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
|
|||
|
|||
ASROCK versus ASUS
Piotr Makley wrote:
Asrock and Asus motherboards are both made by Asustek. So what is the main difference between them? I am told that Asrock is a cheaper range so is one range positoned to be cheap and the other to be more expensive but with more features? Or do both ranges aim at broadly the same market but one is built better than the other? Any info welcome. Asrock *is* the budget range, they usually have less choice of options and slightly less expensive components (From what I gather). It is Asustek's attempt at getting a slice of the budget/OEM market without compromising the name of their Asus range. Seiko did something similar years back, with a difference. They bought out the 'Pulsar' brand of watches which are internally identical to the Seiko range but sell for about 40% less. (A great buy BTW, I have a 10-year old Pulsar that I wear in the shower, swimming-pool etc. and it's running perfectly). Seiko found themselves in a situation where they could produce their product for a lot less than they were charging for it but didn't want their name associated with lower-priced product, they have a good reputation and people will pay a premium for a watch with "Seiko" on it. So they invented the Pulsar brand. (This was circa 1980) Wise people in the know who weren't overly image-conscious bought Pulsar and saved approximately 40% and got the exact same ultra-reliable watch. They're made in the same factory, they just go to a different 'finishing line' where they are fitted into either a Seiko or a Pulsar case. It's not quite the same with Asus /Asrock, they use different components/features on their Asrock range but the example holds true. Not wanting to diminish the name of their premium range in the eye of the consumer. -- ~misfit~ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Piotr Makley wrote:
Asrock and Asus motherboards are both made by Asustek. So what is the main difference between them? I am told that Asrock is a cheaper range so is one range positoned to be cheap and the other to be more expensive but with more features? Or do both ranges aim at broadly the same market but one is built better than the other? Only worked with one ASRock board I can recall and don't know how much it cost but I thought the Asus P4BGV-MX I fitted into a machine recently, one of the cheapest integrated S478 boards around (less than £40 delivered), was a better board. Don't know if that's representative of the range in general. -- iv Paul iv |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Hopwood" wrote in message ... Piotr Makley wrote: Asrock and Asus motherboards are both made by Asustek. So what is the main difference between them? I am told that Asrock is a cheaper range so is one range positoned to be cheap and the other to be more expensive but with more features? Or do both ranges aim at broadly the same market but one is built better than the other? Only worked with one ASRock board I can recall and don't know how much it cost but I thought the Asus P4BGV-MX I fitted into a machine recently, one of the cheapest integrated S478 boards around (less than £40 delivered), was a better board. Don't know if that's representative of the range in general. -- iv Paul iv Nothing but good things to say for Asus P3 and P4 boards but I found the few Socket A boards to be very problematic. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.648 / Virus Database: 415 - Release Date: 31/03/2004 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Piotr Makley wrote:
"~misfit~" wrote: Wise people in the know who weren't overly image-conscious bought Pulsar and saved approximately 40% and got the exact same ultra-reliable watch. They're made in the same factory, they just go to a different 'finishing line' where they are fitted into either a Seiko or a Pulsar case. But what about quality control? Is that different? No, not at all. I happened to be in a jewellers shop when a Seiko/Pulsar rep was there, just as they bought out the Pulsar brand. He was explaining it to the shop owner. The internals come off the same production-line, go through the same QT, and are then diverted to either the Seiko or Pulsar 'finishing' line (for fitting into cases), depending on demand. As I said, my Pulsar hasn't given me a moments trouble in the 10 years I've had it. I told a guy who owned a Seiko (that he paid heaps more for) about it and he didn't believe me until I showed him that they have the same 'double wave' logo on the back (both watches are 100m water resist). -- ~misfit~ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Wow, haven't talked about pulsar watches in some time. I have a
Pulsar time computer. The last of the LED era. Red and emerald green readout, huge and pretty darn ugly ;^) but works like a charm. I have another that I haven't thought about for some time, it was a graduation present from my folks (circa 1976), you got me hunting for it now. "~misfit~" wrote in message ... Piotr Makley wrote: "~misfit~" wrote: Wise people in the know who weren't overly image-conscious bought Pulsar and saved approximately 40% and got the exact same ultra-reliable watch. They're made in the same factory, they just go to a different 'finishing line' where they are fitted into either a Seiko or a Pulsar case. But what about quality control? Is that different? No, not at all. I happened to be in a jewellers shop when a Seiko/Pulsar rep was there, just as they bought out the Pulsar brand. He was explaining it to the shop owner. The internals come off the same production-line, go through the same QT, and are then diverted to either the Seiko or Pulsar 'finishing' line (for fitting into cases), depending on demand. As I said, my Pulsar hasn't given me a moments trouble in the 10 years I've had it. I told a guy who owned a Seiko (that he paid heaps more for) about it and he didn't believe me until I showed him that they have the same 'double wave' logo on the back (both watches are 100m water resist). -- ~misfit~ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
JAD wrote:
Wow, haven't talked about pulsar watches in some time. I have a Pulsar time computer. The last of the LED era. Red and emerald green readout, huge and pretty darn ugly ;^) but works like a charm. I have another that I haven't thought about for some time, it was a graduation present from my folks (circa 1976), you got me hunting for it now. Good watches. Although I'm not sure if Seiko owned them all along or bought them as an outlet for their 'off-brand' watches. I once had an LED watch, you had to push a button for the time display to light up. It was like a monolithic lump of stainless steel on a stainless steel band with a couple of buttons on the side and a small blank window in it that lit up with the display when you pushed a button. It must have weighed 200g. I liked it, wish I still had it (although reading the time was a two-handed job). Then LCDs got cheaper and LED watches disappeared AFAIK. I bought mine in about '76 too, man it was high-tech. g. -- ~misfit~ "~misfit~" wrote in message ... Piotr Makley wrote: "~misfit~" wrote: Wise people in the know who weren't overly image-conscious bought Pulsar and saved approximately 40% and got the exact same ultra-reliable watch. They're made in the same factory, they just go to a different 'finishing line' where they are fitted into either a Seiko or a Pulsar case. But what about quality control? Is that different? No, not at all. I happened to be in a jewellers shop when a Seiko/Pulsar rep was there, just as they bought out the Pulsar brand. He was explaining it to the shop owner. The internals come off the same production-line, go through the same QT, and are then diverted to either the Seiko or Pulsar 'finishing' line (for fitting into cases), depending on demand. As I said, my Pulsar hasn't given me a moments trouble in the 10 years I've had it. I told a guy who owned a Seiko (that he paid heaps more for) about it and he didn't believe me until I showed him that they have the same 'double wave' logo on the back (both watches are 100m water resist). -- ~misfit~ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
SNIP
" I am told that Asrock is a cheaper range " I have to agree with that. In a number of years of building The Asrock is the only boards I Have ever had a failure on (and I have used some crap). Not a catastrophic failure I may add, rear usb ports died. However I bought it thinking it was a quality item. I forget the model, was one of these maplin bundles that at the time seemed like a great deal. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Piotr Makley" wrote in message ... Asrock and Asus motherboards are both made by Asustek. So what is the main difference between them? I am told that Asrock is a cheaper range so is one range positoned to be cheap and the other to be more expensive but with more features? Or do both ranges aim at broadly the same market but one is built better than the other? I've seen somewhere that Asrock was a Chinese daughter company of Astek intended to allow Asus to compete with companies like Elite eo in the motherboard entry market. So recently I decided to purchase my first Asrock P4VT8, where the box mentioned plenty of nice features, all at a very nice price. When installing however, I discovered a lot of "anomalies". Some examples: - the board has 2 SATA connectors, but drivers have to be loaded from diskettes at initial setup in order to recognize SATA drives; - when shutting down the computer, power is still delivered to on-board USB connectors, resulting in USB devices (6 in 1 card readers, for ex)with leds always on; - the board crashes randomly (up to 3 - 4 times a day); - the temp and voltage reports of the board are wrong: cpu temp is mostly at 72°C (although feeling cold), -12 V is reported -0.17 V, and so on. - there is no dual channel DDR available (but I must say dual-channel is not mentioned on the box); - installation of windows 2000 worked normally, but install of Win XP was totally impossible (Win setup freezes early, at "press F6 to load additional disk drivers"). This could have been an isolated single bad experience, but I did some search on the net and encountered a lot of idenditical or similar experiences. I always loved Asus and installed many of those boards for P3 and P4 without any problem. My first trial with Asrock was a total failure and I even couldn' t get valuable support. I soon replaced the P4VT8 by an Asus P4P800 (price difference is not that big), and all problems above disappeared. This was my first and last Asrock !!! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Piotr Makley" wrote in message ... Asrock and Asus motherboards are both made by Asustek. So what is the main difference between them? I am told that Asrock is a cheaper range so is one range positoned to be cheap and the other to be more expensive but with more features? Or do both ranges aim at broadly the same market but one is built better than the other? Any info welcome. I have used quite a number of ASRock boards for socket "A" builds. (Haven't built too many P4 based systems recently and where I have these have needed a top of the range mobo with all the accessories) K7S8X for several months, FSB up to 333MHz and more recently the K7S8XE which does 400MHz FSB. Also the K7VM2 where a uATX board is needed with o/b VGA. All models are basic in that they have minimum bells and whistles. The Phoenix bios offers little scope for overclockers. Don't expect a manual which tells you how to build a computer and set every bios setting. There is however a cool video on the driver cd of some attractive Asian female telling you how to build your PC, not too informative for the experienced builder, but fun to watch. She struggles with her English pronunciations a bit. That said, all the ASRock boards I've used have behaved very well and have performed flawlessly. Rather like their sales literature ........ Solid as a rock ......ASRock Compared to PChips, Elite or ECS and Syntax etc. these boards come at a budget price without the budget bugs. AAAA+ recommended. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"ElJerid" wrote in message ... "Piotr Makley" wrote in message ... Asrock and Asus motherboards are both made by Asustek. So what is the main difference between them? I am told that Asrock is a cheaper range so is one range positoned to be cheap and the other to be more expensive but with more features? Or do both ranges aim at broadly the same market but one is built better than the other? I've seen somewhere that Asrock was a Chinese daughter company of Astek intended to allow Asus to compete with companies like Elite eo in the motherboard entry market. So recently I decided to purchase my first Asrock P4VT8, where the box mentioned plenty of nice features, all at a very nice price. When installing however, I discovered a lot of "anomalies". Some examples: - the board has 2 SATA connectors, but drivers have to be loaded from diskettes at initial setup in order to recognize SATA drives; Isn't this a condition of Windows rather than the motherboard? AFAIK, Windows XP, and obviously older versions, requires drivers to be loaded prior to installing. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ASUS K8V Deluxe - Motherboard | Andre | General | 2 | October 13th 04 01:46 AM |
ASROCK versus ASUS | Grebo | General | 36 | April 17th 04 05:52 PM |
ASROCK versus ASUS | Grebo | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | April 4th 04 10:44 PM |
Motherboard Monitor versus Asus Probe | HPLeft | Overclocking AMD Processors | 5 | March 18th 04 10:41 PM |
ASUS ASRock M266A Mother Board | Frank_G | Homebuilt PC's | 2 | February 28th 04 01:36 PM |