MSI & ATI chipset motherboard

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

A friend just picked up a Socket 939 micro-ATX motherboard from MSI, the
RS480M2 with integrated graphics. It has an ATI Radion Xpress 200
chipset. I'm not too familiar with this chipset, any word out there
about its compatibility, reliability, and performance?

Yousuf Khan
 

Flint

Distinguished
May 20, 2004
18
0
18,510
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> A friend just picked up a Socket 939 micro-ATX motherboard from MSI, the
> RS480M2 with integrated graphics. It has an ATI Radion Xpress 200
> chipset. I'm not too familiar with this chipset, any word out there
> about its compatibility, reliability, and performance?
>
> Yousuf Khan


I just recently built a system for someone with this mobo. It works
beautifully, and the drivers installed without a hitch. Everything
seems to work just fine. All in all, a very good effort on the part of
ATI for their first entry in a desktop NB chip, and considering how well
it and their drivers work, I'd say this is quite a change from the
previous driver design 'malaise' which has been an ATI problem in the past.

-Rick
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Flint wrote:
> I just recently built a system for someone with this mobo. It works
> beautifully, and the drivers installed without a hitch. Everything
> seems to work just fine. All in all, a very good effort on the part of
> ATI for their first entry in a desktop NB chip, and considering how well
> it and their drivers work, I'd say this is quite a change from the
> previous driver design 'malaise' which has been an ATI problem in the past.

I'm glad to hear that. That was a concern of mine too about ATI, because
of their notorious driver problems of the past.

Does anybody know how good the performance of the onboard ATI X300
graphics be in comparison to a 3-year old Geforce 4MX video card? The
salesman was saying that this onboard should be better than the old
standalone card.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote
> Oh, one thing I noticed about that mbrd -- possibly the chipset -- is that
> it has no COM port so don't expect to use an old external RS232 modem or
> such.

You can get one on a pci card.


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at
spam@uce.gov
Thanks, robots.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
> Oh, one thing I noticed about that mbrd -- possibly the chipset -- is that
> it has no COM port so don't expect to use an old external RS232 modem or
> such.

No, it's gone one. But it's placed on an external slot riser.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 3 Jul 2005 21:32:54 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> Oh, one thing I noticed about that mbrd -- possibly the chipset -- is that
>> it has no COM port so don't expect to use an old external RS232 modem or
>> such.
>
>No, it's gone one. But it's placed on an external slot riser.

Ah OK I'd missed the fact that it has a header on the board. Since you
have eyeballed it, how about DVI connector for the integrated video?...
something I'd prefer not to do without now.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
 

Flint

Distinguished
May 20, 2004
18
0
18,510
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Flint wrote:
>
>> I just recently built a system for someone with this mobo. It works
>> beautifully, and the drivers installed without a hitch. Everything
>> seems to work just fine. All in all, a very good effort on the part
>> of ATI for their first entry in a desktop NB chip, and considering how
>> well it and their drivers work, I'd say this is quite a change from
>> the previous driver design 'malaise' which has been an ATI problem in
>> the past.
>
>
> I'm glad to hear that. That was a concern of mine too about ATI, because
> of their notorious driver problems of the past.
>
> Does anybody know how good the performance of the onboard ATI X300
> graphics be in comparison to a 3-year old Geforce 4MX video card? The
> salesman was saying that this onboard should be better than the old
> standalone card.
>
> Yousuf Khan


Given the core that it is based on, I'd say it definitely would have
better anisotropic filtering and antialiasing, but then no one is really
buying this mobo for gaming, are they? ;-) Still though, I see this
mobo as a great upgrade path for SOHO users looking to go to socket 939
on the (relatively) "cheap".

My only real 'nit' with the mobo is that there are no PCI-express slots
aside from the one 16x slot on the MSI mobo. It would have been nice if
they at least would have dropped one of those legacy PCI slots in favor
of either a 1x or 8x PCI-express slot.

I recall seeing a photo of either an ECS or a Gigabyte mATX prototype
mobo with that slot configuration, but to date, I know of no other mobo
makers that actually have a mATX socket 939 actually on the shelves, but
then its been about a month since I last checked.

-Rick
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
> >No, it's gone one. But it's placed on an external slot riser.

Yikes, look at that mistype, "got" not "gone", obviously.

> Ah OK I'd missed the fact that it has a header on the board. Since you
> have eyeballed it, how about DVI connector for the integrated video?...
> something I'd prefer not to do without now.

You know, my friend who's bought the board was also looking
specifically for a DVI connector. No this has just got a regular VGA
connector. He's got an LCD monitor too. It's cheap enough that you can
just buy an video card with a DVI output on it.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 12:44:03 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Flint wrote:
>> I just recently built a system for someone with this mobo. It works
>> beautifully, and the drivers installed without a hitch. Everything
>> seems to work just fine. All in all, a very good effort on the part of
>> ATI for their first entry in a desktop NB chip, and considering how well
>> it and their drivers work, I'd say this is quite a change from the
>> previous driver design 'malaise' which has been an ATI problem in the past.
>
> I'm glad to hear that. That was a concern of mine too about ATI, because
> of their notorious driver problems of the past.
>
> Does anybody know how good the performance of the onboard ATI X300
> graphics be in comparison to a 3-year old Geforce 4MX video card? The
> salesman was saying that this onboard should be better than the old
> standalone card.
>
> Yousuf Khan

I have read a few reviews of this board, as long as a person is running
windows its a good board. I have heard of people having problems with
drivers, and other problems with this under Gnu/Linux and the *BSD's, I
have also heard that some of the drivers for windows 64 are a bit beta,
and might be touch and go. This is to be expected of ATI, most people
will not buy this board to run with Linux, but check with the 64 bit
forums, of how this board runs under windows 64. I do think that the board
is X2 compatible which makes it a good choice for future upgrades, but
then again it all depends on the bios, I do not know the current state of
that.

All I have to say about MSI, is at least they have an online RMA form,
Giga-byte does not as well as a few others. In fact maybe sometime I will
tell my story about my nightmare with giga-byte socket A board. In the end
it ate two memory sticks, which as I speak are in the process of being
RMA'ed. In short I could not afford to keep it around, as it costs me too
much in time, and memory just because of their rma department.

Like we mentioned in other threads its probably a good bet that most
manufacture are using the same pcp subcontractors, all they do is put the
ic's on the board and slap their label on it. I know one thing, I find it
hard to pay 20-30 bucks for a board with the exact configuration of a so
called name brand. That's almost the price of a good stick of memory now,
or a dvd-rom.

Just look at how long your K7s5a lasted, I wish mine lasted that long, but
it burst its caps, and that is why I had to go with the Giga-byte, now its
MSI, anyway at least your buddy got amd, I am sure a lot of people in this
newsgroup will agree that's a good thing.

Gnu_Raiz
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:apCdnWQJdsBOiFXfRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
> Flint wrote:
> > I just recently built a system for someone with this mobo. It works
> > beautifully, and the drivers installed without a hitch. Everything

>
> Does anybody know how good the performance of the onboard ATI X300
> graphics be in comparison to a 3-year old Geforce 4MX video card? The
> salesman was saying that this onboard should be better than the old
> standalone card.
>
> Yousuf Khan

Not terrible.My brother's PC has the X300 onboard and he was able to pllay
DOOM3.Barely.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:

> Any mfr, including Asus can make the odd dud... and there are lots of dud
> err, users out there.


Exactly. All in all, I find MSI products to be quite good, and they're
mobos are consistantly in the top 5 rankings in just about all reviews.

-Rick
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:d5adnToqw7lvdlrfRVn-2g@rogers.com...
> A friend just picked up a Socket 939 micro-ATX motherboard from MSI, the
> RS480M2 with integrated graphics. It has an ATI Radion Xpress 200
> chipset. I'm not too familiar with this chipset, any word out there
> about its compatibility, reliability, and performance?
>
> Yousuf Khan

I saw most of new Compaq/HP notebooks use ATI mobile Xpress 200 graphic
chips (and mobile AMD CPU). I think it is a good combination. $500 notebook
has 32MB version while $850 notebook has 128MB version. I sure will buy
AMD/ATI notebook with separate RAMs than Intel Celeron with Extreme 2.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

ATI the default or only AMD notebook chipset these days? Nothing from
Nvidia, VIA or SiS for this market?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> writes:

> ATI the default or only AMD notebook chipset these days? Nothing from
> Nvidia, VIA or SiS for this market?

My Averatec 3270 (AMD Sempron) uses VIA.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
skype: jjpfeifferjr
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Any idea if Motherboard Monitor, MBM, can make use of this chipset?

So far it doesn't seem to appear on their motherboard database.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 8 Jul 2005 23:06:07 -0700, "Yousuf Khan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>Any idea if Motherboard Monitor, MBM, can make use of this chipset?
>
>So far it doesn't seem to appear on their motherboard database.

Sorry I dunno and don't even know what chipset depencies there might be but
I hear good things about Speedfan, http://www.almico.com/speedfan.php -
it's listed as compatible in some way; the SuperIO chip used on the mbrd
figures in as well. I was never all that impressed by MBM but then again
MSI's Corecenter is no bargain either.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 8 Jul 2005 12:03:36 -0700, "Yousuf Khan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>ATI the default or only AMD notebook chipset these days? Nothing from
>Nvidia, VIA or SiS for this market?

nVidia produces an "nForce3 Go" chipset for notebooks, basically the
mobile version of the regular nForce3. The feature set of this
chipset is a bit weak when compared to ATI's alternative, so it
doesn't seem to get much use. Unfortunately they don't seem to have
any sort of "nForce4 Go" yet.

VIA also has a mobile version of their K8N800 chipset, but it seems to
be mainly relegated to the low-end of the mobile market. As for SiS,
they seem to have kind of disappeared from the chipset market. It
doesn't seem like anyone is using their chipsets on the mobile front
and even their desktop chipsets are VERY rare these days.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca