Tom's Review of the 845D

[Dangerboy]

I am an avid fan of Tom's Hardware and feel compelled to voice an opinion based on the review of the Intel 845D chipset.

Since the beginning of the Pentium 4 processor, Tom's has genuinely sided with the DDR crowd and basically denounced RAMBUS (mainly because of price and probably that no other MB chipset manufacturer supports it). All criticism and finger pointing at Intel due to the lack DDR support has virtually overshadowed every motherboard review to date. Now it is December 2001 and Intel has graced the computer industry with DDR support for the long awaiting masses.

Intel has a long standing reputation of reliability and stability, particularly where AGP and chipset's are concerned. VIA, SIS and Apollo have all suffered in the arena of compatiblity and stability with windows; whereas, Intel have always done their homework and released a high quality hardware/software combination. To say that we, the end user, are too brand conscious is not giving credit where credit is due. Why use Quake 3 as a benchmark on every graphics card review? Because it is synonomous with consistently measuring the speed and efficiency of the card and drivers. Just as Intel is consistent with the R&D and support for their products for the end user. It really irritates me that the review was not more positive in favor of the DDR support for the Pentium 4 by Intel.

Intel Goes DDR - Do We Really Care? Unequivocally - YES!! With the continued success of Intel for future development and long standing objective to raise the bar for processor improvement, we all should be mindful of the impact that Intel will always have. And also, to compare brand name fetish's with Lexus is just silly. In regard to quality, dependability and reliability, Lexus has set a benchmark that most other automobile manufacturers only aspire to. It is nice that they compare Intel and Lexus in the same breath, that is where I hold them in regard, but to critisize based on brand name does not cut it. I can buy a Kia Sephia for transportation, but I would rather have a Lexus any day. What's wrong? Couldn't afford one when you went to the dealer? Is that the beef you have with Intel as well? Just an observation..............

 

[FatBurger]

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


Sorry, nothing against your post. That just came to mind for now reason, and I felt like posting it.


<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>

 

[dmcmahon]

Well, the benchmarks pretty well speak for themselves, which is probably the main reason why Tom & Co. dissed it (I've noticed that they tend to lean heavily to products that perform better, even by small amounts).

I agree that they underestimated the value of Intel's reputation for quality and reliability of chipsets. They likened it to consumers being fooled by marketing ("our gasoline is formulated with whamo! so it's better than everyone else's"), but in fact there are very good reasons to buy Intel. The VIA chipset that took first place in many benchmarks is, well, from VIA. You remember, the guys with the chronic USB problems and the DMA transfer bugs in the KT133A? The extra few bucks for the Intel chipset probably doesn't matter much to most buyers (I'd pay more for reliability).

Now, a question: the review basically says the 845D is a warmed-over 845. But if you look at the first chart comparing specs, you'll notice that the D doesn't support USB 2.0, supports only 4 USB ports, and only 3 DIMMs, whereas the old chip does support 2.0, supports 6 USB ports, and 4 DIMMs. So, like, what's up with that?

 

[Olfin_Bedwere]

According to Intel's specs, <i>none</i> of their chipsets directly support USB 2.0. It could mean with a dedicated controller, but using that logic, the old 430FX would have USB 2.0 support! :frown:

 

[boude]

Dangerboy’s points are well taken. I suspect most of the non-gaming computing public is not particularly concerned with the last percentage point of performance but more with reliability and stability. I’m glad someone is keeping the chipset makers honest but I look at the performance charts and shrug “so what!” Any one of these solutions is acceptable speed wise and I doubt ANYONE could tell the difference by just using the systems tested.

I’ve recently built a new system just to run XP. It's taken months to trouble shoot the errors my core programs have been giving me but at last my system is relatively stable; more stable than my Win 98SE system a few feet away.

Let’s face it; the majority of problems are OS and app software related but I want a stable backbone to run this “stuff” on. I could have chosen a P4 RDRAM system to build and I know I would have been happy with it. I just couldn’t justify the extra expenditures for the CPU/chipset/RAM combination. Instead I went with a fairly fast 1.4GH Athlon w/ K7T-Turbo limited and 3 sticks of 256MB CAS2 SDRAM. It was established technology when I bought it but I still had to flash the BIOS to get rid of a recurring power management error. Right now if I was building another system I probably would be favorably looking at the Intel 845 chipset in a stripped non over-clockable INTEL board.

The only reason the 845D wouldn’t be a consideration is the lack of USB2. I don’t know about anyone else but I’m getting sick of using SCSI to get a decent amount of drives in a system. I digress, as SCSI will never make it into my XP system. A USB2 card will.

 

[Guest]

I think Intel's support of DDR is too little - too late.

Anyway, I have to say that the naive comments made about Lexus were out of place. I have a GS400 and also a Mercedes SLK320. Overall, I think Lexus provides superior value over Mercedes, BMW, and Audi.

Stick to reviewing hardware...

 

[pr497]

agreed...if intel went right to ddr with the release of the P4...the P4 may be more respectable right now.
ah well...looks like the i845D has some maturing to do...as well as intel themselves.

I don't claim to know anything about everything, I just tell people what I know.
-PSB

 

[Dangerboy]

Thanks for the reply FatBurger:

Einstein was regarded as "insane" as well, but we all know that was based upon the observations of the ignorant. Also, rambling and incoherent tend to suggest that there is no basis for fact; thus, being void of fact and merit, the logical and reasonable man would not comment. Am I to assume that a nerve was struck based on the past, present or even future configuration of one the systems you own? No points were requested for award, just honest and factual responses based on experience and knowledge. Also, I am fallible and I hope that God will have mercy, not just for me, but for everyone (especially the obtuse).

Live by the "Golden Rule", "If you don't have anything good to say ......................................"

BTW - nothing against your post, just a thought.

 

[dmcmahon]

"...too little - too late":

I am in the camp that thinks Intel's deadly embrace of RDRAM is due to some sort of financial deal involving RMBS stock options. My believe is that this arrangement called for Intel to sell more RDRAM-based chipsets than any other type by this calendar year, in exchange for which they get the rights to exercise a number of options on RMBS stock. Word is that this arrangement is due to end this calendar year. I expect Intel to cash in (or maybe I should say cash out!) and then we will see Intel quickly move ahead in DDR and QDR SDRAM support. If you believe this theory, as I do, the timing of this chipset's introduction is no accident. Indeed, if Tom's right and it's just a relabled 845, then obviously Intel did the DDR homework long ago and was just waiting for the right time to make the switch. So, don't count them out yet.

P.S. Regarding the cars, I think Tom was just admitting that he's not immune to market/reputation bias, and used cars as an example, since it's most likely marketing (and national pride?) that has him firmly in the Merc/BMW camp and not the merits of these cars versus the Lexus offerings.

 

[Dangerboy]

I really don't think it is "too little - too late". The SIS board has only been out since late September / early October. I really like for a company to test something before submitting it to the masses. It seems, to me, that testing the 845 with PC133 and graduating to DDR is a likely scenario. Should we visit the ATI Radeon driver issue only 60 days ago? Point is that Intel now does not have to make any excuses for implementation since the chipset is tested. They can build upon a reliable foundation and customize options as consumers wish. What is the first step of building a structure (leaving out the idea and blueprint, etc.), you start with a solid foundation.

Kudos on your GS, it is an extremely nice automobile (such is the SLK).

 

[FatBurger]

lol
Fair enough. Don't worry, I don't think you're an idiot. You're quite right, Intel does make very good, stable and fast chipsets. However, they are very slow in releasing them and usually leave out features. No ATA133 (not that I care about that), no USB 2.0, etc.
I agree with the person (or two) who said this is "too little, too late". Intel should've released this chipset instead of ever going with SDRAM.
Those are my only thoughts for now, I'll have to read the review more thoroughly if you want something more detailed.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>

 

[Dangerboy]

I would relish a more detailed rebuttal. "Too little", I have to disagree with you on that. Once support for PC2700 DDR is implemented, I think you will see just how well the P4 performs. "Too late", yeh, I'll agree to an extent, the SDRAM thing wasn't Intel's best offering. I still would rather see something tested to death prior to release, I hate blue screens, incompatible hardware/software or any other anoyance for that matter; besides, this is the arena in which Intel excels. Also, if your overclocking the hardware, it better be rock solid from the get-go.

My apology on the obtuse rhetoric (LOL), just a defense for Intel faithful. Why are Intel loyalists cast as "Corporate" drones? Are all the thread addicts caught up in squeezing the last bit of speed out everything regardless of the sacrifices in stability? I always opt for the happy medium, OC it until you get the blue screen and subtract 5%. This puts you about 80mph on an interstate highway speed limit of 70. Most of the time you'll be safe (from tickets) but you still get where your going.

 

[pr497]

the SDRAM thing wasn't Intel's best offering.

<b> EXACTLY...</b>
what were they thinking?

<A HREF="http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?2096468" target="_new">P4 + SDRAM</A> = <b>BAD</b>

 

[FatBurger]

Two things. First, you say it's not "too little" because there will be support for PC2700 soon. Well, it's still not here, and a review shouldn't have simulated benchmarks of future technology.

Second, there are plenty of people around here that prefer Intel and aren't flamed because they do. It's the people that despise AMD for no real reason, and everytime anyone mentions AMD in a thread, they jump all over them with stupid comments about how much AMD sucks.

Are there similar people on the other side of the camp? Of course. They aren't quite as vocal however, and you only asked about those who only support Intel anyway.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>