If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendation - mostly 2D
Building a new system around an Asus P4C800E. It will mostly be used for 2D
work, ranging from text to Photoshop, to the occasional (??) game. On most of the systems I've built to date I've used Matrox boards, largely for the high-quality 2D performance and general stability. However, on recent systems the Matrox and Asus boards do not necessarily play nicely together in certain graphics modes. Bottom line - for general purpose use, but very high quality and stability 2D (NOT high-performance, high-end gaming), what board(s) out there would you all recommend? I'm leaning toward considering an Asus board for possibly better compatibility. For this system, I'd like to keep the price to a max of about $150 (Web price, OEM or retail). Any recommendations appreciated. Thanks. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I've used,
Matrox G400 Voodoo5 Nvidia 5200 ATI 9100 and now an ATI 9600 PRO AIW. So I would say to get an ATI 9600 PRO or even an 9600 XT "ke" wrote in message news Building a new system around an Asus P4C800E. It will mostly be used for 2D work, ranging from text to Photoshop, to the occasional (??) game. On most of the systems I've built to date I've used Matrox boards, largely for the high-quality 2D performance and general stability. However, on recent systems the Matrox and Asus boards do not necessarily play nicely together in certain graphics modes. Bottom line - for general purpose use, but very high quality and stability 2D (NOT high-performance, high-end gaming), what board(s) out there would you all recommend? I'm leaning toward considering an Asus board for possibly better compatibility. For this system, I'd like to keep the price to a max of about $150 (Web price, OEM or retail). Any recommendations appreciated. Thanks. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Building a new system around an Asus P4C800E. It will mostly be used for 2D work, ranging from text to Photoshop, to the occasional (??) game. Doesn't sound worth doing to me. If you are not a gamer, why go to an expensive mobo? I've got Gigabyte integrated mobos ( run around $45 to $65 ) that are really stable running AutoCAD, Solidworks, and Office, and they are holding up well. The Intel Application Accelerator that comes with those boards, make booting and loading of apps quick, and the integrated graphics runs most OpenGL games very well. They are good little workhorses, and very affordable. A fully integrated board like that, has been tested completely, and tends to be bug free. On the ones I'm using, I can install Linux Redhat 9 without a hitch and all functions working and stable. Now that is a test of reliability if there ever was one, because RH 9 is a joke regards compatibility with most hardware. I've had dual boot with WinXP up and running for months without RH crashing and burning. Think about it :-) johns |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
johns wrote:
Building a new system around an Asus P4C800E. It will mostly be used for 2D work, ranging from text to Photoshop, to the occasional (??) game. Doesn't sound worth doing to me. If you are not a gamer, why go to an expensive mobo? One word: Photoshop. I've got Gigabyte integrated mobos ( run around $45 to $65 ) that are really stable running AutoCAD, Solidworks, and Office, and they are holding up well. The Intel Application Accelerator that comes with those boards, make booting and loading of apps quick, Intel Application Accelerator is just a replacement ATA driver with extra buffer cache -- you can do the same with third party utilities, or even better[1] by setting Windows to do aggressive ("server") caching. Extra RAM-eaters is NOT what you want if you run Photoshop, cause you want all the memory to be available to PS to do its own caching. Oh, and besides that, IAA is incompatible with a whole bunch of programs, including (but not limited to) Veritas/Stomp BackupMyPC, various packet writing software for CDs/DVDs and ejectable harddrives. [1]: For one thing, Windows FS caching will release the memory when it's needed for other things. Regards, -- *Art |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 09:42:43 -0400, "Arthur Hagen"
wrote: | johns wrote: | Building a new system around an Asus P4C800E. It will mostly be | used for 2D work, ranging from text to Photoshop, to the occasional | (??) game. | | Doesn't sound worth doing to me. If you are not a gamer, | why go to an expensive mobo? | | One word: Photoshop. | | I've got Gigabyte integrated | mobos ( run around $45 to $65 ) that are really stable running | AutoCAD, Solidworks, and Office, and they are holding up | well. The Intel Application Accelerator that comes with those | boards, make booting and loading of apps quick, | | Intel Application Accelerator is just a replacement ATA driver with extra | buffer cache -- you can do the same with third party utilities, or even | better[1] by setting Windows to do aggressive ("server") caching. Extra | RAM-eaters is NOT what you want if you run Photoshop, cause you want all the | memory to be available to PS to do its own caching. | Oh, and besides that, IAA is incompatible with a whole bunch of programs, | including (but not limited to) Veritas/Stomp BackupMyPC, various packet | writing software for CDs/DVDs and ejectable harddrives. IAA is also incompatible with Intel's 865 and 875 series of chipsets. Larc §§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Larc" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 09:42:43 -0400, "Arthur Hagen" wrote: | johns wrote: | Building a new system around an Asus P4C800E. It will mostly be | used for 2D work, ranging from text to Photoshop, to the occasional | (??) game. | | Doesn't sound worth doing to me. If you are not a gamer, | why go to an expensive mobo? | | One word: Photoshop. | | I've got Gigabyte integrated | mobos ( run around $45 to $65 ) that are really stable running | AutoCAD, Solidworks, and Office, and they are holding up | well. The Intel Application Accelerator that comes with those | boards, make booting and loading of apps quick, | | Intel Application Accelerator is just a replacement ATA driver with extra | buffer cache -- you can do the same with third party utilities, or even | better[1] by setting Windows to do aggressive ("server") caching. Extra | RAM-eaters is NOT what you want if you run Photoshop, cause you want all the | memory to be available to PS to do its own caching. | Oh, and besides that, IAA is incompatible with a whole bunch of programs, | including (but not limited to) Veritas/Stomp BackupMyPC, various packet | writing software for CDs/DVDs and ejectable harddrives. IAA is also incompatible with Intel's 865 and 875 series of chipsets. Not true. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Get a P650 and do all the stuff that Matrox's TS says and then it works for
2D. I'm running two P4C800E Deluxes(1016)(XP, W2K3) with P650s. "ke" wrote in message news Building a new system around an Asus P4C800E. It will mostly be used for 2D work, ranging from text to Photoshop, to the occasional (??) game. On most of the systems I've built to date I've used Matrox boards, largely for the high-quality 2D performance and general stability. However, on recent systems the Matrox and Asus boards do not necessarily play nicely together in certain graphics modes. Bottom line - for general purpose use, but very high quality and stability 2D (NOT high-performance, high-end gaming), what board(s) out there would you all recommend? I'm leaning toward considering an Asus board for possibly better compatibility. For this system, I'd like to keep the price to a max of about $150 (Web price, OEM or retail). Any recommendations appreciated. Thanks. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Reaugh wrote:
"Larc" wrote in message ... IAA is also incompatible with Intel's 865 and 875 series of chipsets. Not true. You can't just make a statement like "Not true" without qualifying it -- you make yourself look like an idiot. For i865/875 with a plain ICH5, or with an ICH5R without running RAID, there's no compatible IAA. There's something called "Intel Application Accelerator Raid Edition" for i865/875+ICH5R with RAID 0 or 1, but that's just Intel's RAID driver with a new name, and has nothing to do with IAA as discussed here. -- *Art |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 02:36:19 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
wrote: | IAA is also incompatible with Intel's 865 and 875 series of chipsets. | | Not true. You can check at Intel for yourself: http://www.intel.com/support/chipset.../CS-009312.htm Included on this page listing chipsets IAA supports is the following statement: Note: The Intel Application Accelerator is not compatible with the Intel® 875P, 865G/P/PE, 852/855 GM/GME, 855MP, 848P, 815EM chipset, the Intel® 440 chipset family, or any earlier Intel chipsets. Larc §§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Kind of where I was leaning (Matrox 650). But I wanted to get some input to
assess whether it made any sense to consider an Asus video board, in the (unfounded) hope that there would be more seamless compatibility with the Asus P4C800. I've been using older Matrox boards (400, 450, 550) with Asus mobos, with generally solid results, but recently built a system around a P4C533 and a Matrox 550 that experienced a hard crash (full power down) whenever WMP 9 was used to view a video. (realPlayer handles the same video with no issues). Never solved the issue, regardless of drivers used, etc. This and other little annoyances led me to look at options other than the Matrox 650 before plunking down the $. Thanks for the input. "Ron Reaugh" wrote in message ... Get a P650 and do all the stuff that Matrox's TS says and then it works for 2D. I'm running two P4C800E Deluxes(1016)(XP, W2K3) with P650s. "ke" wrote in message news Building a new system around an Asus P4C800E. It will mostly be used for 2D work, ranging from text to Photoshop, to the occasional (??) game. On most of the systems I've built to date I've used Matrox boards, largely for the high-quality 2D performance and general stability. However, on recent systems the Matrox and Asus boards do not necessarily play nicely together in certain graphics modes. Bottom line - for general purpose use, but very high quality and stability 2D (NOT high-performance, high-end gaming), what board(s) out there would you all recommend? I'm leaning toward considering an Asus board for possibly better compatibility. For this system, I'd like to keep the price to a max of about $150 (Web price, OEM or retail). Any recommendations appreciated. Thanks. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Recommendation for USB Hub | Petre Huile | General | 0 | April 19th 04 02:02 AM |
Mistakenly got a A7V8X-X instead of an A7N8X-X - also need cooling recommendation. | Hupjack | Asus Motherboards | 4 | April 3rd 04 08:46 AM |
Mistakenly got a A7V8X-X instead of an A7N8X-X - also need cooling recommendation. | Hupjack | Homebuilt PC's | 3 | April 2nd 04 02:51 AM |
Video card recommendation for Asus A7n8x-E Deluxe | Someone | Asus Motherboards | 1 | January 25th 04 12:45 PM |
1st time builder need recommendation | unbekannt | Homebuilt PC's | 15 | September 1st 03 04:15 AM |