Intel MINI-ITX board - D201GLYL & D201GLY

[Pez Are Yummy]

Whenever I set this board to a resolution of 800x480 my monitor shows it as 800x600 and cuts off 100 pixels from the top and bottom (Like a letter box movie) Has anyone encountered this?

Edit:

After some playing around I set the resolution to 800x480 in windows and pressed reset, after this it displayed in full screen. However, when displaying this image



The lines are scewed, indicating that the resolution isn't quite right. When I press the menu button on my 7" lilliput it says 640x480. However, when I open my roadrunner skin which is set to open at 800x480 it opens to full screen (when i open it at a resolution that is larger than 800x480 it still opens at 800x480 and is not fullscreen)

I'm at a bit of a loss as to where to search next for a solution, searching in both google and this forum doesn't turn up any further information, so if there is someone out there that is smarter than me I'd sure appreciate some help.

[upspace]

my experience so far

psu

pico 120 psu runs perfect for this board. pico 60 would also be sufficient but the problem is that the 12v rail is not having enough amperes during power up (2ampsX12=24 watts) and therefore does not boot.

overall power consumption is around 35w for motherboard in idle state and 4w for usb hub (with gps mouse, external hard disk, dvb-t receiver and seperate antenna, wifi stick, touchscreen and usb keyboard, plus dvd usb drive in idle mode).

cpu increase to 100% and dvd usage / spinning does not take much more power and goes up to total 45-47w measured from the carnetix dc-dc regulator but before pico psu, i.e. including the (in)efficiency of a psu (which is really small for pico), excluding the loss from the carnetix dc-dc regulator (which is expected to be little as well).

intel d201gly, pico and carnetix (23something with usb monitoring) is the perfect combo for car-pc. go and get it! believe me i tried several other combos (dell laptop was second best) as well and this is the best price/power/efficiency/functionality combo at the moment. unfortunately the pico and carnetix cost each as the motherboard itself but those are devices specifically designed for efficiency and car-pc usage and therefore the higher prices are okay. they are crucial for a working car-pc environment and safe you a lot of frustration (dead battery, bridging gap taking fuel when engine is off etc.)

only boot/splash screen time could be better. still do not understand why it takes 10 seconds from power on the psu till windows de-hibernation. laptop does this in 1 sec or below. there must be some memory or initialization checks you cannot disable in bios settings. intel when do you provide us with new bios?

[Tensai]

Did you measure power consumption per voltage rail? I.e, You mention that the peak draw was 45-47W. Can you tell us how much current was being pulled on the 12V line vs. the 5V line?

If not, no problem. I'm just curious.

[jmbickham]

And now there is a new version out... D201GLY2. CPU is now Celeron 220, fanless heatsink (from the pics) and biggest difference is... 2 SATA connectors onboard. http://www.intel.com/products/mother...GLY2/index.htm

Damn it... and I just got mine (original version) 1.5 weeks ago... At least I got a great deal on it.


On another note... has anyone replaced the CPU heatsink/fan? If so... what did you use? I'd like to get something lower profile, but this one is hard to work with...

[Tensai]

At buy.com its only an $8 difference. If you use Google checkout you can get the D201GLY for $51, and the D201GLY2 for $59 with free shipping. I bought the D201 about a month ago, but at that price, I might just buy the GLY2 anyway and build a HTPC out of it.

[jmbickham]

Actually I got it at buy.com with Google checkout...

I meant I bought if for a good deal there only 1-2 weeks ago. If I had known about ver 2.0, I would have just spent the extra few $$ and bought that instead.


Back on the heatsink note... this looks like an option...
http://shop.intel.com/shop/product.a...d=116&pindex=1

hmm... nmaybe not...


Logic Supply says that this will work, but it doesn't look like it to me...
http://www.logicsupply.com/products/epiahsfan

[dsbaruuuuu]

is the d201gly2 out yet?? no one has a listing or can tell me if it has even been released yet buy.com say not in stock...sata and 1.2G fanless or pata and 1.33 with fan??

[upspace]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tensai

Did you measure power consumption per voltage rail? I.e, You mention that the peak draw was 45-47W. Can you tell us how much current was being pulled on the 12V line vs. the 5V line?

If not, no problem. I'm just curious.

peak draw was provided to 12v pico (which converts to seperate 12 and 5 rails).

to the overall power consumption

battery draw about 42-43 watts
12v pico: 35-36 watts
5v usb hub, dvd, antennas etc.: 4 watts

this gives around 40 watts in total for the system compared to 43 watts from battery taken - or an efficiency of about 93-95%!

see, the efficiency of psu and dc-dc regulators is key. who cares about cpu wattage if you loose all the savings with a badly psu again. and it also keeps things cool(er)

[makman]

I want to get this board but I have a few questions I would like to clear up. Hopefully someone can answer these from experience.

1. Can StreetDeck be run with the Intel D201GLY board? (or is there someway to trick it into thinking that DirectX 9 is installed)

2. Will the integrated graphics support 640x480 resolution?


For the power consumption of the board itself:

Check the Intel boad notes from their website (section 2.5). The power consuption can range anywhere from 45W to 175W. Obviously those numbers are specific to what is plugged into your board and how hard the processor is working. Just remember Power = V*I!! Each USB port can draw up to 2.5W if whatever is plugged in is pulling the full 500mA.

[TruckinMP3]

Any chance the store here will get version 2 of this board?

[Lithoss]

Looks like version 2 with the celeron 220 processor is actually slower than the 215.
this is all i could find:
220: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...icroprocessors
and then for 215: http://processorfinder.intel.com/Det...px?sSpec=SLA4L

from those two pages 220 -> 1.2 ghz while 215 -> 1.33ghz
i guess thats why they can go fanless?
im not sure what would be best for carpc performance; that extra .13 ghz or sata?

[makman]

Quoting www.xtreview.com:

"On 21 October Intel company will present new processor for use in mini-ITX motherboards . It is known to us by the name Celeron 220 (1.2 GHz). This processor has the lower frequency and equal cache volume in the second level (512 KB) , this processor has lower TDP in comparison with preceding celeron 215 (1.33 GHz).

We succeeded in learning, that this nonconformity is caused by the passage of processor to Conroe- L core. Let us recall that Celeron 215 (1.33 GHz) was based on mobile core yonah, and it do not support 64-bit expansions. The TDP level of this processor was equal to 27 W. Passage to the desktop core Conroe- L will allow not only the 64- bit expansions support , but also will lower level TDP to 19 W. It is understandable that increase in speed will occur, in spite of reduction in the frequency from 1.33 GHz to 1.2 GHz.

The processor celeron 220 (1.2 GHz) will be more expensive than its predecessor by four dollars, since its wholesale price is equal to $58. If we considers that this processor will be used in intel D201GLY2 motherboard on base of chipset SiS 662, whose retail price will not exceed $90-100 (cost of processor is included on), addition in price can distress potential buyers. However, increase in speed and 64-bit applications compensate in certain degree the price increase. "

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-35...leron-220.html

[Lithoss]

Quote: Originally Posted by makman

Quoting www.xtreview.com:

"On 21 October Intel company will present new processor for use in mini-ITX motherboards . It is known to us by the name Celeron 220 (1.2 GHz). This processor has the lower frequency and equal cache volume in the second level (512 KB) , this processor has lower TDP in comparison with preceding celeron 215 (1.33 GHz).

We succeeded in learning, that this nonconformity is caused by the passage of processor to Conroe- L core. Let us recall that Celeron 215 (1.33 GHz) was based on mobile core yonah, and it do not support 64-bit expansions. The TDP level of this processor was equal to 27 W. Passage to the desktop core Conroe- L will allow not only the 64- bit expansions support , but also will lower level TDP to 19 W. It is understandable that increase in speed will occur, in spite of reduction in the frequency from 1.33 GHz to 1.2 GHz.

The processor celeron 220 (1.2 GHz) will be more expensive than its predecessor by four dollars, since its wholesale price is equal to $58. If we considers that this processor will be used in intel D201GLY2 motherboard on base of chipset SiS 662, whose retail price will not exceed $90-100 (cost of processor is included on), addition in price can distress potential buyers. However, increase in speed and 64-bit applications compensate in certain degree the price increase. "

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-35...leron-220.html

Cool, that makes sense. Thanks

Why does buy.com have it for $68? where is this $90-100 coming from?

[jmbickham]

64-bit? I suppose that industrial applications and such would make use of 64-bit processing, but CarPCs, HTPC and other home/consumer applications won't have much use for 64-bit processing at this time. As a matter of fact, wouldn't most applications where you would want/could make use of 64-bit processing require much more processing power both CPU-wise and video-wise than this board...?

Either way... the addition of SATA is nice.

[Tensai]

Its just the same 64-bit extensions that every other new chip has had for the past 3 years. In other words, you could, if you wanted to, install Vista x64, or XP x64 and expect half the hardware to work faster or slower, and half the hardware not to work at all.

Or.. you could still just install the 32 bit versions and it'll function just like the non-64 bit extended version. Just slightly faster/cooler as explained in makman's post.