Motherboard for P4.

"Courseyauto" wrote in message
...
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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------

If you throw out the FX 55 which is not even available yet,the intel CPU's
show
up quite a bit better in the benchmarks. DOUG

Sure, if the intel is running 3.6 GHz

I've read a lot of benchmarks, and on most of the.
Intel vs Fx53 Tests.

On most tests, the FX53 beats the normal P4 3.4 GHz
It also dosn't fail to keep up with the P4 EE.
When doing a Video encoding test, and I know these
tests to be right, cause I've had this thing up, and over 3.3 GHz from 2.6
Hands down, without a problem, the P4 beats the FX53
But on most cases, not by a lot.
The few daul channel 754's that are out there, use an Intel chip to run it.
My Asus A7N8X has Intel chips for it's dual channel memory.
But dual channel mode won't run if you put the memory in slots 1 & 2
It will if you put the ram in slots 1 & 3

Hm, ..
My FX 5200 Card.
The difference between my P4 running 3 GHz & my AMD XP 2200+
The 2200+ is running 2700+ @ 2.18 GHz (2.187) not far from 2.19
Sorry man, my point.
It's hard to say, when I put the 5200 in this system, I get very close
to the same marks on 3DMark 03 I would have to say 5 - 10 %
That's all I get between my two systems, it's really not worth the
Extra $$ just to get a P4

Denny.

Dave C. wrote:
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


Funny. -Dave

Hi Guys -- I'm the original poster, it's all my fault... Crikeee, I had
no idea you hardware guys got so emotional about the relative pros and
cons of chips and boards! Thanks for the debate, it's been informative and
educational... and I'll be careful where I tread in the overclock /
homebuild groups I don't want to end up in anyone's killfile. ;-)

MS

If you throw out the FX 55 which is not even available yet,the intel CPU's
show
up quite a bit better in the benchmarks. DOUG

Sure, if the intel is running 3.6 GHz

I've read a lot of benchmarks, and on most of the.
Intel vs Fx53 Tests.

On most tests, the FX53 beats the normal P4 3.4 GHz
It also dosn't fail to keep up with the P4 EE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------

Are you looking at the same review i am? The Intel 3.4 EE beat the FX 53
940 and 939 pin in almost all the tests shown. The 940 FX is better than the
939 because of the bigger cache,the EE is better than the std P4 because of the
huge cache. But then again what can you believe that Anandtech says nowadys
anyway,using an AMD which is not even available,no tellin what Intel will have
when the FX 55 is available. Im not pro AMD or Intel,i have both.. DOUG

"Courseyauto" wrote in message
...
If you throw out the FX 55 which is not even available yet,the intel
CPU's
show
up quite a bit better in the benchmarks. DOUG

Sure, if the intel is running 3.6 GHz

I've read a lot of benchmarks, and on most of the.
Intel vs Fx53 Tests.

On most tests, the FX53 beats the normal P4 3.4 GHz
It also dosn't fail to keep up with the P4 EE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------

Are you looking at the same review i am? The Intel 3.4 EE beat the FX
53
940 and 939 pin in almost all the tests shown. The 940 FX is better than
the
939 because of the bigger cache,the EE is better than the std P4 because
of the
huge cache. But then again what can you believe that Anandtech says
nowadys
anyway,using an AMD which is not even available,no tellin what Intel will
have
when the FX 55 is available. Im not pro AMD or Intel,i have both.. DOUG
Huh, Did I mis~type something here? "It also dosn't fail to keep up with the
P4 EE."
Keep up, I didn't say beat the P4 EE.
And with the right board, you can get dual channel memory.

Sorry to put this in the same reply, I've had VIA chipsets before.
There ok, I guess. But a few of them seemed a little,,, what's the word I'm
looking for.
Finicky, my amd slot a board had a VIA chipset on it, not saying I didn't
like my slot a.
But sometimes it wanted to be funny, hm, you don't want this board in this
pci slot.
Or some other dumb problems I had with it.
I should add here, it was a windows thing. It would be found in bios, but
windows
sometimes didn't want to see a card just because of where it was...
The joys of only having Win98Se back then.
The other thing is it's an Aopen board, of which I heard some bad things
about them too.
But I had no problems. My Pentium 200 board had a SIS chipset, but I
never had any real
problems with that either, why bring that up? Cause some1 told me back then
that a SIS chipset
was not a good chipset.
What's my point with all this bull sh*t?
No chipset is really a bad chipset. I do agree, that for an AMD system, an
Nvidia chipset is about the best.


Getting back to the AMD 64 thing here.
I talked to a certified AMD dealer, of which, got a FX58 Prototype.
AMD sent it to him to test, and keep if he wanted to.
I don't remember stock speed for sure, but I know it's somewhere around 3.2
or 3.4 GHz.
I do remember he runs his at 5.2,, at least I think I remember that
right.
I'd like to see the bench marks on it just @ stock speed.
Yeah well..
And,,,
I like both AMD and Intel too.
Systems,,, AMD 2200+ running 2700+ 2.18 GHz (Tbred b core)
Asus board..
Intel P4C 2.6 running 3.0 GHz
Gigabyte board.
Denny. ;-)

David Maynard wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:

As I said, I've never met a VIA board I've been happy with. Maybe
I've just missed the good ones?

Oh, lordy. I sure as heck ain't gonna say anything is 'good' at THIS
stage of the conversation. LOL

LOL indeed.

Have a good weekend David.
--
~misfit~

Dave C. wrote:

(snip)

I dare to post facts rather than opinions, and that makes me arrogant
somehow?

No, this makes you arrogant:

"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."
--
~misfit~

~misfit~ wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

~misfit~ wrote:

As I said, I've never met a VIA board I've been happy with. Maybe
I've just missed the good ones?

Oh, lordy. I sure as heck ain't gonna say anything is 'good' at THIS
stage of the conversation. LOL


LOL indeed.

Have a good weekend David.

Thanks. You too.

~misfit~

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:10:04 -0400, "Dave C." wrote:


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


I had an AMD761 chipset mb and the only flaky part on it was the VIA
USB controller. As I said, bad history loses customers. Lots of bad
history of VIA parts can be found on the web. Once
bitten...yadda...yadda.

Woger MKII @wogerbox.co.nz wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 11:36:02 +0100, Steve Pearce
* wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:45:04 GMT, MS
wrote:

Hi,

Having had such great replies about which processor to buy, now is my
chance to ask about which motherboard.

I've decided to get a Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott CPU, but my
supplier (who will be doing the actual system build) has loads of P4
motherboards. I've narrowed it down to these 9.


I've used a Gigabyte GA-8IPE1000g with that processor with good
results, the "pro" version should be just as good.



Gigabyte MoBo's do not let you overclock at all, or support faster Memory
go
for a Abit..


Huh? I have an 8IG1000 Pro board, I've had it up to 3.36 GHz on water.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dstrausser33/

Denny. :-)

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 12:17:34 +1200, "~misfit~"
wrote:


No, this makes you arrogant:

"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."

Yea, he likes to make *ass*umptions about others. VIA has a bad
history and only a dumbass would choose a VIA chipset over the 865 and
875 chipsets for a P4 build.