-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
What's the best AMD motherboard?
- Thread starter Wassup
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2000
- Location
- belding,MI,United States
i can hit 114 FSB,and that`s it the last time i tryed 115 i had a huge crash ,, i think that all kt133 chip set mother board`s hit the ceiling a this leval ...
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2000
- Location
- Woodcote, UK
Abit KT7a-RAID - the KT7's a great board, and the KT133a version is basically the same but with native UDMA100 support, and a true 133MHz fsb. If you can't find the KT7a-RAID the Asus A7V-133 would also be great - similar features, though I don't think it allows multiplier changes to be made in bios.
A7V133 does allow multiplier changes in the Bios. No problem there but my CPU is running VERY hot on this mobo. I didn't have this problem with my MSI K7TPro2-A and the same processor.
Oh yeah..the ASUS is stable (although the MSI was also a VERY stable mobo...but I wanted to try the new Via KT133A chipset)
Greetings,
Oh yeah..the ASUS is stable (although the MSI was also a VERY stable mobo...but I wanted to try the new Via KT133A chipset)
Greetings,
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2000
MSI boards are the most stable. Asus and Abit are overclockable, but tempermental. You'll be constantly tweaking them and updating the BIOS to keep them running right. Go with MSI if you're like me and appreciate stability, i.e., absolutely no crashes or BSODs.
Well, many of us could tell the same story about our Abits and Asus boards. This is kinda GM vs Ford thing. There is minimal difference but different opinions.
It might appear as the Abits and Asus are big trouble makers, and I would think so to after staying in this forum for several months now. But my first hand experience with them is quite different, like you said, no prb's what so ever.
There are simply so many Abits and Asus boards out there that the small precentage of ppl having problems (usually not board related) with them is quite a large group.
Another interesting thing, what is stable? When is your system crashing cuz of OS or App or vid card or sound...etc. And when is it the fault of the motherboard?
I guess I am brain damaged since I have never understood this, and It is amusing to see stability tests in reviews.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2000
- Location
- North Little Rock, Arkansas
ummm i havent had a MSI board worth a hoot
was a diehard asus fan
but i got the KT7A-RAID and its solid as a rock
Highest setting = 166Mhz
I clocked it at 145Mhz FSB and a 6.5 multiplyer. This becomes a 945Mhz CPU (original 900Mhz). But the the heat of the CPU is impressive...(about 57°C idle). So I changed it back to a 133Mhz FSB and a 7.5 multiplyer and guess what ??? It worked , stable and everything but again temp problems. CPU still at 54°C idle.
Then I clocked 110Mhz FSB and a 9x core and that is the way i'm still running. 990Mhz core and 110Mhz FSB and 143Mhz Memory CAS3. about 50°C idle and 55°C under Quake load.
I got a Super Orb fan for the CPU, 2 fans blowing the hot air out and 2 fans blowing fresh air in. A GeForce2Mx 32Mb , a Maxtor 30Gb 7200 ATA100 , 2x 128Mb 100Mhz(yes...it really is) CAS2 and a 3com 3C509C TX nic. , Aopen 52x CD and a Samsung 408 CDRW.
Greetings,
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2000
- Location
- North Little Rock, Arkansas
dood
chunk the ORB-o-HEAT
get you a FOP or a ALPHA
your too HOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
chunk the ORB-o-HEAT
get you a FOP or a ALPHA
your too HOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2000
The only popular reviewer who really tests for stability is Anand. He runs intensive 24-hour benches, most sites just boot them up, play around for a while to see how far they'll O/C, and go "WooHoo". The MSI KT7 Pro 2A was the only socket A board to have zero crashes in his test. And overdoze claims he values stability over MHz.
www.anandtech.com
While recent Abit boards have been made better, Abit has NEVER been known for quality. They have always made overclockers boards with mediocre quality components. Since all the tweaking features appeal to hobbyists are included, they're very popular. Plus, they (not Al Gore) pretty much invented overclocking. But, even the KT7 which appears to use quality components, has had an alarmingly high RMA rate. And, as I remember, this site actually gave up trying to complete it's review of the board because they had so many problems. So, while Abit almost always has the most O/C features, they are not the most stable and gnerally must be tweaked into submission. Plus, they used to be relatively cheap, but now compete with Asus for the price gouging lead.
Asus boards have always been quality manufactured and used quality parts, but recent boards have had numerous problems. These appear to be due to rushing them into production trying to beat Abit to the punch. The only was to do this is to compress the design phase. If you remember back, the P3V4X design was so screwed up VIA had to re-write their drivers specifically to make that board work. Even BIOS upgrades couldn't do the trick. All recent Asus releases have been followed by numerous official and "beta" BIOS upgrades. While tweakers love BIOS upgrades, they are a sign of poor design. Sure, an upgrade every few months may be necessary to keep up with new CPUs, larger hard drives, etc. But two upgrades in three days, as Asus recently issued for the A7V, is absurd.
In contrast to this, the Soyo BX board I use in my primary system has had a total of 5 BIOS upgrades in the 16 months or so it's been out. It runs everything with no problems. And 2 of those upgrades were actually for HighPoint controller BIOS updates.
Anyway, I am in no way trying to say that Abit and Asus boards are terrible. With proper tweaking and experimentation with the various BIOS upgrades available, you can get them running fine. I just think they are overrated primarily because they are "cool" to own. They have the features you need, but IMO are over priced. Abits are fun boards to O/C with, but I'd never put a mission-critical application on a system with one. As for Asus, the quality in the manufacture and components used on their boards is excellent. But they are rushing the design and are therefore compromising the reliability and compatibility of their products.
Just one more thing, regarding the question:
The answer is, it's pretty much always the fault of the motherboard. The most basic requirement for any motherboard is that it be able to run any O/S and be compatible with any peripheral. I'm always amused when guys blame their BSODs and other problems on the O/S. If something crashes on your system, but thousands of others run it with no problems, it ain't the O/S. The primary factor in the stability of any system is the motherboard.
Socket-A VIA KT133 Motherboard Roundup - November 2000
While recent Abit boards have been made better, Abit has NEVER been known for quality. They have always made overclockers boards with mediocre quality components. Since all the tweaking features appeal to hobbyists are included, they're very popular. Plus, they (not Al Gore) pretty much invented overclocking. But, even the KT7 which appears to use quality components, has had an alarmingly high RMA rate. And, as I remember, this site actually gave up trying to complete it's review of the board because they had so many problems. So, while Abit almost always has the most O/C features, they are not the most stable and gnerally must be tweaked into submission. Plus, they used to be relatively cheap, but now compete with Asus for the price gouging lead.
Asus boards have always been quality manufactured and used quality parts, but recent boards have had numerous problems. These appear to be due to rushing them into production trying to beat Abit to the punch. The only was to do this is to compress the design phase. If you remember back, the P3V4X design was so screwed up VIA had to re-write their drivers specifically to make that board work. Even BIOS upgrades couldn't do the trick. All recent Asus releases have been followed by numerous official and "beta" BIOS upgrades. While tweakers love BIOS upgrades, they are a sign of poor design. Sure, an upgrade every few months may be necessary to keep up with new CPUs, larger hard drives, etc. But two upgrades in three days, as Asus recently issued for the A7V, is absurd.
In contrast to this, the Soyo BX board I use in my primary system has had a total of 5 BIOS upgrades in the 16 months or so it's been out. It runs everything with no problems. And 2 of those upgrades were actually for HighPoint controller BIOS updates.
Anyway, I am in no way trying to say that Abit and Asus boards are terrible. With proper tweaking and experimentation with the various BIOS upgrades available, you can get them running fine. I just think they are overrated primarily because they are "cool" to own. They have the features you need, but IMO are over priced. Abits are fun boards to O/C with, but I'd never put a mission-critical application on a system with one. As for Asus, the quality in the manufacture and components used on their boards is excellent. But they are rushing the design and are therefore compromising the reliability and compatibility of their products.
Just one more thing, regarding the question:
The answer is, it's pretty much always the fault of the motherboard. The most basic requirement for any motherboard is that it be able to run any O/S and be compatible with any peripheral. I'm always amused when guys blame their BSODs and other problems on the O/S. If something crashes on your system, but thousands of others run it with no problems, it ain't the O/S. The primary factor in the stability of any system is the motherboard.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2001
- Location
- Minneapolis, MN
OK y'all here's the story. I have been running a K6-2 500 for over a year now and I have finally had it with it. I can't get through Win98 installation without a BSOD or an error saying there is a corrupt CAB file (tried 3 different Win98 discs, swapped IDE cables, tried different HD's and cables, etc.). I originally thought my good ol' SS7 system would last me until Palomino/DDR but one of those super computer sale's is in town this weekend and I think I am going to upgrade. I am set on a processor - Duron 700, maybe 750 if the price is right. What I want to know is I plan on doing a little overclocking and since FSB overclocking is legendarily sucky on KT133 boards, I want to know which mobo's can change multiplier with the pencil trick. So far I gather: Abit KT7 (various flavors), Asus A7V, and MSI K7T Pro 2A. What other boards can do it? I want to lay out as little cash as possible. ATA 100 support is not important, my HD is an ATA-66 model anyway and I am scrapping all this in september or so in favor of a Palomino/DDR system. Should I go for a KT133A board? Price may be inhibitive... and really, how important is 133 MHz FSB support anyway? I am running 128 MB CAS2 PC100 and I am not going to get new memory. We're just talking processor, fan, and motherboard. Let's hear some opinions.
SickBoy
SickBoy
I think this is quite interesting issue, since most ppl agree that win2000 has fewer crashes than win 9x/me, Another example is Linux (the greatest of all computer games) pc platform servers seem to be able of months uptime running this os without problems. I have very hard time believing win98 could do that. Therefore OS seem to play important role in stability in general.
Hardware does too, If one gets new nic or vid card, and his comp crashes frequently after installation, must this be motherboards problem? The cure is usually new driver.
I actually did read Anands review and the stability test. I think this is good thing they did well, no doubt about that. But had they used different hardware or driver versions would the results be the same? Perhaps, but testing this seem impossible to me. To get valuable results you need to use several boards of same type, under several different OS, with several types of pci cards...etc...etc.
What I mean is: It is easy to say that one system is not stable, one crash and you are there. However judging how stable is not as easy.
Quality management is a *****, I know .
Thanks for your response
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2000
What you say about some O/S's being more stable than others is, of course, true. What I was trying to get across is that if the app runs stable on other platforms, but not yours, it's the mobo, not the O/S. If it's the O/S or app, it will be unstable on every system. And if that were true, nobody would buy the application. So, IMO, most of these instabilities that are blamed on the O/S or SW are really a hardware problem. I know Microsoft, in particular, is a popular target for everyone. But I've had zero problems with Win 98 in the year or so I've been running it. Win 95, however, was another story.
I agree with you, MS is frequently blamed for something that has actually nothing to do with MS. It seems like some ppl think they can earn respect by bitching MS ;D I think fresh install (not ghost) is absolute must for any OS and a lot of problems comes from poor OS installs.
