| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 43473 | 2004-03-16 02:12:00 | Conexant modem chipsets | rmcb (164) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 222821 | 2004-03-16 02:12:00 | Can anyone tell me the difference between hcf & hsf Conexant chipsets???. Which is best for low end computers? Cheers |
rmcb (164) | ||
| 222822 | 2004-03-16 03:46:00 | I think that hcf are controllerles, and hfs are softmodems which depend on software to become operational. I have just been having issues with my hfs, and trying to get it running on linux. Dont realy know what to recommend for low end but any pci should do. |
jupi8 (4244) | ||
| 222823 | 2004-03-16 03:55:00 | HSP = Host Signal Processor HCF = Host Controlled Family HSF = Host Signal Family e.g all flavours of a similar (but not identical) theme. All can be dogs at times as well. What is a "low end system"? All these need a reasonable amount of grunt from the CPU. |
godfather (25) | ||
| 222824 | 2004-03-16 04:48:00 | HCF are FAR superior to HSF. Definately go for HCF. |
Dragonslayer (512) | ||
| 222825 | 2004-03-16 07:05:00 | May I ask how and why?? Thanks |
rmcb (164) | ||
| 222826 | 2004-03-16 10:38:00 | With HCF more of the modem work is still done in hardware so it has lower CPU usage. The HSF modems are done completely (as much as possible) in software so they use more CPU. If the computer is > 300Mhz it won't make much difference. From my experience I've had more trouble with HCF modems. |
bmason (508) | ||
| 222827 | 2004-03-16 21:21:00 | Thanks for the help guys....... How does the intel/ambient ham chip compare then?? |
rmcb (164) | ||
| 1 | |||||