I was just curious if MT could provide some input on why they are having the miniPCI cards slots, hanging off the board (ie RB 133, 192, 333) vs RB 112,532 153 where the card is “on top” of the circuit board.
My guess is that the “PRO” is greater heat dissipation (for cards AND board), while the “CON” is it takes up more space/surface area.
I’m certainly not complaining (i have a 133+SR9 is 110+ heat roof, constant load 4meg, runs AWESOME), just curious.
ive never heard or read of heat issues with MT stuff, am I wrong?
“Cost” is a major factor in high volume low-cost boards.
Putting the mPCI slots hanging over the edge allows smaller board size, which saves money
Some other boards put the mPCI slots inboard, often over other chips (CPU, ethernet controllers), which isn’t always good from a heat point-of-view as you note - heat + heat = localised heat rise. So MT scores there.
My biggest concern is the “triple-stack” connector on some of the newer boards, I’d like to see some field-results for Nstreme2 or P2MP with adjaccent channel performance/interference rejection. The triple-stack is amazingly space-efficient, just would like to see the effects on RF performance.
Anyone who has the chance to try it, please do post a report -
… I too share this concern, (actually my only…). The proximity of the cards to each other has me a bit skeptic about any isolation stats; also the “high performance” cards being produced now utilize heatsinks and one heatsink being stacked upon another is not the grandest of ideas.
Im itching to change out a few of my 532’s in favor of the 333’s but am not at all comfortable with 3 600mw cards blasting at full power seperated just mm’s apart. As stephenpatrick mentioned, the sooner someone can post a report on the isolation stats the better it would be for us all as im sure there are others that share my dubiousness in this matter.