Best Asus motherboard for Athlon XP ?

[Valhalla1]

so my uncle wants me to build him a new athlon XP pc, and he has it stuck in his head that he has to have an asus board.. I've built a few new amd systems but all with MSI boards, including my current beast system with MSI K7-D Master-L with dual AMD MP 2100+'s

so I see several asus boards out there, wondering what is the best? overclocking not needed, looking for a stable board with onboard audio and onboard lan preferred

[llbbl]

Maybe your first problem is that you are buying AMD. They run hot and you have a much greater chance of ruining your processor if you don't know what you are doing. Intel is more expensive but at least your chip will be around for a longer period of time. See it pays off in the end. Its like buying generic tools instead of craftsman (lifetime warrenty).

When I built my system I checked on pricewatch for the best price of what I wanted. :o

The best motherboard prolly depends alot on what your uncle wants to do with it. Does he want RAID, onboard USB / LAN ect. ect. Then go on the ASUS site and figure out which MOBO they make that has all the features he would want. I bet you he will say it does not matter to him.

:cool:

[IronSerif]

I'd either go with the Asus A7N266-E or the Asus A7V333-E

[ruri]

I have an Asus A7V333 with RAID option and it's a very stable, full-featured mobo. It has an XP2000 with 512MB and a Radeon 8500DV. I use it for video capture / editing with great success. The built-in firewire connection is what sold me on this particular MB since the new 8500DV doesn't sport a firewire port.

After finishing a project (MediaStudio Pro 6.5 with CG Infinity 6.5), I would let the program render the final output video for a couple of hours running at 100% CPU utilization. I have not yet experience a crash that's attributable to the MB.

Unfortunately, the A7V333 doesn't have onboard NIC, but that's a minor inconvenience seeing how a NIC goes for $10 nowaday. Also, the built-in RAID sucked (due to the VIA chipset), but for an extra $10 surcharge for the RAID model, having 2 more IDE channels come in handy.

[Ioman]

Originally posted by vindisco
Maybe your first problem is that you are buying AMD. They run hot and you have a much greater chance of ruining your processor if you don't know what you are doing. Intel is more expensive but at least your chip will be around for a longer period of time. See it pays off in the end. Its like buying generic tools instead of craftsman (lifetime warrenty).

When I built my system I checked on pricewatch for the best price of what I wanted. :o

The best motherboard prolly depends alot on what your uncle wants to do with it. Does he want RAID, onboard USB / LAN ect. ect. Then go on the ASUS site and figure out which MOBO they make that has all the features he would want. I bet you he will say it does not matter to him.

:cool:

I don't know man, I have been a huge follower of Intel, but since I switched to an AMD 1700+ I can not really tell the difference. I run my machine 24 hours straight and the CPU does fine. I say go with whats fast and cheap. Intel and AMD are both quality products.

[IronSerif]

Originally posted by Ioman


I don't know man, I have been a huge follower of Intel, but since I switched to an AMD 1700+ I can not relly tell the difference. I run my machine 24 hours straight and the CPU does fine. I say go with whats fast and cheap. Intel and AMD are both quality products.

Gotta agree on this one. I've been an Intel supporter for the longest of times...but now I'm rocking my AMD 1900+ and I'm happy with it.

Good luck!

[ECA]

VIND:

ALL chips have there pro's and con's...
Let Each person decide what they want.
IMHO, you maybe one person that thinks the AMD runs at the same MHZ as is printed on it. But, generally they run 10-25% mhz LESS then Intel.. But have the processing power of the Number printed on them. I think the 2100+ runs at 1700mhz, and if you cna find a 1700 INTELL that will run as good or as fast, GO BUY IT.
You need to understand, IM a skeptic, I Question ALMOST everything. I DONT believe ANy adverts, even PAID opinions are NOTHING to me. I try to find SOME truth in adverts(and there aint many)

[Unregistered]

Vindisco,

I would have to totally disagree with your conclusion.

You assert that AMD chips run hotter than Intel, can you please support this claim? In fact, I would argue that this is not the case according to both Intel and AMD documentation. Please review the datasheets before making any claims of this nature.

From Intel's website:

ftp://download.intel.com/design/Pentium4/datashts/24919805.pdf

Section 6.1 has typical power figures for the 2.0Ghz part 423 pin package.

71.8W

ftp://download.intel.com/design/Pentium4/datashts/24988703.pdf

Again, section 6.1 has typical power figures for 478 pin package

2.0Ghz = 75.3W

From AMD's website:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/25175.pdf

Chapter 6 has typical power figures for T-bred 2000+ running at 1667MHz at 54.7W

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/24309.pdf

Again, typical power for a Palomino 2000+ runs at 62.5W.

Seem's to me the documentation is pretty clear. If you examine the numbers strictly by frequency, the numbers are still about the same.

The argument that AMD parts run hotter is old and outdated. Sorry, but I'm pretty tired of this misconception. I agree with ECA, each processor has it's own pro's and con's, but there is way too much of "I heard from a friend of a friend" FUD going on. I thought it was time somebody set the record straight.

As for which Asus mobo? It depends on which chipset you prefer. The A7N with the nVidia chipsets are really nice boards. However, so is the A7V333 and the A7V266. Asus makes really good boards as does MSI and Gigabyte. You really can't go wrong with any of these choices.

Regards,
Java

[llbbl]

Hey I was just trying to play the Intel advicate, spur some conversation. I am glad that you went and did some research onto the different chipsets. It certainly makes the forum a better place to visit.

What I was actually reffering to was Intel's Power Managment (PM) capabilities that were present in the P3's, although I am not sure if it is still included in the P4's. PM is different than power consumption. It was my understanding that AMD Athlon (Thunderbird) lacked these PM features that the Intel P3 chip has. Here is a link that backs up my statement.

http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/cpus/1ghz_shootout/002.htm

If one chip uses more Watts than another it is true that there is a good chance that the one that uses less Watts will run cooler. However alot is dependant on how the chip is made (size of die) and the architecture of the chip.

Here is a link I found that supports my claim to the difference in the two chips that I was reffering too. It is kind of long so do a search for "Intel vs. AMD" and you will find the table that interests us in this case.

http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/urz/anwendungen/CLIC/history.php3?lang=en

-vintage disco

[ECA]

Vin,
there is one consideration alot of people do not consider.
HOW big is the chip... Im not talking about the ceramic protection. The Pentium chips tend to be smaller, and this casues alot of heat also. If they would enlarge the foot print, there could be ALOT better heat dissipitation. But, someone has it in there head, that SMALLER is better. That doesnt always work. There is a pont when 2 lines of electrical power cant get closer because they interfere with each other, then you loose stability of the chip. Then there is the IDEA of how much power to SHOVE threw a chip. Alpha chips and a few others Have Just as much Processing power as the INTEL chips, but at a Lower Mhz(about 1/2). But these are RISC based, where the CHIP doesnt do ALL the work, the programs have to do it.
Lets NOt get into a chip war... It aint worth it.

[llbbl]

Originally posted by ECA
Vin,
there is one consideration alot of people do not consider.
HOW big is the chip... Im not talking about the ceramic protection. The Pentium chips tend to be smaller, and this casues alot of heat also. If they would enlarge the foot print, there could be ALOT better heat dissipitation. But, someone has it in there head, that SMALLER is better. That doesnt always work. There is a pont when 2 lines of electrical power cant get closer because they interfere with each other, then you loose stability of the chip. Then there is the IDEA of how much power to SHOVE threw a chip. Alpha chips and a few others Have Just as much Processing power as the INTEL chips, but at a Lower Mhz(about 1/2). But these are RISC based, where the CHIP doesnt do ALL the work, the programs have to do it.
Lets NOt get into a chip war... It aint worth it.

I don't think a larger chip size is the answer if you want faster and less expensive chips. They try and make them small because it makes it cheaper to produce and they are able to fit more instruction sets on the chip. You are right that their is a critical point when considering what die size to use because more of your power will be lost in the form of heat. I am not trying to make it a chip war. We are a bit off topic. Maybe we should start a new thread entitled "AMD vs INTEL" or "Processor Discussion" or "Processor Heat Issues".

It is my fault for getting us off track. I apologize to everyone who wanted to give Valhalla1 advice about which Asus Mobo to get.

[ECA]

SMALLER isnt faster, and they arent getting any more Inst. sets on the die. They are in COURT now because the P4, and the P3 arent much different, and there isnt a Increase for the price.
Smaller aint cheaper, It costs ALOT more. The R&D for makeing those trace lines so small, and the tooling to do it is OUTRAGOUS. If they took the current Intel chip processes, and put them to work on OTHER chips, I would love it. The alpha chip would be a chip the size of your finger nail. they would be able to install it in a cell phone and have a FULL computer.

[vaughn]

hello i have been using the asus a7v266-e board and a xp1700 chip for over three years....
and have had no problems....and my computer stays on.unless im at work or sleeping

[k2]

i just noticed how old this thread is :D

[k2]

generally any nforce2 mobo will be great; stay away from via chipsets.

[demonR6]

I just thought I would offer my past experience. I have a P4 based machine at work and an AMD machine at home. My work rig is a P4 2.8 GHz with 1.5 GB of ram; the rig at home is an AMD 64 3000+ oc'ed to 2.5 GHz with 1.5 GB ram. At work, 98% of my day revolves around running queries from Oracle etc. which I would say beats up the processor pretty good. At home I use my rig for gaming and the occasional work I have to bring home and I would say it takes as much a beating as my work rig. I honestly prefer the performance of my AMD based machine vs the Intel. I have run benchmarks on both and my AMD machine runs a tad better. I switched from Intel to AMD processors about four years ago and won't turn back. Most of my work involves using business intelligence software, crunching numbers and there are times I take work home because I know my machine at home is more efficient. I have additional cooling on my rig at home; my rig here at work sounds like you are riding in a helicopter when I run queries that use a lot of processor. I built my rig at home for high end gaming and the occasional late night of work. My AMD set up was inexpensive which leads me to ask, why does he not go for one of the newer AMD 64 processors?

*God that was a long first post.*

[k2]

look at the post date, it's 3yrs old :)

i <3 my amd workstation & opteron 250 db server. amd owns for int crunching.

[Archon]

hehehe