Best Motherboard for AMD Athlon if possible

[paul_h_amiga 0]

I read about the problems that People have with the Socket A motherboards, and it mainly boiled down to the VIA Chipsets. This concerns me for the future.

 

Which would be the best choice for stablity above all else, or would I be better off going all the way and getting a P4 with matching board (that has to support DDR Ram, I don't wanna pay out for yet more RAM!!)

 

Cheers ya'all

[FadedTimes 0]

If you want stability just go with the 845 intel board that supports ddr memory. If you want to get an amd/via board from what I hear as long as you have the latest drivers and bios the system runs better than intel cpu's at the same Mhz.

[Brian Frank 0]

If you want a solid alternative to Via, I suggest the nForce boards. The nForce 415 does not have the integrated video and is a very stable chipset. The nForce 2 boards should be out within a month or so, and offer support for DDR 333 and 400 and is supposedly 20% faster than the Via KT400. It also doesn't have the issues people are having with Via chipsets.

For Intel, the price of RDRAM is nowhere nearly as bad as it used to be, and for the best performance you can get, this would be very ideal.

Regardless of which way you go, there is always the potential for problems. Certain companies tend to have more problems than others, but that doesn't mean they necessarily will affect you. I haven't had problems with Via boards. The only company that's been complained about and I've had problems with is IBM and their sorry hard drives. However, other people still have their 75 and 60GXP hard drives pumping away w/o issue.

For Via boards, it's probably best to look at sound cards NOT made by creative---though people with Intel chipsets have even had trouble here.

With Via boards, you'll just need to be a little more careful on what you pair up with them.

I'm familiar with both sides here and consider myself unbiased to either side.

It's true: clock for clock AMD is faster, but Intel still has the fastest CPU available---at a very high premium. However, if you're one to overclock, Intel has had some smashingly good overclockers with the P4.

I like the 845 chipset. No problems with my Iwill P4D i845D board. If you want tweaks or some sort of overclocking, Intel made motherboards are not the way to go, so look at a 3rd party vendor, like Asus, MSI, Iwill, etc. Here, the only warning I can give is about Abit's P4 boards: they seem to be having some issues with them here and there with some memory configurations in their BD7II boards and the BD7 series in general.

 

If this is the first time you're building and don't have a preference, I would suggest going for an Intel solution, simply because some things are a little easier to deal with (i.e. heatsink installation, less chance of conflicts). I'll be glad to help you put together a system whether it be AMD or Intel. Both sides have been kind to me. So long as you're careful, either way will be good.q

[Corinthian 0]

A month ago I bought the Gigabyte GA-7VRXP motherboard.

 

Onboard sound, NIC, RAID, DDR and so on.

 

The board has done very well in reviews.

 

I must say that I have NEVER been so pleased with my system.

 

Incredibly fast and stable, not a single crash or lockup.

 

The sound is OK, I don't use EAX, so for me it sounds just like the old SB Live did. Have disabled the RAID controller as I don't use it.

 

I have not installed any 4in1 drivers or any patches, no need for that.

 

Running with Athlon XP 2000+ and GeForce 4 TI 4400 on XP Pro.

 

10300 3DMarks as if anyone really cares

[vern2 0]

Dont buy VIA if you want stable.

[sapiens74 0]

Go intel.

 

Get a nice 2.26 GHZ or if you want to overclock get a 1.6A or 1.8 and a 845E or G board

[JP- 0]

If you want AMD and no via, then just do what Brian said and go nForce

[sflesch23 0]

my advice to you is to avoid intel at all costs. go amd and stick with amd. i've been using amd for over 2 years and have never been happier.

[Xiven 0]

Another vote here for the nForce. Built a PC with one of them a couple of weeks ago, and it's very nice.

[sapiens74 0]

Nforce hands down.

 

Good solid chipset and good performer.

[pmistry 0]

I guess Nforce + AMD make a good pairing.

VIA + AMD = a decent system too, but VIA chipsets are prone for problems here and there.

 

Intel + Intel = really stable system for almost everybody, its just that the Intel chipset lacks features like DDR333 which the SiS 648 and 645DX sets offer.

[Mr.Guvernment 0]

Quote:

Dont buy VIA if you want stable.

i have had a via chipset, 2 diff comps for 3 years, with a sound blaster value and a LIVE in the other comp, and never had a problem.

As well 3 of ym uncles computers all used VIA, no problems there either, he also always used creative cards.

[tylau 0]

Wonder what does stable means, perhaps I could loop a benchmark for hours and it happens to die on me when I play a new one, what is stable's true nature.

[el_vago32 0]

AXUS RULZZ!!!

[Four and Twenty 0]

Quote:

Wonder what does stable means, perhaps I could loop a benchmark for hours and it happens to die on me when I play a new one, what is stable's true nature.

stable is never crashing
that is why i love my i840

[Minotaur 0]

MSI KT3 ULTRA

PC2700

WinXP SP1

xp1800+

AUDIGY (drivers off the supplied cd)

LEADTEK GF4TI4200 30.82

 

 

stable as can be.

with NO added via drivers. just what xp installed.

 

gaming is fun,

no bsod

no lockups

 

i rely on this pc, and if it wasn't working reliably i would be all over the place screaming bloddy murder.....

 

people that "hear" that via and windows don't get along, then perhaps they should get some hands on experience to finally put their tepidations to rest.

[sapiens74 0]

Best Via board I ever had was an MSI one.

 

Rock solid stable, even tho everyone else had problems with that model.

 

Still wish I had it for a second machine.

[Minotaur 0]

some more.

 

drivers i am using:

via 4in1: whatever windows supplied and sp1 supplied

graphics: 30.82 (didn't touch the leadtek cd)

audi0: creative drivers off the AUDIGY CD

 

 

my install proceedure:

 

have only AGP NIC in TAKEout the sound card.

insert xp cd

format and install (i went fat32 this time)

wait wait wait wait

input your network stuff as asked activate later

get to desktop

copy over winzip8 (prev burned)

adobe (prev burned)

(previously burned sp1)

30.82 drivers (prev burned)

 

install the sp1 first

do winzp and adobe

install the 30.82 next

 

then get to your internet and get it going

activate winxp

 

when all is running fine power down (make a restore point here if you want)

 

plop in the AUDIGY make sure it is in an open irq slot, or non sharing pci slot.

 

reboot

login as admin (do tha for every time you are installing sheet)

windows will attempt to do a whole whack of things. (task bar corner goes nuts telling you it found a whole bunch of stuff) just let it do its thing

HIT CANCEL TWICE TO FOUND NEW HARDWARE WIZARD. (it should do it twice maaaaaaaybe 3 times just wait for a while and do nothing but cancel the windows) after you wait, and it looks like win has stopped messing around, put the AUDIGY cd into the cdrom and install away.

 

reboot as asked. (you can leave the cd in) and you are done enjoy the creative labs propaganda.

 

if you have problems here on in, once you reboot try making some bios changes to help with the problems

 

this is with a fresh install

and not using the GAMEPORT BRACKET that comes with the audigy since hardly any game controllers work in xp anyways that are not usb type.

 

this is just a basic guidline....

 

note,

i am not using any part or whole of the 4in1 drivers, only what winxp gave me.

i have been stress testing the pc and have found that:

 

SANDRA puts my stuff at a normal range of benchmoark scores.

even HD score is now 22000 (ata100 7200rpm hd 15gb)

 

3dmark2001se gives me 9400 (well within normal specs)

no crashes in games. or 3d apps like ssavers.

 

ut2003 benchmark:

DM ANTILUS gives me 20/36/75 av=36fps at 1024x768xshq settings

 

(2003 benchmark scores are a little low for what i was expecting, however 2001se gave me normal scores, so i will leave it at that)

i have not applied any REFRESH FIXES YET EITHER..... since i am at 60hz still. and monitor is set to 75hz always.

 

no lockups or bsod. this is a VIA pc ;(

[neilkmx 0]

 

INTEL P4<<<<<<HAS BEEN SUCKED HAHAHAHHAHAHA

 

AMD - Athlon 64 FX-53 review

Hardware reviews > Motherboard and processor reviews > AMD Athlon 64 FX-53

claimed to be the fastest desktop processor in the world (23/03/2004)

 

On the 18th of March the CeBIT 2004 show opened in Hannover, Germany and for the first time in living memory processor company AMD won't have a stand. However, it will be launching a number of new processors including 'the fastest desktop processor in the world', the Athlon 64 FX-53.

 

That may sound like a bold claim, but AMD managed to beat Intel's 3.2GHz Pentium 4C with its Athlon 64 FX-51 running at a true 2.2GHz, so the object of the exercise is for AMD to retain the performance crown. The new Athlon 64 FX-53 runs at 2.4GHz and it has to beat the 3.4GHz Pentium 4C, which is expected to be the last of the Northwood cores before Pentium 4E Prescott takes over.

 

Athlon 64 FX is one version of AMD's 32-bit/64-bit processor core, borrowing features from Opteron and also adding its own twist. Opteron is a server/workstation processor that supports ECC memory, running up to eight processors at a time. Athlon 64 FX uses the same 940-pin socket as Opteron, with the same 64KB L1 cache and 1MB L2 cache, but it only runs in a single processor configuration, so it is most similar to the Opteron 14x series.

 

At present the fastest processor in that series is the Opteron 148, which runs at 2.2GHz just like the Athlon 64 FX-51, so on paper the two processors are very similar. The difference between Opteron 14x and Athlon 64 FX lies in the memory controller, which in the latter is built into the processor core instead of the Northbridge of the motherboard chipset. Opteron 14x supports single channel PC2700 ECC memory, but Athlon 64 FX runs PC3200 ECC in dual channel mode.

 

When it comes to performance the difference between the two technologies is surprisingly slight, but it's enough to allow AMD to claim the 'fastest PC processor crown' for Athlon 64 FX, and that in turns means that it can market the processor at hardcore gamers, or even at professional gamers (although realistically that must be a market that is a few dozen in size at best).

 

It also means that Athlon 64 FX can be priced as a premium product. AMD charges $733 per unit for a 1,000-unit tray of Athlon 64 FX-51 and that results in a retail price of just over £500 inc. VAT in the UK. Incidentally that is the same price as Opteron 148. We would expect the new Athlon 64 FX-53 to launch at that same $733 price point, with FX-51 dropping by 30 percent or so, but the rumours are that AMD will simply run down stocks of FX-51 and then stop selling it, so FX-53 will take over and there will only be one FX model on sale at a time.

 

Naturally we tested our FX-53 (2.4GHz, remember) by running Sysmark and 3D Mark, and we happened to have an Opteron 142 (1.6GHz) and an Opteron 148 (2.2GHz) available for direct comparison. Unfortunately we didn't have an FX-51, which would have made for the most direct comparison of all. We used an Asus SK8V-P1 motherboard with VIA K8T800 chipset, along with 2GB of Corsair PC2700 memory in four modules, and also 2GB of Corsair XMS3200RE PC3200 memory, also in four modules.

 

Our 3D Mark 2001 scores on a Radeon 9700 graphics card weren't particularly informative as they merely reflected the core speed of each processor, however the Sysmark 2002 figures we obtained were far more interesting. For reference a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 on an Intel 875P motherboard with dual channel PC3200 memory scored 320, which neatly mirrors the processor speed.

 

The Opteron 142 scored 257 with PC2700 and 263 with PC3200 memory. The Opteron 148 scored 328 with PC2700 and 334 with PC3200, while the FX-53 scored 348 with PC2700 and 355 with PC3200. For the heck of it we then retested the FX-53 with PC3200 using a pair of 74GB Western Digital Raptor hard drives in a Raid 0 array in place of the original 120GB WD1200 Caviar hard drive and the score leapt to 373.

 

That's massive performance but it overlooks a fundamental point, which is that all of these AMD processors can run either 32-bit or 64-bit software, so they have a fair degree of future-proofing built in too.

 

AMD - Athlon 64 FX-53 features - Verdict

Most of us won't spend £500 for a processor, but the Athlon 64 FX-53 is important to AMD as it proves that the company has the ability to produce desktop processors that can beat the best that Intel has to offer. These are early days for this new generation of processors, but it is clear that AMD has produced a worthy successor to the Athlon XP.

 

Note: tests were performed without independent verification by the 3DMark Licensor, and the Licensor makes no representations or warranties as to the result of the test. 3DMark is a trademark of Madonion.com Ltd. in the US and other countries.

 

AMD - Athlon 64 FX-53 price

· Buy motherboards and processors securely online at a bargain price

· Compare prices of motherboards and processors from many companies

· Auctions: buy or sell motherboards and processors at auction

· Upgrade your PC: buy RAM online

 

£520 inc. VAT (estimated)

AMD: 01276 803100

www.amd.com (other AMD-related sites)