Motherboard for P4.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 22:20:47 +0100, Tim Auton
tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY] wrote:

VIA is often very unstable. Very bad reputation.

AMD is often very unstable. Very bad reputation.
(were you deliberately trying to sound like an idiot?) -Dave

No idiot. Only know things.

Oooh, can i read your paper on the subject? How large was your sample?

No comments to some people.

"Ken" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:11:05 -0400, "Dave C." wrote:

VIA is often very unstable. Very bad reputation.

No idiot. Only know things.
And never use AMD processors.


Whoa. I can't believe what I'm seeing. ONE GUY posts "via is often very
unstable", and then tops it off with "never use AMD processors". If you're
not a troll, I'd be tempted to killfile you. Only problem is, if I killfile
you, you'll still be spewing such garbage to folks in this ng who don't know
better. Get a clue, or ask for help. Don't post absolutes that are
misleading at best and FALSE at worst. -Dave (would gladly put a
self-built via chipset AMD processor system up against any system, in any
kind of test you can imagine . . . but then I do know a LITTLE about
hardware)

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:32:09 -0400, "Dave C." wrote:

Whoa. I can't believe what I'm seeing. ONE GUY posts "via is often very
unstable", and then tops it off with "never use AMD processors". If you're
not a troll, I'd be tempted to killfile you. Only problem is, if I killfile
you, you'll still be spewing such garbage to folks in this ng who don't know
better. Get a clue, or ask for help. Don't post absolutes that are
misleading at best and FALSE at worst. -Dave (would gladly put a
self-built via chipset AMD processor system up against any system, in any
kind of test you can imagine . . . but then I do know a LITTLE about
hardware)

You are now in my killfile.

Ken wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:32:09 -0400, "Dave C." wrote:

Whoa. I can't believe what I'm seeing. ONE GUY posts "via is often very
unstable", and then tops it off with "never use AMD processors". If you're
not a troll, I'd be tempted to killfile you. Only problem is, if I killfile
you, you'll still be spewing such garbage to folks in this ng who don't know
better. Get a clue, or ask for help. Don't post absolutes that are
misleading at best and FALSE at worst. -Dave (would gladly put a
self-built via chipset AMD processor system up against any system, in any
kind of test you can imagine . . . but then I do know a LITTLE about
hardware)

You are now in my killfile.

ROTFLMAO

I expect I'll be joining Dave soon. I just hope my poxy AMD system
(NF2) doesn't bomb out on me before I get to see the post. Of course
that's assuming the AMD + VIA system on the other side of the desk
doesn't blow up and kill everyone in the house first.


Tim
--
Google is not the only search engine.

JK wrote:

The XP2500+ is okay for some tasks,but it doesn't have SSE2
and an on chip memory controller that the Athlon 64 has. Take a
look at this review.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=1

The Athlon 64 3200+ is only around $210 now for the retail box with
heatsink.

I don't think this review has much to say about the Athlon 64 3200+
or the socket 754 processors. In fact it says:

"As a result, almost since its launch, enthusiasts have been waiting
for Socket 939 to bring dual channel memory to the Athlon 64 line..."

A P4/800 system e.g. Northwood can already use dual channel memory.

The dual channel of the P4 is relatively slow though since the
memory controller is not on the chip. Look at the actual benchmarks
comparing the two. The article has benchmarks for both socket
754 and socket 939 Athlon 64 chips.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=1



Johannes H Andersen wrote:

JK wrote:

The XP2500+ is okay for some tasks,but it doesn't have SSE2
and an on chip memory controller that the Athlon 64 has. Take a
look at this review.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=1

The Athlon 64 3200+ is only around $210 now for the retail box with
heatsink.

I don't think this review has much to say about the Athlon 64 3200+
or the socket 754 processors. In fact it says:

"As a result, almost since its launch, enthusiasts have been waiting
for Socket 939 to bring dual channel memory to the Athlon 64 line..."

A P4/800 system e.g. Northwood can already use dual channel memory.

"Dave C." wrote:


VIA is often very unstable. Very bad reputation.


AMD is often very unstable.

Do you have any statistical evidence of that? I doubt that you
could provide any.One can build an ustable system with an Intel
processor or with an AMD processor if they don't know what they
are doing.

Very bad reputation. (were you deliberately
trying to sound like an idiot?) -Dave

Dave C. wrote:
"maggot" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:38:28 -0400, "Dave C." wrote:


Why? You got something against incredibly high 3DMark scores in an
extremely stable system? -Dave

Bad history with VIA, That's how you lose customers. Anandtech
recommends the Epox 8KDA3+ which is Nforce3 250gb chipset.

And that's not a bad recommendation. It doesn't necessarily mean
that one is better than the other, though. I see outrageous claims
all the time like "AMD SUCKS" or "AMD ROCKS" or "VIA SUCKS". Claims
like that are clearly based on ignorance. For the most part, AMD is
usually a better deal than Intel, but I'm open-minded enough to build
Intel if it's a better value for what I'm trying to accomplish. Same
with via . . . I know there are better chipsets available, but that
doesn't necessarily mean there is anything wrong with via. My own
primary system is an nforce2, but I just built a via chipset system
for a friend of mine, and I'm tempted to steal it. It's THAT good.
Nobody is doing anybody any favors by steering them away from via.
Any system you build with via will work great, as long as you don't
make the common errors that many builders make, such as cheap power
supply, no-name RAM, etc. In short, if you don't like via, learn to
build a good system. If you don't learn to build a good system, don't
blame the chipset (or the CPU or the video card or the ???) for your
problems. -Dave

How utterly arrogant of you. I, like maggot, dislike VIA chipsets. I hold
this opinion through several years experience of building quite a few
computers, for myself, family, friends and friends of family/friends. I have
used chipsets from Intel, VIA, nVidia, SIS and Ali, probably more too. I
*know* how to build a good system (I don't want them coming back with
problems if I can aviod it) and one of the first rules of building a good
system for performance is 'Don't use a VIA chipset board'.

Oh sure, you can get them running stably and reliably if you know what
you're doing but you won't get the full potential performance out of your
CPU/peripherals. I keep a book detailing all the builds I do and benchmark
results from a battery of benchmarks for each build. I have used the same
CPU in several different mobo's. For a while I went through a
'data-gathering' phase, building and re-building systems with differing
combinations of hardware. I have never seen a VIA chipset board out-perform
a non-VIA board. Ever. In fact the general trend, going from my data
gathered over several years and close to a hundred systems is that VIA
boards tend to run between 5% and 20% slower than competing boards. I no
longer build systems on VIA boards unless the person I'm building for
absolutely insists or comes to me with the parts.

Hardware is my hobby and my passion. I overclock all my own systems. Here's
an example for you from my records:

Celeron Tualatin 1.4Ghz on Gigabyte/VIA board:

100FSB (1.4Ghz) 87.3 CPU Mark 99 marks
110FSB (1.54Ghz) 98.6 marks
115FSB (1.61Ghz) 105 marks.

Same CPU in an MSI/Intel 440BX board (with adapter):

100FSB 110 marks
110FSB 118 marks
115FSB 127 marks

(All settings tested extensively with Prime95 for stability)

That last build is how I left it, it's one of my SETI boxes, been running
perfectly 24/7 for a while now. Incidently it benchmarks almost identically
to an XP2000+/VIA chipset build I did (under duress) a short while ago.

Wanna buy the VIA board? It's sitting on a shelf, along with three other VIA
boards. One of which was in own system, I bought it at a PC builder's
liquidation auction, which I replaced with an nForce board. (I wonder if the
fact that they used VIA boards almost exclusively had anything to do with
them going into liquidation?)
--
~misfit~

JK wrote:

The dual channel of the P4 is relatively slow though since the
memory controller is not on the chip. Look at the actual benchmarks
comparing the two. The article has benchmarks for both socket
754 and socket 939 Athlon 64 chips.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=1

So?

The dual channel memory 2xDDR400 for the P4 matches the fsb = 800 MHz,
this is the optimal situation.

JK wrote:

"Dave C." wrote:


VIA is often very unstable. Very bad reputation.


AMD is often very unstable.

Do you have any statistical evidence of that? I doubt that you
could provide any.One can build an ustable system with an Intel
processor or with an AMD processor if they don't know what they
are doing.

And one can build a stable cost effective system with an Intel and
possibly with an AMD.