Motherboard for P4.

[Guest]

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)

 

[ken]

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.

 

[ken]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[ms]

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

 

[Guest]

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~
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[jk]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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..

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.