Why did you get your board?

[Grentarc]

I am just wondering, why people chose their motherboard and what brand it was

[SPEEDO]

I have a Asus P4T-E and I basically bought it because it was the only board that I could get locally that supported RDRAM..:D

It has been an excellant choice so far...;)

SPEEDO

[bob05]

I like FIC, haven't had one die on me. But there not very popular. Just cause there not popular doesn't mean they're not a good board...........:D

[Peter M]

Got my K7S5A because (a) I prefer (cost-)efficient mainboards with no stupid toys on and (b) because I needed a socket A board with 5 PCI slots, onboard LAN and sound, and SDRAM-or-DDR support.

(a) and (b) combined gave me no other choice. I'm happy with what I bought, and I have always been preferring PC-Chips/ECS gear for my customers too, ever since about midway into the socket-7 area. Never been let down.

regards, Peter

(I'd actually have to enter about 80 votes for ECS :))

[Praetorian]

I got both my Abit BH6 and FIC PA-2013 when I wasn't too heavily into computers, just needed to build a box. I can't remember my exact reason for getting those boards but I did. They've given me no problems though. Very stable boards. I now own an MSI K7T Turbo2 (powered by a 1.33ghz Athlon). The reason I bought this board was Linux compatability, new revision supports XP procs, and the price. $86 (with shipping) and I got a pretty good board. Again, very stable. Also I like the D-Bracket MSI includes with their boards, very helpful.

[Rugor]

AMD sent me a Gigabyte board with my Athlon XP processor, so that's what I am using.

The last socket A board we bought was an Epox 8KTA2+ with a Duron system, no problems with it.

[Lycia]

It was recommended to me by several shops, the MSI mobos...I'v eused them ever since in my own and customer's PCs...I woul dnot go with anything else, unless specifically asked...

[cuelebre]

Soyo Dragon+.
At the time (Dec 01) I was looking for the best XP board to fit my needs....and I did.

[otheos]

I voted for ECS/PCChips although only one out of my 3 boards is PCChips (810LMR). The others are the Epox 8KHA+ and the Tyan TigerMP.

However people tend to fall victims to marketing/hype and end up paying crazy amounts of money for overexaggerated performance differences. Blows and whistles like onboard "RAID" and fine tuning for max performance (2-5% better than others) do not justify 2x the price.
ECS/PCChips offers honnest products with solid performance and stability at a sensible price. If 2% makes up for 2x the price in your boot, be my guest :) Me, I just use the money for a faster CPU and better GFX :)

[smelanson]

I have a DFI CS62-TC and a MSI 6513VA(don't go near this one at all). MSI gave me a bad experience on the first board I bought from them, I have nothing against DFI though.

[asterias]

I bought my ECS K7AMA, because firstly it was cheap £45 and then offered me to upograde from my duron 850 all the way upto the latest XP chips. It also had onboard lan and sound and provision for sdr and ddr ram.

[chip55]

Hello
UMMM well...errr..I won an ebay auction...:o

be well
chip55:D

[Grentarc]

hehe... i like you reason chip55 ...

[deadkenny]

I got the ASUS CUSL2-C. It's an ASUS (reliable) using an Intel chipset (reliable) and it was about the best performance option for socket 370 at the time (supported 133MHz FSB, oooooo are you impressed?). Only thing I'm not too happy about is that Intel shafted it's loyal customers by making the Tualatin processor in such a way that it requires another stepping of the 815 chipset. Meaning, no one with the older boards could upgrade to the Tualatin. Somehow AMD manages to make their new processors compatible with existing chipsets (e.g. socket A) :rolleyes: Intel just didn't want to make it easy to upgrade to the Tualatin, because that would have made the P4 even less attractive than it already was.:mad:

[Peter M]

Yeah right ... the only reliable thing with Intel gear is that their upgradability promises are bull****, consistently nixed with the next CPU technology upgrade. It's been that way ever since 486DX2, and it's still happening all the time. We're on the 4th iteration of Pentium 4 technology already, each coming with major mainboard changes "required". Wake up to reality.

regards, Peter

[trvldr]

MSI - I tried ECS/PCChips and had issues, switched to MSI and no issues on my systems since. Also I tend to want to select my own cards and not get stuck with cheap on board give aways. In all things I believe it is better to buy quality as it will last and give you more than satisfactory results.:D

[germanjulian]

MSI K7T266 PRO2 RU
in a PC market in london yippy with my athlon and some ram

[STread96]

ECS K7S5A - for the options and stability it received in numerous reviews. Also, Fry's had a good deal on it and a XP 1700+.

My feeling on mobos is that must people tend to buy from manufactures that they have had good exeriences with. I have built ECS, FIC, ASUS, and Gigabyte boards. The only one I have had problems with is the ASUS, go figure. Find out what chipset you want and then buy a mobo according to the options the board has that you want, on-board sound, LAN, # of PCI slots, ect. My guess is that as long as you stay with name brand manufactures, you will be fine with which ever one you decide to buy.

[ukulele]

Ditto chip55's reply.

[deadkenny]

Originally posted by Peter Missel
Yeah right ... the only reliable thing with Intel gear is that their upgradability promises are bull****, consistently nixed with the next CPU technology upgrade. It's been that way ever since 486DX2, and it's still happening all the time. We're on the 4th iteration of Pentium 4 technology already, each coming with major mainboard changes "required". Wake up to reality.

regards, Peter

Well Peter, if you read my post all the way through, you'll see that I am 'awake' to Intel's 'marketing' strategies in this regard. However, I disagree with you if you're trying to say that Intel chipsets aren't reliable. They're fine as long as you can live with that fact that you'll have a limited upgrade path.

[Peter M]

Reliability is not a function of the chipset, let alone of the chipset brand. Everything together, mainboard design, choice of peripherals, case and cooling solution, thorough unit testing, that's what makes one system reliable and the other flaky.

Intel in fact screw up just as much as all the others when it comes to bugs in chipsets ...

regards, Peter

[Grentarc]

Oh, i forgot to mention what i have:
I own a PC-Chips (horrid board) M748LMRT, Abit KT7A-RAID, MSI 5184. I have built many machins with Asus, Gigabyte and PC-Chips... though i dont recomend the PC-Chips to many people

[Ankerson]

For my P4 motherboard I chose the Abit TH711 because of the reputation of the boards overclockability and it is a very stable motherboard. With the Intel 850 chipset and RAMBUS and built in support for the 133mhz FBS (P4B's and 1066 RDRAM) it is a good choice.

I have had My Abit VP6 (Dual Socket 370) for awhile and it is a proven stable platform for Dual CPU's. Rock solid. It has onboard IDE raid, but I don't use it, I use SCSI HD's.

[Ankerson]

Originally posted by Peter Missel
Reliability is not a function of the chipset, let alone of the chipset brand. Everything together, mainboard design, choice of peripherals, case and cooling solution, thorough unit testing, that's what makes one system reliable and the other flaky.

Intel in fact screw up just as much as all the others when it comes to bugs in chipsets ...

regards, Peter

Peter Missel,

You really should talk about something you know something about. You really don't have a clue what you are saying here and about motherboards and chipsets in general. If you did you wouldn't have posted your last 2 posts.

[Bullion]

I got a soltek board because i wanted the fastest yet reasnobly priced board i could find. The chipset can affect a systems overall performance by up to 25%. Soltek are fast and reasnobly priiced for thier speed.

[otheos]

Peter Missel, You really should talk about something you know something about. You really don't have a clue what you are saying here and about motherboards and chipsets in general. If you did you wouldn't have posted your last 2 posts.

HAHAHAHA,

now you went and done it mr Ankerson.:D

[Ankerson]

Originally posted by otheos


HAHAHAHA,

now you went and done it mr Ankerson.:D


otheos,

You may be correct, but it doesn't matter much.:D

[Peter M]

Yeah right ... you know, I'm a BIOS engineer, directly involved in mainboard design and development. You bet I do know what I'm talking about. (Everyone else here knows that, so I don't really care what you think.)

regards, Peter

[Ankerson]

Originally posted by Peter Missel
Yeah right ... you know, I'm a BIOS engineer, directly involved in mainboard design and development. You bet I do know what I'm talking about. (Everyone else here knows that, so I don't really care what you think.)

regards, Peter


Peter Missel,


Good for you.:)


It doesn't mean anything to me though. Big difference in Software and Hardware.

Programers and Hardware (Pc Techs) are worlds apart.

[Peter M]

You don't even know what BIOS engineers do ... so please stop wasting everybody's time and go kneel before your Intel shrine. But don't say "820" or else you might get struck by a bolt of marketing.

[Ankerson]

Originally posted by Peter Missel
You don't even know what BIOS engineers do ... so please stop wasting everybody's time and go kneel before your Intel shrine. But don't say "820" or else you might get struck by a bolt of marketing.



Peter Missel,

I do know what they do by the way, but that not the real issue. I hope you like you job and wish you good luck in the future.:D


The I820 chipset wasn't really that bad, Intel stepped on it with that one somewhat. They did fix it though and there are still thousands of motherboards out there in use today with that chipset.


I don't kneel at the Intel shrine by the way, as far as chipsets go.

I have had good luck with VIA, SIS, and Intel chipsets.

[bassman]

I own a MSI K7T Pro2. Got it because of it's CPU & memory support, plus some overclocking goodies, AGP4, smart construction and affordable price.

[Ankerson]

Originally posted by bassman
I own a MSI K7T Pro2. Got it because of it's CPU & memory support, plus some overclocking goodies, AGP4, smart construction and affordable price.


MSI makes nice boards, I used them alot for the AMD stuff and they work fine.

As long as you stick with the main brands, Intel, abit, asus, MSI, Iwill ETC you are fine most of the time.

It does pay to do research on the board before you buy it though.

[regrob]

:cool: Looks like i got the underdog,

Chaintech 6AJM



Two years old and nice and stable.





....Reg

[Rugor]

Ankerson

i820 was the best thing that ever happened to VIA. It provided no real improvement in performance (when coupled with RDRAM) at a vast increase in price.

The i820 SDRAM board was an unmitigated disaster, and paved the way for the 694X chipset from VIA that essentially made them a real force in the chipset market. Had Intel simply updated the BX chipset to allow true 133MHz FSB operation and added Ultra ATA 66 support VIA would have remained very much a niche player.

[Ankerson]

Originally posted by Rugor
Ankerson

i820 was the best thing that ever happened to VIA. It provided no real improvement in performance (when coupled with RDRAM) at a vast increase in price.

The i820 SDRAM board was an unmitigated disaster, and paved the way for the 694X chipset from VIA that essentially made them a real force in the chipset market. Had Intel simply updated the BX chipset to allow true 133MHz FSB operation and added Ultra ATA 66 support VIA would have remained very much a niche player.


Rugor,

I know :D

The P3's didn't really benifet from RDRAM like the P4 does.

RDRAM was new then and like everything that is new, it sometimes has issues.

Intel fixed it with the 815 chipset, 133fsb SDRAM.


The price of RAMBUS held back the Chipset more than anything else. RDRAM is the same price as DDR now so it is a mute issue today.

And we have the 850 and 850E chipsets :D

[Peter M]

The 815 in fact is just a quick duct tape over the gap left by 820, and has been derived from the 810 to fill the gap until the 830 was done.

820 wasn't the only screwup - 840 also didn't quite work (neither with RDRAM nor SDRAM), 850 has awful performance on the 32-bit PCI and no fix available (unlike VIA chipsets) or even planned.

Sure, CPU bound benchmarks look nice on 850, but once it gets to getting some actual I/O or streaming media work done, the shine is gone.

regards, Peter

[Ankerson]

Originally posted by Peter Missel
820 wasn't the only screwup - 840 also didn't quite work (neither with RDRAM nor SDRAM), 850 has awful performance on the 32-bit PCI and no fix available (unlike VIA chipsets) or even planned.

Sure, CPU bound benchmarks look nice on 850, but once it gets to getting some actual I/O or streaming media work done, the shine is gone.

regards, Peter


It has more to do with the whole system than just the PCI bus. I don't see that issue at all on my Abit TH711. No lag here at all.

[deadkenny]

Originally posted by Peter Missel
Reliability is not a function of the chipset, let alone of the chipset brand. Everything together, mainboard design, choice of peripherals, case and cooling solution, thorough unit testing, that's what makes one system reliable and the other flaky.

Intel in fact screw up just as much as all the others when it comes to bugs in chipsets ...

regards, Peter

Yes, everything together will determine whether or not a system is reliable or not. The motherboard / chipset are key components. Thus a system with a reliable mobo/chipset will not necessarily be reliable solely because of it. But a system with an unreliable one will definitely NOT be reliable. I don't know how you can say reliability is not a function of the chipset / mobo then. It's not a function SOLELY of the mobo/chipset, but that's definitely one of the factors that enters into the equation. That was the point of my original post, I chose a chipset and mobo manufacturer known for reliability. That reduces the chances of problems by reducing the risk of a questionable chipset / mobo manufacturer. Obviously the system would still not be reliable if the memory or video card was messed up. Is it your opinion that I would not have noticed a difference if I had gotten an ECS board using a Via chipset?

By your other comments I gather you are not a fan of Intel. Fine, that's your opinion. In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, Intel still makes the best chipsets. Sure, they've had their misses. And I detest some of Intel's marketing decisions as much if not more than anyone else. But that doesn't change the fact that they come out with some top notch products. Yes, the 820 chipset was a bone-headed move from start to finish. It just smacks of a marketing decision. I wouldn't be surprized if some Intel engineer pointed out beforehand that the PIII couldn't properly utilize the bandwidth of RDRAM and the increased latency would result in worse performance than SDRAM in many apps. Probably got pushed through anyway by some marketing exec, who might have even been an engineer himself at one point, before he mutated into the hideous marketing exec that he is today. Anyway, stupid decision, Intel paid for it and Via benefited (by coming out with the 133MHz FSB socket 370 chipset that Intel should have come out with themselves in the first place)

What that proves to me is that Intel doesn't control things by marketing, but by delivering good products. If they come out with a poor product, people won't buy it at the end of the day and someone else will come out with what people want. IMHO Intel has done nothing but help AMD over the past year by pushing their P4 and keeping down their own Tualatin, which would have been better competition for the AthlonXP than the sub 2GHz Willamette P4 was.

BTW, glad to see what was threatening to become a flame war has settled down in to an interesting debate. Keep up the good work! :)

[Peter M]

Read what you quoted, I said the mainboard design does of course contribute to having a stable system! What I said is that the generic assumption that buying something with an Intel chipset gets you a stable system is wrong. No more no less.

Mainboard designers who know their stuff will produce stable product, those that don't won't. ECS for example know their stuff pretty well, their cost savings come from two things: keeping the boards simple, and producing huge numbers. Cutting corners in engineering increases manufacturing cost, which is the last thing a mass manufacturer like ECS can afford.

Then of course there's always chipset bugs. Intel isn't immune to these, the number or severeness of issues is no better and no worse than with the other chipset vendors. They take their three or four silicon revisions until the chips are right, just like everyone else does.

Me not being a fan of Intel ... this isn't quite true. During the day, I get a pretty deep insight into this topic - and I came to the conclusion that the extra money forked out for Intel gear isn't justified by what you get. That's why I don't buy or recommend theirs as a private person, but yes of course, if you choose well designed product using Intel chipsets, you'll be OK as well, maybe somewhat poorer than necessary, but OK.
Intel's marketing muscle (especially toward dealers and distributors) is a major factor in keeping that high price concept (and the quality perception that has to go with it) alive. E.g. the "Intel inside" logo program forks out substantial advertizing subsidy $$$ to dealers and store chains, but only if they keep non-Intel systems out of their ads, else no money.
regards, Peter

[deadkenny]

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but you do appear to be reaffirming a believe that chipset / motherboard manufacturer doesn't matter. So, do you really believe that there's no noticable difference between and ECS board with a Via chipset and an ASUS board with an Intel chipset other than the price? If so, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. (BTW, I don't mean to single out ECS as being especially bad or anything, maybe I should have said PC Chips to make my point).

[Peter M]

deadkennedy, you do know that ECS and PC-Chips are one and the same company, don't you? Even most of the boards are identical. The only difference is packaging - PC-Chips is the outlet business for anonymized OEM gear, while the ECS brand leans more to the retail side of things.

ASUS boards are more expensive because they (a) have the ASUS name on (see above for marketing and perception), and (b) because they usually have lots of more or less useful extras on while ECS boards don't. If you don't need any overclocking toys, RAID controllers, or sophisticated sound solutions, then yes, you will absolutely have good results with ECS boards.

After losing a lot of market share to ECS/PC-Chips, especially in high volume OEM business, ASUS have woken up to the "simple and cheap" board approach, and all of a sudden they do produce no-nonsense boards that aren't much more expensive than ECS's - and, surprise surprise, use cost effective chipsets from SiS. Just read this week's news.

All this turn your main point upside down - do you think a "high quality" manufacturer (in your perception) like ASUS would risk their reputation by using some cheap and (again, in your perception) "unstable" SiS chipset?

regards, Peter

[Ankerson]

I alway try to stick with Abit, MSI and Intel for motherboards. I just have had good luck with them.

[deadkenny]

Well Peter, now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said or implied at any point, nor do I believe, that SiS chipsets are inherently unreliable as a rule. Nor does the fact that a chipset is made by Intel or a board made by ASUS guarantee that it's bullet proof. But, the point is that once a company moves 'up market' as ASUS has done, it has a very strong incentive to keep up very high levels of quality control in order to justify it's higher prices. If ASUS quality were to slip significantly, they would lose market share pdq. The fact that ASUS uses certain SiS chipsets doesn't turn my main point on it's head at all. It just indicates that ASUS has some faith in the quality of the particular SiS chipsets that they use. For instance the new A7S333 board using the SiS 745 chipset. This 'endorsement' by ASUS makes this chipset more attractive to me than say the 735. There's more to it than just the perception of ASUS quality. There's also support (excellent info online- at least until the website was revamped, updated manuals, bios etc.), retail distribution etc. These are things that matter in the real world. At one point I was interested in the K7S5A, but it was hard to find around here. And one of the few places that carried it would not handle RMA's, leaving it entirely to the customer. You also admit yourself that by using the SiS chipset, ASUS has managed to be more price competitive with the likes of ECS. I'm always on the look out for bargains as well, but I don't mind spending a few extra dollars to 'buy' the advantages of the ASUS board over a largely OEM manufacturer.

[Rugor]

This may surprise some of you, but ASUS has been using SiS chipsets for years now. SiS makes a good product, at a good price point. Historically their chipsets have been cheaper than the competitors, but with slower performance. For smaller system integrators this has often meant that SiS chipsets, often on ASUS boards have been a very good choice.

Just as a counter example, I personally try to avoid FIC boards. Not because they try to make bad products, no one does that, but because they are often one of the first to release a motherboard on a new chipset. This means that FIC boards are more likely to have bugs in the early revisions than some others because they may rush them to market on early steppings of the chips.

[dev3175]

I prefer motherboards with no extras on or at least no CPU depedent ones. So I usually go with Abit because they make mobos only with necessary things like PCI Slots , AGP ,IDE .
No VGA,SOUND,AMR,CNR or other things like that. They eat away CPU . Onboard Raid i can live with. :D

[lucy]

I have built 3 PCs with :
Asus p3bf - recommended by a friend because of its reliability. It is indeed very solid, I like it very much.
Gigabyte Bx2000 - rock solid and better price than Asus. I built this PC for a friend.
Intel 815EEA2U - just finishing building this one for church. I got it for its quality and price. With onboard video and sound.

My next built will be a P4 later this year. I will pick a Gigabyte board for the price, its rock solid like Asus, why paid more?

Lucy

[Alex Iannuzzi]

I have a Jetway motherboard for socket A. I bought it because it had the KT266A Chipset which I heard was good.

[Slipknot]

I agree with you 110% about FIC rugor. Their last good product was the 503+ board (super 7). Since then, they have released nothing but bugged junk. How are they still selling boards?

Anyway, I prefer Asus, Iwill, Abit and Tyan boards (not in that order). I've had good luck with all of those manufactures. Gigabytes boards over the past 18 months seem to be good too. I've only used an older AMD chipset board though, none of their VIA chipset boards.