/home builder market bucause that market is very price-sensitive and therefore buys the higher value CPU - AMD.

But the top techie/hobbyist case out there, the CM STC-T01 has an available BTX conversion kit. The 820 is the BTX version of the 810, and the 830 may also come in two models or have a conversion kit available.

.bh.




RE: ATX vs BTX
By hans007 on 6/18/2006 9:05:27 PM , Rating: 2
not with the conroes out.


amd is not going to be the better value forever.

and these are the exact same things people were saying when AT cases were phased out for atx.


RE: ATX vs BTX
By OrSin on 6/19/2006 1:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and these are the exact same things people were saying when AT cases were phased out for atx.


NO one ever said that. AT case sucks all around. The whole world was happy for the ATX standard. You must too young to rememebr. My dad was system builder and if he changes MB or case it was 50% shot it would not fit. I know I was in lab with him getting pissed at chappy designs since I was 12.

Truely the Intel creates a new standard that doesn't offer alot advanatage (disagree all you want) and wonder no one picks it up. For OEM its easy to see them go for it. Why Intel offer discounts on theier BTX design over thier ATX. Just $1 discount si all the OEM need to get on board. But you notice the retail makes just don't care about BTX. EVEN if ever OEM does 100% BTX if means nothing to retail. It not like you can swap out a OEM MB and put in a retail one (90% of time).


Fault??
By othercents on 6/19/2006 1:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
Great, people saying its AMD's fault for not accepting the standard and then others saying it is Intel's fault because their CPUs run too hot. Also I saw someone say it is the manufacturers fault for not retooling, but then someone said it wasn't because it cost too much to retool.

Ok lets get everything straightened out. AMD does not build motherboards or cases, so it is hard to say that it is there fault for not embrasing the standard especially since Intel and other motherboard manufacturers are still producing ATX motherboards.

BTX is a better standard than ATX. Is it the best standard with the heat being generated from video cards? Probably not, but I'm sure someone will come out with a new design that will help with this issue. Maybe even allowing video cards to pull air from the back of the case into the main air stream then it will flow back out of the case.

Manufacturers can retool at anytime. There isn't a major difference between the way they build ATX and BTX motherboards other than moving parts around on the board. How many new motherboards have come out this year? They would have had to resetup there manufacturing to produce those and they should have been able to change them over to BTX design. This is the same for Case manufacturers.

The why are the manufacturers still building ATX? This is simple. Supply and Demand. The DIY community doesn't see a need to move to BTX especially when ATX works just fine for them. Plus sticking with ATX means you don't have to relearn out how to build a machine. Most mom and pop shops don't really care if it is BTX or ATX as long as they can keep their costs down to compete. Many DIY are upgrading and since their old case was ATX they just stick with it. I did this many times in the past.

Personally I like to embrase standards as quickly as possible because it keeps me from having upgrade problems in the future. This is why I'm building AM2 machines because I want my customers to have a clear upgrade path especially if it will be as simple as a processor upgrade.

Other




RE: Fault??
By masher2 (blog) on 6/19/2006 2:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "BTX is a better standard than ATX"

Marginally so. The question is, is it worthwhile enough to switch. The whole point of defined standards is to prevent change without good reason....because a constant stream of small, incremental changes helps no one. When enough improvements can be bundled together to to make it worthwhile, the standard is updated, or supplanted entirely.

Do the benefits of BTX justify the change? Most people have doubts.

> "Personally I like to embrase standards as quickly as possible because it keeps me from having upgrade problems in the future. "

What happens when the new "standard" winds up dying out and never seeing widespread adoption? How about IBM's MCA bus architecture as an example...or Intel's Itanium, the new "standard" for high-performance servers. Or what about 1.0 standards that are flawed, and have to be upgraded before they're ever useful (*cough* Bluetooth)?

Quite often, buying into a standard early leads to more problems, not less.


RE: Fault??
By othercents on 6/20/2006 7:01:08 PM , Rating: 2
Better is better even if it is marginally, but what I have seen with the BTX machines is that the ambient temperature in the case is much cooler because of the increased airflow over the major components. The Intel BTX machines I have looked at have better ambient temperature than some of the AMD ATX cases. Also, Keep in mind the current ATX standard takes some of its design from the AT standard. AT was created around ISA slots where the video cards where facing up instead of down and when temperature wasn't a big issue. ATX design really didn't take into account temperature, but BTX does. There isn't really going to be a "perfect" solution to everything. If there was wouldn't that be the standard?

BTW I use Bluetooth all the time. The only components I have had problems with are the ones manufactured by Microsoft (tend not to follow the standard). Everything else has worked great and has done what I expected of them.

I haven't built an Itanium desktop yet for my customers and I doubt I ever will. There are some standards that don't even make it to the customer which procludes me from being able to use them at all. Keep in mind while Intel was pushing BTX they where also pushing PCI Express. I was telling people to get PCIe instead of AGP, but some of those people thought AGP would be around forever. These are also the same people who are buying new machines after 1 year because they can't get the video cards they want.

Other


dells are now quiet
By sprockkets on 6/17/2006 6:35:47 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, the old dell systems with prescotts are loud, but the new ones as of this year are all btx and quiet.

We would use BTX if there is motherboards for it, and coolers to go with it. You can't use a BTX system with a non BTX cooler.




RE: dells are now quiet
By Brainonska511 on 6/17/2006 7:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
It's not even just the lack of coolers (since Intel at least sells retail processors with BTX coolers in some cases). It is more of a lack of normal sized BTX boards and cases to go along with those boards.


RE: dells are now quiet
By AstroCreep on 6/19/2006 2:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
I did an eval on an Optiplex (newer BTX-style) and when running Prime95 to test system stabillity, the thing became very loud. Almost as loud as one of my 2u hp Proliants.


all party should try to adopt it
By rqle on 6/17/2006 5:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
all party should try to adopt it, it benefits all. AMD isnt that much cooler/ less wattage as it used to be unless they do a very quick super move to 65nm.
It now only about 15-30 watt difference on a normal mid-end 350 watt system and gets at little as 5-10watt on the AMD FX vs Intel EE.

Dont know why so many worry at 5-15 watt on high end system when NVIDIA follow by ATI are pumping out Dual this SLI that cards that makes the whole wattage save thing a joke.

I hope Nvidia and ATI will take this seriously like intel and amd.




By poohbear on 6/17/2006 11:14:05 PM , Rating: 2
the 3% of the enthusiast community that has SLI could care less about saving watts/power since they have money to burn to begin w/. It's like a guy dropping $300k on a Lamborghini, it doesnt matter at all if it burns gas cause the owner can more than afford it.


BTX and sweaty next-gen GPUs
By kilkennycat on 6/17/2006 11:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
Since the BTX design blasts hot air from the CPU into the video card airspace, tell me exactly how a BTX design will benefit a DX10-style GPU, or even any of the high-end DX9 GPUs such as X1900XTX and 7900GTX or 7950GX2 --- without mandatory water cooling of the GPU(s) ? The BTX design is totally CPU+memory-centric --- not surprising since it came from Intel, not exactly pushing the state-of-the-art in graphics silicon themselves and who care little about the environmental needs of peripherals manufacturers anyway. The next-gen top-end GPUs will probably dissipate up to twice the power of the next-gen CPUs, so we need an air-cooled motherboard/case design that takes full account of these facts. Eventually water/fluid-cooling might be the only viable alternative for extreme top-end gaming systems, but there are obvious ways that ATX could be easily modified to position the video card(s) further away from the CPU and genuinely in an air-circulation separate from those of the CPU and power-supply. For BTX there is no such hope.




RE: BTX and sweaty next-gen GPUs
By clementlim on 6/18/2006 3:05:20 AM , Rating: 2
If I recalled correctly from what I read months ago, BTX repositions many of the elements within the computer case, mainly the graphics cards, memory, cpu, etc. because of the new motherboard standards. Hence, the graphics cards in the future may be like what nVidia is currently using in their R&D labs: cpu-add-on type, you know, socket/pin type. So instead of changing the whole cards, you can just change the GPU socket. Memory for the graphics board may also be changed if necessary. Hence, the need of BTX - it changes the motherboard layout to enable a host of other evolution of the computer...well, according to what I read. Then again, my source may be full of s***...just thinking of sharing it. If I am wrong, well, guess I read some s*** then =P


SMALL SIZE is the #1 BTX advantage
By PeteRoy on 6/18/06, Rating: 0
By peternelson on 6/18/2006 2:31:12 PM , Rating: 2
microATX
mini-ITX
nano-ITX

How many small board alternatives do you want?


By hans007 on 6/18/2006 5:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
i actually have a btx machine with an antec bk640b.

it works fine. the cards are kept very cool.

sure if you have some insane graphics card its probably not going to work passively, but then again its still probably better than atx.

even though the air is going through the cpu first, its still probably maybe 40C when it comes out. thats still way way cooler than most GPUs heatsinks by a good 30C. so it still helps compared to atx with its card facing downward and no fan at all blowing at it.

its also quieter in general. and the case is a bit smaller (i hav ea micro btx).

and no amd is somewhat at fault there, because they do not release reference designs for it. foxconn i believe builds the gateway btx athlon boards, and they have to design it from scratch.




What total B.S !
By cornfedone on 6/17/06, Rating: -1
RE: What total B.S !
By Furen on 6/17/2006 11:50:53 PM , Rating: 2
Wow... I actually like BTX's way to manage airflow. Yes, it was probably the insane CPU heat that pushed Intel to design it, but there are quite a few benefits to the design.


RE: What total B.S !
By peternelson on 6/18/2006 2:27:52 PM , Rating: 2

Actually, Intel projected the Netburst architecture would scale to 10Ghz (but that's not important right now LOL).

Just because Dell and Gateway use it massively is not reason for us to use it. They were probably given big discounts to incentivise them to lead the way, and they don't often build exactly the kind of machine WE build.

Buying a case, I would see it as an advantage if it dualsupported ATX and BTX (for possible futureproofing, but if no easy choice an ATX only case will do fine.

The boards I want to buy and build around are ATX not the BTX ones.

BTX creates cooling problems for graphics.

IF you want to cool the cpu use heatpipes, use air ducting, use phase or water cooling. BTX is a solution looking for a problem.

I like ATX but would prefer the modification of it where there is straight through airflow through the psu not 90 degree bend.

And the cpu can have its own egress fan(s) airflow out the back above the i/o ports eg 2x80 or 1x120 quieter fan. I don't want a hot cpu sending hot air into my psu.

And "one fan for the whole system". That's great until your fan fails isn't it.

If they want to redesign a new standard, make it backward compatible, add support for redundant psu.

Even if BTX is 24%, ATX/miniITX must be the other 76%.

The laws of volume production and economies of scale mean that I will get better value by buying ATX. If BTX offered any real advantage to me I might consider switching, but I don't see any, and BTX boards are limited in availability in the market.



"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki