845G question 4 u brainers out there...

[aniv3]

according 2 what I've read hear at THG, Tom says that the intel 845G DOES support PC2700(DDR333).
Well, when I checked the Asus site - P4B533-V (845G) it says that it ONLY SUPPORTS pc2100/1600...
so what the heck is it then???
does the Asus P4B533-V board (or any other board based on the 845G 4 that matter) fully support pc2700 @ cl 2.0????

PLZ answer....

 

[HammerBot]

If you use a CPU with 533 MHz FSB and mount PC2700 RAM, the memomy will be recognized as such. However, the i845G do not officially support PC2700 RAM. Thats why the board manufacters dont say their 845G boards can. The next question of course would be something along the lines 'Do ´the 845G/mobo run stable with PC2700?'. Well, Dont know. You just have to try. But if it doesnt work, you cant blame the mobo, RAM or chipset manufactor.

 

[Sabertooth007]

I entered my response in the wrong thread, and the cut and paste got screwed up. It was a long and not very nice response to how THG has made to me a grevious error that they won't correct.

I too depended upon and got taken, by THG and their article on the 845G and 845E chipset. I took this information, paid an extra $40 for a G motherboard, when I already have a GeForce 3 Ti500, so I could get support for PC2700.

How is THG who prides on "being in the know" and having such forsight and knowledge make such a blunder. When nearly every other site with less of a known reputation compared to THG, post the proper information by stating either "unsupported", "unofficial" or simply saying PC2100 is supported.

I already sent 2 e-mails asking where they got their information as Intel specs don't mentioned DDR333 (PC2700) anywhere. Yet TMG states supported (they didn't say it can be overclocked, unsupported, unofficial).

I am thinking of sending letters of complaint to those sites who reference THG to show how I am upset with what I consider misleading information or bad reporting.

I even spoke to Asus today and they stated that unless they decide to adapt the bios to support PC2700, that the best you would get from it would be the performance as if it had been a PC2100 module instead.

This to me is a very serious mistake. Even worse is today, they provided a link on the side, for industry news, an article by digicom about the DDR333 support issue and how it would actually be in the 845GE chipset. They had more than one article on it, and both were from this month.

Yet there has been no notation or effort to cite this probable problem in the article. There has been no effort to say "where" they got this information from. And frankly this brings into question the reliability of this site as being a source of information. If the info can't be depended upon when making a decision, what makes it any better than any other site or some typical PC User site.

I know some of you might construe this and the above comments as overly harsh and unfair. I had posted this debate a few days ago and someone said I was being stubborn, the G chipset unofficially supports PC2700. And as I have stated, then why does't the article state "Unsupported". It states support and says this is why you should buy the 845G instead of the 845E. The entire article debates why the 845G is better in the long run. Never once did it said how this might be supported in future chipsets, not once say you need to overclock or change bios settings manually to get unofficial or undocumentated support.

If I want overclocking hints I am sure I could use a search engine to locate a site who says how to overclock. I don't overclock, so I depend on a site that gives me the specs of the equipment in a standard not overclocked setting.

I think THG owes us the users, at least an explanation or where they got their information.

So we can only hope all Mobo makers follow Gigabytes lead in adapting their bios to accept PC2700 and that the systems are stable.

All I can say is thanks so much THG for providing bad information that lead me to make a purchase decision I am sure I will come to regret, especially if PC2700 shows as unreliable even after Asus and others provide a patch.

 

[pr497]

wow...you're going through a lot just to see if one chipset can run pc2700 ram or not...
anyways...its just a risk that someone decides to take or not...just like overclocking...
why do you want to know if the 845G can run pc2700 ram?...are you planning on buying it?...if so...then why not just go with an rdram based system?....not only does it cost less (the abit TH7-II is about $115 or so...while the asus P4B533-V is about $180)...its guranteed to run ram at its supported speed (ie. officially suppports pc800 ram).

<b>Who fixed <font color=red>ATI</font color=red>'s leaky faucet??</b>

 

[Sabertooth007]

The problem is not so much an issue that Intel didn't provide support, it all revolves around the fact of what the article presents on this site. That is my issue. I agree that in some cases the Rambus would be faster but that isn't what I am upset about.

I am upset and making an issue about the article and how it presented incorrect or misguiding words that can lead anyone astray. That is what the problem or hang up is. I can't think of a comparison to this right now.

 

[chuck232]

DDR333 runs faster with a P4 than PC800 RDRAM with a P4 in most cases.

Falling down stairs saves time

 

[chuck232]

I've read that some mobos let you set the memory clock to at least 166MHz? Is this what you mean? It was the ABIT IT7 with the i845E chipset.

Falling down stairs saves time

 

[aniv3]

wow.. thanx 4 sharing that important info sabertooth007... I appreciate the effort u made tryin 2 solve this "problem" and I understand ur frustration bout the issue...

and now another question comes 2 mind:
WHAT HTE HECK IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 845G AND THE 845E???

4 me, I'll now have 2 reconsider what I'm goin 2 buy... the reason I'm quite reluctant 2 go with RDRAM is bcuz the trend in the market right now is goin 2wards DDR and even the dubious Intel now announced that they 2 r goin 2wards DDR 2... so now it all comes down 2 the price $$$....

 

[chuck232]

and now another question comes 2 mind:
WHAT HTE HECK IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 845G AND THE 845E???

Well i845G has integrated graphics with a "better" memory controller. The i845E does not have integrated graphics and the memory controller isn't as good as the i845Gs. Supposedly.

DDR333 outperforms PC800 anyways and PC800 is a bit more expensive, although the mobos don't cost as much as a high quality i845E mobo. The best one you can get probably is the ABIT IT7. It has IEEE1394 FireWire, USB 2.0, On-board LAN and sound, and also has RAID. Now if you don't need all that, you can get a IT7E that removes some of those features.

Falling down stairs saves time

 

[HammerBot]

Sabertooth007: I understand that you are upset about the article presenting incorrect information. But lessons has tought me to be careful and never blindly trust articles. The newspaper isnt right always either? I must say in THGs defense that the extra feature in the bios of the Gigabyte may have lead THG to think that PC2700 RAM is supported. I agree that THG obviously didnt do the research properly. However, I also think that you have been in a rush to buy a board believing to get PC2700 support, when the mobo specs dont mention anything about it. That was exactly what made me suspisious and instead of reading reviews or forums I checked Intels specs on the chipset. It properly took me less than 10 sec to find it.

Bottomline the article really needs an update, and end users must check more than one source of information before bying.

 

[aniv3]

u said that the 845G has a "better" memory controller supposedly, by that I understand that ur a bit skeptic bout this issue. where did u get that info?? on the Intel site I didn't c any info that distinguish the 845G from the 845E as far as memory controllers go...

 

[pr497]

so your whole argument is based off of one article written by a couple of people who supposedly didnt research this topic thoroughly enough?
maybe you should send e-mails to other websites that also mentioned that the 845G supported ddr333 telling them that they were wrong and should have their articles corrected as well...ill let you guys know what i find out about the asus P4B533-V supposedly not being able to run pc2700 ram stably...
my company is ordering that mobo w/ some pc2700 ram and a P4 1.6A for a fax server (which i, personally, will be putting together)...so ill post on this thread whether or not that motherboard in particular can run ram at pc2700 speeds stably...

<b>Who fixed <font color=red>ATI</font color=red>'s leaky faucet??</b>

 

[chuck232]

It was actually on the Tom's article. Supposedly the BIOS had settings for DDR333. Now that I think about it, I still think the IT7 is still the better mobo.

Falling down stairs saves time

 

[Crashman]

It supports the 100/133 ratio at ~133/166 at least, but it's up to the board manufacturer to supply the proper ratios in BIOS.

<font color=blue>At least half of all problems are caused by an insufficient power supply!</font color=blue>

 

[Sabertooth007]

The irony is PR497, is that Tom is the only site who said SUPPORTED, all other sites either didn't mention it at all, or said it was overclocked or modified beyond design specs. If THG had at least made that effort then I would have been more forgiving.

I agree I looked to THG for my decision, and since I know Asus doesn't always update its specs at the same time, that I felt safe. Since for example the new 1003 bios support 4:3 and 4:5 memory settings, which isn't listed in their website specs. Plus I did trust that if Tom said it would support, that meant he had information that other sites weren't using yet, since most will be more conservative than Tom did, to avoid a problem like this.

So why THG should be excused for being the only site who states support, while all others state unsupported, unofficial, or simply don't list it, is beyond me.

Right now the asus bios has the following (changed from 1001 and 1002, implemented in the official 1003 version for the P4B533-V)

CPU/Memory Frequency Ratio
Auto
1:1
4:3
4:5

Now asus has said overclocking voids the warranty. However they also say if the bios allows the setting that it is okay.

I have seen some say set it to auto for DDR333 (assuming you get high quality DDR333 memory), 4:3 or 4:5. Since Asus and so far no site really explains this properly the setting to me seems to be more haphazard. Does anyone have anything on this?

I will be interested in hearing your results PR497.

I also will have PC2700 memory within the week and then can share the results with you and everyone here. It is name brand, high quality, JEDEC compliant DDR333 memory with CL2 rating.

 

[chuck232]

Well the 4:5 CPU/mem would give you DDR333 speeds. Cause 133MHz FSB:166MHz DDR RAM would equal 4:5. If that's what you're saying. So technically, it does support DDR333. I dunno what you're whining about...

Falling down stairs saves time

 

[xxsk8er101xx]

ya i'm asking myself that same question .. 845E or 845G ... well abcdefg .. the G is a "higher" order so does it mean the 845G is better?

bah too many letters too much confusion!

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>

 

[chuck232]

I'll try to end this quickly. If you want the best DDR mobo for P4 out there, get a ABIT IT7. They're kinda expensive ($150) but they have so many features. Also allows you to set the RAM speed asyncronous to the FSB speed, so you can use DDR333.

Falling down stairs saves time

 

[pr497]

but the IT7 is legacy free IIRC...so your parrallel port printer and your ps/2 mouse wont work...but thats only a minor technicality....if those things dont matter...then i will second the IT7...
oh and about the P4B533-V...my company may not buy it now because i recently found out that it (or any motherboard with the 845G chipset) doesnt support ECC RAM...my company would rather have a server run ECC RAM rather than non-ECC...but again...thats another minor technicality...but ill have to go over this with the IT Department before we make any final decisions...

<b>Who fixed <font color=red>ATI</font color=red>'s leaky faucet??</b>

 

[chuck232]

Yeah, the legacy free stuff can get annoying, but I think most new keyboards/mice use USB anyways. I have a question. Is USB2.0 backwards compatible to USB1 or whatever? That could be a problem if it's legacy free mobo and doesn't have USB1... like the IT7.

Falling down stairs saves time

 

[pr497]

USB2.0 backwards compatible to USB1 or whatever?

possibly...but im not sure either...i need to research that a little.

<b>Who fixed <font color=red>ATI</font color=red>'s leaky faucet??</b>

 

[Sabertooth007]

Chuck, to this day I have never had to worry about using any other settings than auto. Since I don't believe in overclocking, it has never been an issue. This setting also was added just this past week by Asus. However Asus won't confirm whether this is an acceptable setting, no r will they confirm if this violates their warranty. According to them any overclocking, which the PC2700 would be, is cause for the warranty to be voided. However they also state that as long as it is a supported setting in the bios it doesn't void the warranty.

Which gets confusing since don't people make their cpu overclocking via the bios (or is that only via jumpers which then Asus standing would be correct.).

But do you understand the point I am going after. Okay so some say it is unoffical, some say undocumented, others say it could. The problem I am at Chuck and I know people are tired of hearing this is the article is misleading and needs correction. They need to change support or provide what they call "support".

About the legacy, if they don't include a keyboard port, how can you function if the system fails to boot into Windows. From what I have understood is that there is a default setting in the bios of most mobo's that will allow support of legacy devices in dos or non-windows.

Also from my understanding of USB 1.0/2.0. You can use 1.0 devices with 2.0. You can use 2.0 in Win98SE, but it is recognized as only 1.0 or at least it only functions as a 1.0 device.

The only limitation I have heard of so far is that you can't use a 1.0 hub with a 2.0 controller. But you can use 2.0 devices with a 1.0 controller.

So 1.0 Hub - Works with 1.0 not 2.0 Controller
2.0 Hub - Works with 1.0 and 2.0 Controllers (2.0 needed for full 2.0 speed)
2.0 Devices - Works with 1.0 and 2.0 Controllers and Hubs
1.0 Devices - Works with 1.0 and 2.0 Controllers and Hubs

Now I could be wrong on that of course. But I do remember there being an article in PcWorld or PCMag about 1.0 Hubs and 2.0 Controllers.

 

[pr497]

hey look...someone who looks at computers religiously

<b>Who fixed <font color=red>ATI</font color=red>'s leaky faucet??</b>