Motherboard for P4.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

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'm looking for reliability, some overclocking, ability to take decent
RAM, but I really have no idea how to choose between these! Perhaps
someone who knows a lot more about the issues at stake can advise me.

Abit IC7-G Intel 875 Motherboard - £102.11
Abit IC7 Intel 875P P4 Motherboard - £77.41
Asus P4C800-E Deluxe Intel 875P Canterwood Motherboard - £130.28
Asus P5GDC Deluxe Intel 915P Sck 775 Motherboard - £116.84
Asus P4S800D-E Deluxe SiS®655TX P4 Motherboard - £70.24
Epox EP-4PDA2V Socket 478 Motherboard inc EasyBay - £83.48
Epox EP-4PDA5+ Intel 865PE P4 Motherboard - £75.39
Gigabyte GA-8I915P-PRO PCI Express Socket 775 Motherboard - £88.83
Gigabyte GA-8IPE1000 Pro2 Intel P4 2004 GT Edition Motherboard - £77.64

Thanks and regards,

MS
59 answers Last reply
More about motherboard
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    "MS" <matthews@mailsnare.---nojunktakeout---.net> wrote in message
    news:AIaOc.10867$YJ7.110110973@news-text.cableinet.net...
    > 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'm looking for reliability, some overclocking, ability to take decent
    > RAM, but I really have no idea how to choose between these! Perhaps
    > someone who knows a lot more about the issues at stake can advise me.
    >
    > Abit IC7-G Intel 875 Motherboard - £102.11
    > Abit IC7 Intel 875P P4 Motherboard - £77.41
    > Asus P4C800-E Deluxe Intel 875P Canterwood Motherboard - £130.28
    > Asus P5GDC Deluxe Intel 915P Sck 775 Motherboard - £116.84
    > Asus P4S800D-E Deluxe SiS®655TX P4 Motherboard - £70.24
    > Epox EP-4PDA2V Socket 478 Motherboard inc EasyBay - £83.48
    > Epox EP-4PDA5+ Intel 865PE P4 Motherboard - £75.39
    > Gigabyte GA-8I915P-PRO PCI Express Socket 775 Motherboard - £88.83
    > Gigabyte GA-8IPE1000 Pro2 Intel P4 2004 GT Edition Motherboard - £77.64
    >
    > Thanks and regards,
    >
    > MS

    Some of those aren't compatible with your processor. Of the ones that are,
    the abit IC7 and epox EP-4PDA5+ are your best choices. As you mentioned
    overclocking (don't do it, but), you should probably go for the abit IC7.
    It wouldn't be a hard decision for me . . . the epox would win easily.
    However, the Abit is a good value too, and they have a good reputation for
    overclocking. -Dave
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    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/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1

    The Athlon 64 3200+ is only around $210 now for the retail box with
    heatsink. The XP2500+ (or even better an XP2800+ for just a
    few dollars more) is okay for a budget system for surfing the net
    and basic business applications, but isn't so great compared
    to the Athlon 64 3200+ for gaming, video editing, and other
    more strenuous tasks.

    Matt wrote:

    > JK wrote:
    > > The performance of the Athlon 64 chips in 32 bit is outstanding. They
    > > are the best value even if someone plans to only use a 32 bit OS and
    > > 32 bit software.
    >
    > AMD Athlon XP 2500+ Barton give much better price/performance. Unless I
    > am wrong, of course.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    Just as an aside... which motherboards come highly recommended for the
    Athlon 64 3000?

    Thanks,

    MS
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2063&p=1

    MS wrote:

    > Just as an aside... which motherboards come highly recommended for the
    > Athlon 64 3000?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > MS
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    "MS" <matthews@mailsnare.---nojunktakeout---.net> wrote in message
    news:rrbOc.10903$kc.110475394@news-text.cableinet.net...
    > Just as an aside... which motherboards come highly recommended for the
    > Athlon 64 3000?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > MS

    MSI K8T NEO -Dave
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    The Prescott is a hot chip.

    You could save quite a bit by going for an Ebay P4-2.8Ghz, in
    the UK they are just £75-78 - and Northwood so run *cooler*.
    --
    Dorothy Bradbury
    www.stores.ebay.co.uk/panaflofan for quiet Panaflo fans & other items
    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/dorothy.bradbury/panaflo.htm (Direct)
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    Best, most stable, and highest rated by Reviewers is
    the Asus P4C800E-Deluxe.

    --
    DaveW


    "MS" <matthews@mailsnare.---nojunktakeout---.net> wrote in message
    news:AIaOc.10867$YJ7.110110973@news-text.cableinet.net...
    > 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'm looking for reliability, some overclocking, ability to take decent
    > RAM, but I really have no idea how to choose between these! Perhaps
    > someone who knows a lot more about the issues at stake can advise me.
    >
    > Abit IC7-G Intel 875 Motherboard - £102.11
    > Abit IC7 Intel 875P P4 Motherboard - £77.41
    > Asus P4C800-E Deluxe Intel 875P Canterwood Motherboard - £130.28
    > Asus P5GDC Deluxe Intel 915P Sck 775 Motherboard - £116.84
    > Asus P4S800D-E Deluxe SiS®655TX P4 Motherboard - £70.24
    > Epox EP-4PDA2V Socket 478 Motherboard inc EasyBay - £83.48
    > Epox EP-4PDA5+ Intel 865PE P4 Motherboard - £75.39
    > Gigabyte GA-8I915P-PRO PCI Express Socket 775 Motherboard - £88.83
    > Gigabyte GA-8IPE1000 Pro2 Intel P4 2004 GT Edition Motherboard - £77.64
    >
    > Thanks and regards,
    >
    > MS
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    "MS" <matthews@mailsnare.---nojunktakeout---.net> wrote in message
    news:AIaOc.10867$YJ7.110110973@news-text.cableinet.net...
    > 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'm looking for reliability, some overclocking, ability to take decent
    > RAM, but I really have no idea how to choose between these! Perhaps
    > someone who knows a lot more about the issues at stake can advise me.
    >
    > Abit IC7-G Intel 875 Motherboard - £102.11
    > Abit IC7 Intel 875P P4 Motherboard - £77.41
    > Asus P4C800-E Deluxe Intel 875P Canterwood Motherboard - £130.28
    > Asus P5GDC Deluxe Intel 915P Sck 775 Motherboard - £116.84
    > Asus P4S800D-E Deluxe SiS®655TX P4 Motherboard - £70.24
    > Epox EP-4PDA2V Socket 478 Motherboard inc EasyBay - £83.48
    > Epox EP-4PDA5+ Intel 865PE P4 Motherboard - £75.39
    > Gigabyte GA-8I915P-PRO PCI Express Socket 775 Motherboard - £88.83
    > Gigabyte GA-8IPE1000 Pro2 Intel P4 2004 GT Edition Motherboard - £77.64
    >
    > Thanks and regards,
    >
    > MS
    These people are all missing the point here...

    You already got a prescott cpu.
    Would've been better to get a northwood.
    But if you want a good board, get either MSI or Gigabyte with Dual Bios.
    Dual bios can be very nice, but you might not know that intill something
    goes wrong.
    I cant think right, I'm a bit drunk.

    Denny. ;-)
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:45:04 GMT, MS
    <matthews@mailsnare.---nojunktakeout---.net> 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.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:45:04 GMT, MS
    <matthews@mailsnare.---nojunktakeout---.net> wrote:


    >Abit IC7 Intel 875P P4 Motherboard - £77.41

    This is a rock solid mb and is a very good price. The G model has one
    extra SATA port and LAN. If you don't need that then just get the
    stock IC7. And as others have said, get a Northwood cpu instead of
    Prescott.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:27:22 GMT, MS
    <matthews@mailsnare.---nojunktakeout---.net> wrote:


    >The PC will be running XP Pro and its most 'demanding' role will be doing
    >video editing and associated tasks. Wouldn't the P4 be better at doing this?

    Yes.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    Steve Pearce wrote:
    >
    > On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:45:04 GMT, MS
    > <matthews@mailsnare.---nojunktakeout---.net> 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.

    I have just built using Gigabyte GA-8IK1100 from a computer fair. This
    board is slightly better, using 875P chipset instead of 865P. But all
    Gigabytes are nice and stable and well documented. However, there is a fix
    around I've read about, where you can have PAT (Intel's Performance
    Acceleration Technology) which effectively makes the 865P into the 875P.
    This board was inexpensive £87, but minor point is that IDE is ATA100
    not ATA 133, although the board has two SATA ports which makes the ATA100
    a non issue.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:27:23 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:


    >MSI K8T NEO -Dave
    >

    VIA? Not in this house.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    "maggot" <maggot@no.email> wrote in message
    news:gd6lg0da1b15n130f6rbe1pa9giebpd8dp@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:27:23 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >MSI K8T NEO -Dave
    > >
    >
    > VIA? Not in this house.

    Why? You got something against incredibly high 3DMark scores in an
    extremely stable system? -Dave
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:38:28 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> 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.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    "Dave C." wrote:
    >
    > "maggot" <maggot@no.email> wrote in message
    > news:gd6lg0da1b15n130f6rbe1pa9giebpd8dp@4ax.com...
    > > On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:27:23 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > >MSI K8T NEO -Dave
    > > >
    > >
    > > VIA? Not in this house.
    >
    > Why? You got something against incredibly high 3DMark scores in an
    > extremely stable system? -Dave

    The small intrinsic speed differences between motherboards means that
    manufacturers can sometimes get an edge by fsb trickery. See e.g.

    http://www6.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20040712/i865-i875-mobos-44.html#trickery_afoot
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    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/showdoc.aspx?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.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    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/showdoc.aspx?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/showdoc.aspx?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.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:38:28 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

    >>> MSI K8T NEO -Dave
    >>
    >> VIA? Not in this house.
    >
    > Why? You got something against incredibly high 3DMark scores
    > in an extremely stable system? -Dave

    VIA is often very unstable. Very bad reputation.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    >
    > 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
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    "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
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:11:05 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> 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.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    Ken <___ken3@telia.com> wrote:
    >On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:11:05 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> 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?


    Tim
    --
    Google is not the only search engine.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:11:05 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> 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.
    And never use AMD processors.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    "Ken" <___ken3@telia.com> wrote in message
    news:rielg0llgmgdejdjgv7r10o8n97ugjafvu@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:11:05 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> 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)
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    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.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:32:09 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> 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.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    Ken <___ken3@telia.com> wrote:
    >On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:32:09 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> 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.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    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/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1

    So?

    The dual channel memory 2xDDR400 for the P4 matches the fsb = 800 MHz,
    this is the optimal situation.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    "Johannes H Andersen" <johs@nsuvuooiaiosizefitterwiuoveswernuaz.com> wrote
    in message news:410AF477.32FAE761@nsuvuooiaiosizefitterwiuoveswernuaz.com...
    >
    >
    > 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/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1
    >
    > So?
    >
    > The dual channel memory 2xDDR400 for the P4 matches the fsb = 800 MHz,
    > this is the optimal situation.
    The P4 is not 800 fsb, it's 200
    It works something like the Athlon Xp, but does it twice.
    To better explain this, here's an email I got from AMD

    Hello Dennis,

    Thank you for contacting AMD's Technical Service Center.

    The Athlon XP has a Front Side Bus (FSB) that operates at either 266,
    333, or 400Mhz. While the physical signal is 133, 166, or 200Mhz, data
    is transferred on both the rising and falling edges of the clock
    signal. This effectively doubles the data throughput. This is similar
    to the operation of DDR memory and 2X AGP. Motherboards that support a
    400, 333, 266, and 200MHz front-side bus (FSB) will typically have a
    factory-default FSB setting of 200MHz (100MHz system clock) to protect
    200MHz FSB processors from accidentally being overclocked. If an Athlon
    XP processor, which supports a 400, 333 or 266MHz FSB, is installed on
    a motherboard that is configured to operate the FSB at 200MHz, it will
    operate at a lower frequency. This is a result of the processor's
    multiplier. The function of the multiplier is to multiply the bus
    frequency to derive the processor operating frequency.

    The actual setting of the FSB may be controlled by the motherboard BIOS
    or by a hardware jumper on the motherboard itself. Please consult your
    motherboard manufacturer directly to determine how to correctly set the
    FSB for your motherboard.

    Hope this helps. If you have any other questions, please feel free to
    contact me.

    Regards,
    Jesus
    Customer Support Analyst
    AMD TSC


    We welcome your feedback and suggestions to help us improve our
    services to you. To provide this information to us, we ask that you
    please click on this link, or copy/paste into your browser, and
    complete our short survey. Thanks, in advance, for your comments. Click
    here (link
    http://asksurvey.amd.com/servicesoft/servlet/EmailSurvey?emailID=345382&email=dstrausser33@comcast.net).


    P.S. Please visit our online technical support tools, Ask AMD
    (http://ask.amd.com) and our Processor Support Forums
    (http://forums.amd.com). Ask AMD is our online knowledgebase that
    contains many solutions to common questions. Our Processor Support
    Forums are an online community where users can assist each other with
    many different issues. There's a good chance these tools can help
    answer your next question!


    Original Message Follows:
    ------------------------


    Form Message

    Processor Type: Athlon XP
    Escalated From: startup
    Processor Model: 2200+
    Knowledge Base: Processor
    Email Address: dstrausser33@comcast.net
    Full Name: Dennis E Strausser Jr
    Message Body: (FSB) & Bus Speed. If a CPU has a FSB of 133, that would
    mean the Bus Speed is 266? So like My 2200+ I have is 266 Bus Speed, and
    133 (FSB)? And a 2800+ would be 166 FSB (166.5)? What I need is a link
    if I'm right, if I'm wrong, I still want that link. I was trying to tell
    some1 that I thought that's the way it works, and he said I'm wrong. So
    I'm sure you guys can tell me, after all, they are your CPU's 2200+?
    2600 @ 2.17 GHz,,, But you didn't need to know I'm Overclocking one of
    your CPU's. Denny. :-)
    Subject: FSB & Bus Speed
    User Type: Reseller/System Builder
    Knowledge Job Ticket: 0000000000169818213:5486
    Knowledge Session Log URL:
    http://139.95.253.213:80/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE/,/?SessLog,e=0000000000
    169818213,K=5486
    Location: USA/Canada

    What this all means?
    I'll break it down.
    the rising and falling edges of the clock
    signal are still working for the most part, the same way as an amd.
    But.
    200 x 200 rising and falling edges of the clock signal.
    200 x 200 rising and falling edges of the clock signal.
    Don't take my word for it, this is just a guess.
    But it does seem like a good guess to say that's how it's Hyperthreading
    works.
    Back when it was just Hyperpipline, I think it helped to keep the cpu
    running smooth.
    And keep the bottle neck as low as possible.

    If anyone has more input on this, or if I'm wrong, correct me.
    thx..
    Denny. :-)
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    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.
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    >
    > 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.

    (snip)

    I dare to post facts rather than opinions, and that makes me arrogant
    somehow? There are several chipset makers, and all of them (specifically
    including VIA) have had the performance edge at various times until the
    competition fired their next volley. To make a blanket statement like "
    'one of the first rules of building a good system for performance is 'Don't
    use a VIA chipset board' " is just plain stupid.

    In fact, until the nforce3 250 went live, the VIA K8T800 was arguably the
    best choice for Athlon64. Even now, the performance numbers between VIA,
    SIS and nvidia are virtually identical, if you are building on the Athlon64
    platform. That would make VIA a wise choice based on selection of
    mainboards and price, though you'll find some good nforce3 250 boards
    competitively priced, also.

    If you are building a P4, the best value in chipsets at the moment would be
    SIS, VIA and Intel in that order (though not too many boards use the SIS
    655TX). While the three chipsets have performance numbers that are
    virtually identical, each has its own price point and its own strengths and
    weaknesses. If you want a good gaming system that won't cost an arm and a
    leg, VIA PT880 is a good choice for the P4 at the moment. The Intel 875P
    will offer virtually identical performance to the VIA PT880, but the 875P
    also costs more. The 655TX is a little faster than VIA PT880, but the
    selection of those boards is somewhat limited. All things considered, VIA
    PT880 would be the best choice for many P4 builders, at the moment.

    Note I said 'at the moment' as the technology is constantly changing. I
    don't doubt that you benchmarked a celeron on a Intel BX board faster than a
    similar VIA chipset board. AT THAT MOMENT, the Intel chipset was clearly
    better. You are doing nobody any favors (least of all yourself) by
    automatically dismissing any motherboard with a via chipset. Depending on
    when you build, VIA might be the best choice. Yes, for performance,
    lso. -Dave
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

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

    Apparently so. -Dave
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    > >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
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    > "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.
    >

    Whoa. I see that one went right over your head. Someone posted "VIA is
    often very unstable. Very bad reputation." I responded with "AMD is often
    very unstable. Very bad reputation." I did it to illustrate how stupid the
    other poster sounded when he was bashing VIA with inaccurate
    generalizations. I build with all chipsets using both AMD and Intel
    processors. I happen to prefer nvidia chipsets with AMD processors at the
    moment, but have no strong feelings against any other combination you could
    care to name. In fact, my last build was a VIA chipset Intel system that
    KICKS ASS, to put it bluntly. -Dave
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    Dennis E Strausser Jr wrote:
    >
    > "Johannes H Andersen" <johs@nsuvuooiaiosizefitterwiuoveswernuaz.com> wrote
    > in message news:410AF477.32FAE761@nsuvuooiaiosizefitterwiuoveswernuaz.com...
    > >
    > >
    > > 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/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1
    > >
    > > So?
    > >
    > > The dual channel memory 2xDDR400 for the P4 matches the fsb = 800 MHz,
    > > this is the optimal situation.
    > The P4 is not 800 fsb, it's 200
    > It works something like the Athlon Xp, but does it twice.

    Yes, yes but...

    The P4/800 still matches dual channel memory 2xDDR400 optimally with a max
    memory bandwidth of 6.4 GB/s. The AMD socket 754 doesn't.

    Whether you then call it 800 fsb or 200 fsb is a matter of semantics. The
    clock multiplier is indeed applied to 200 MHz, but dual channel DDR gives
    you the 800 MHz data rate.
  37. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    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/showdoc.aspx?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
  38. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "Courseyauto" <courseyauto@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:20040731083233.04711.00000453@mb-m21.aol.com...
    > 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/showdoc.aspx?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.
  39. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    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
  40. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    ~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~
    >
    >
  41. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    > 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
  42. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 12:17:34 +1200, "~misfit~"
    <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> 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.
  43. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    Sorry for more then one reply here..

    But..
    http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040419/cpu-scaling-09.html

    You people still think Intel is better for gaming then AMD??

    Denny. :-)
  44. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    > 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.

    What do you know that the experts don't? All the experts agree that the
    taiwanese chipmakers are holding their own against Intel as far as stability
    AND performance goes. I'm waiting . . . enlighten us . . . -Dave
  45. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    Take a look at this review, which includes the lower priced
    Athlon 64 chips.

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


    Dennis E Strausser Jr wrote:

    > Sorry for more then one reply here..
    >
    > But..
    > http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040419/cpu-scaling-09.html
    >
    > You people still think Intel is better for gaming then AMD??
    >
    > Denny. :-)
  46. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    "~misfit~" <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote in message
    news:Uy1Pc.7734$N77.390567@news.xtra.co.nz...
    > maggot wrote:
    > >
    > > I had an AMD761 chipset mb and the only flaky part on it was the VIA
    > > USB controller.
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > Hey! I got one of those on the shelf! GA-7DXE. Replaced it with an
    > nForce2Ultra400.
    > --
    > ~misfit~
    >
    >

    Don't talk to me about VIA USB controllers!


    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 29/07/2004
  47. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 11:36:02 +0100, Steve Pearce
    <*stevepearce@btinternet.com*> wrote:

    >On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:45:04 GMT, MS
    ><matthews@mailsnare.---nojunktakeout---.net> 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..
  48. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    <Woger MKII @wogerbox.co.nz> wrote in message
    news:j98pg09s4re2beu1572i53gqda1udcb4kr@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 11:36:02 +0100, Steve Pearce
    > <*stevepearce@btinternet.com*> wrote:
    >
    > >On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:45:04 GMT, MS
    > ><matthews@mailsnare.---nojunktakeout---.net> 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. :-)
  49. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    Woger, MKII, @wogerbox.co.nz wrote:
    >

    > >
    > >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..

    Gigabyte mobo comes with overclocking software 'EasyTune4' included and a
    chapter on overclocking in the mobo manual. However, I only use the diagnostic
    functions since I'm not an overclocker and don't recommend it. Unfortunately,
    the software doesn't allow me to underclock.
Ask a new question

Read More

Hardware Overclocking Motherboards Intel Homebuilt Product