rhavin wrote
<< the SIS 735 has "issues" just like the VIA chipset does >>
And what issues are those? I have been using the SIS735 chipset & found NO issues.
<< the SIS 735 has "issues" just like the VIA chipset does >>
And what issues are those? I have been using the SIS735 chipset & found NO issues.
rhavin,
Yeah what are they...you been hearing azgamers crap too long...most compatability issues are related to ecs and a rather poor quality control...As soon as most mobo companies realize that sis offers a great solution and see that via has some issues maybe more will be producing 735 and 745 mobos...
He has no proof so don't bother asking....
And to starcutter....I saw noticeable score differences in 3 programs...sissoft, hdtach, and a program called pctest that test read/write/and seek times and compares to defaults...My same drives I have now did rather poor, but do much better...
Yeah what are they...you been hearing azgamers crap too long...most compatability issues are related to ecs and a rather poor quality control...As soon as most mobo companies realize that sis offers a great solution and see that via has some issues maybe more will be producing 735 and 745 mobos...
He has no proof so don't bother asking....
And to starcutter....I saw noticeable score differences in 3 programs...sissoft, hdtach, and a program called pctest that test read/write/and seek times and compares to defaults...My same drives I have now did rather poor, but do much better...
rahvin wrote:
"Pabster, the SIS 735 has "issues" just like the VIA chipset does. We were all spoiled by the BX, intel should get an award for the stability/compatability of that chipset."
What issues? Where are they?
There have been zero reported "issues" with SiS 735. That's right. Zero.
So if you have these "issues" at hand, please present them. Otherwise...
EDIT: I'd also like to add that what bothers me most about this ubiquitous VIA bug is the fact that it affects SCSI performance. I'm a die hard SCSI user and I recall terrible performance on each VIA chipset based mainboard I used. Like about 50-60% what I receive with a non-VIA based mainboard. A few megs per second from IDE RAID doesn't really concern me, because (IMHO) IDE RAID is a bad idea anyway.
"Pabster, the SIS 735 has "issues" just like the VIA chipset does. We were all spoiled by the BX, intel should get an award for the stability/compatability of that chipset."
What issues? Where are they?
There have been zero reported "issues" with SiS 735. That's right. Zero.
So if you have these "issues" at hand, please present them. Otherwise...
EDIT: I'd also like to add that what bothers me most about this ubiquitous VIA bug is the fact that it affects SCSI performance. I'm a die hard SCSI user and I recall terrible performance on each VIA chipset based mainboard I used. Like about 50-60% what I receive with a non-VIA based mainboard. A few megs per second from IDE RAID doesn't really concern me, because (IMHO) IDE RAID is a bad idea anyway.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,999
- 307
- 126
<<We were all spoiled by the BX, intel should get an award for the stability/compatability of that chipset.>>
The Apollo Pro133A kicked the BX's ass up and down the canvas. Why this chipset is so revered is beyond me. By the same logic we should all love the LX chipset.
The BX chipset is a dinosaur. The original versions couldn't handle anything past 1:4 dividers for the PCI. The 3-memory slot limits of BX boards is now downright laughable when you think how cheap it is to populate memory slots. (Some BX-based motherboards came with more than 3 slots by buffering off the third slot... ugh!) The limited bandwidth between north-south bridges makes it a rather slow chipset by today's standards. The BX chipset was truly hindered by its 100fsb and 1X AGP design limits. The ATA33 limitation is but another crutch.
Why would anyone want to run a BX chipset again?
The Apollo Pro133A kicked the BX's ass up and down the canvas. Why this chipset is so revered is beyond me. By the same logic we should all love the LX chipset.
The BX chipset is a dinosaur. The original versions couldn't handle anything past 1:4 dividers for the PCI. The 3-memory slot limits of BX boards is now downright laughable when you think how cheap it is to populate memory slots. (Some BX-based motherboards came with more than 3 slots by buffering off the third slot... ugh!) The limited bandwidth between north-south bridges makes it a rather slow chipset by today's standards. The BX chipset was truly hindered by its 100fsb and 1X AGP design limits. The ATA33 limitation is but another crutch.
Why would anyone want to run a BX chipset again?
<<What issues? Where are they?
There have been zero reported "issues" with SiS 735. That's right. Zero.
So if you have these "issues" at hand, please present them. Otherwise...>>
Can't find my thread, and it may be a BIOS issue with the K7S5A. If you go search the knowledge base at ECS for SCSI and read through the problems you will find consistent problems with people being unable to get SCSI boot devices to work with the K7S5A. I personally experienced this problem, my Seagate X15 would only be recognized as a drive in SCSI 5mb/s mode, all other modes it wasn't recognized as a valid boot device. Put the same setup in an 8KHA+ and it works great, benches are equivalent to storagereview.
Most people don't have this problem because most people don't have SCSI boot devices.
All chipsets have "issues", the BX was almost the exception that proved the rule.
There have been zero reported "issues" with SiS 735. That's right. Zero.
So if you have these "issues" at hand, please present them. Otherwise...>>
Can't find my thread, and it may be a BIOS issue with the K7S5A. If you go search the knowledge base at ECS for SCSI and read through the problems you will find consistent problems with people being unable to get SCSI boot devices to work with the K7S5A. I personally experienced this problem, my Seagate X15 would only be recognized as a drive in SCSI 5mb/s mode, all other modes it wasn't recognized as a valid boot device. Put the same setup in an 8KHA+ and it works great, benches are equivalent to storagereview.
Most people don't have this problem because most people don't have SCSI boot devices.
All chipsets have "issues", the BX was almost the exception that proved the rule.
<<
<< rahvin wrote:
"Pabster, the SIS 735 has "issues" just like the VIA chipset does. We were all spoiled by the BX, intel should get an award for the stability/compatability of that chipset."
What issues? Where are they?
There have been zero reported "issues" with SiS 735. That's right. Zero.
>>
Yeah, zero issues b/c the only board with that chipset is the ECS K7S5A, and thousands of issues with it are of course, not chipset-related
. Check the ECS forum at OCWorkbench.com, it proves my words.I can ask you the same... What issues exactly have U found with the KT266A? P4X266/A? Where are these 'issues' of yours, Pabster? Pls name at least one. >>
Well......to name the obvious......the same exact drive will B/M better in a Sis735 than it does in a KT266A..........and by a considerable margin, There are no problems with nVidia cards in SiS 735's like many have had with KT266A (try installing an O/S with a Ti500 on a KT266A). These are just a couple that I've personally witnessed in the past week, and by the boards, so have many others....
LOL! GOT the 4.37V (A)'s! Thing is, it works fine with a GF2 Ultra, so it is a nVidia/Via problem with the Ti500's! I was merely pointing out the fact that a Ti500 will install with NO problems on a SiS 735, AMD 760, or Ali board, so explain that away! LOL!
<< As for the 'slower' IDE performance, this statement can be easily annihilated with proofs and facts. >>
That's nice and all.........but.......why is it that the same drive is noticabley faster on an SiS 735 AND B/M's higher in the "synthetic" B/M's you mention? All this on ATA-133 drives on the ATA-133 channel of a KT266A compared to a ATA-100 of a SiS735. I'm well aware that there will be slight, if any noticable difference, but, why market something (as many are going to/doing) on the KT266A as ATA-133 when the Sis 735 with ATA-100 is faster? Where are these "proofs & facts" that will explain away REAL "real world" performance has many have witnessed?
LOL! << As for the 'slower' IDE performance, this statement can be easily annihilated with proofs and facts. >>
That's nice and all.........but.......why is it that the same drive is noticabley faster on an SiS 735 AND B/M's higher in the "synthetic" B/M's you mention? All this on ATA-133 drives on the ATA-133 channel of a KT266A compared to a ATA-100 of a SiS735. I'm well aware that there will be slight, if any noticable difference, but, why market something (as many are going to/doing) on the KT266A as ATA-133 when the Sis 735 with ATA-100 is faster? Where are these "proofs & facts" that will explain away REAL "real world" performance has many have witnessed?
I'm willing to bet that any issues users have with the K7S5A center around ECS and not SiS. It's a shame that more of the highly regarded mobo manufacturers did not come out with S735 based boards. It also shows the influence of VIA over the industry.
Perhaps incidents like this along with the P4 issue will provide reasons for some of the major mobo makers to go with the SiS 745 chipset in the near future.
That said, I've had zero problems with my VIA chipsets, and consider them to be some of the fastest, most stable boards offered. This gaf with PCI IDE cards is a performance issue that will probably only affect a small number of users. That doesn't clear VIA's for this obvious screw up however. A company as large as VIA shouldn't be making these kinds of mistakes.
Perhaps incidents like this along with the P4 issue will provide reasons for some of the major mobo makers to go with the SiS 745 chipset in the near future.
That said, I've had zero problems with my VIA chipsets, and consider them to be some of the fastest, most stable boards offered. This gaf with PCI IDE cards is a performance issue that will probably only affect a small number of users. That doesn't clear VIA's for this obvious screw up however. A company as large as VIA shouldn't be making these kinds of mistakes.
I've got a PNY and a V/T XTASY and either card will install and perform flawlessly on a ECS board or my KG7-RAID.........stick it in the KR7-RAID though or a Epox KT266A board, and troubles abound!
...stick it in the KR7-RAID though or a Epox KT266A board, and troubles abound!
What kind of troubles? Were those GF3 Ti chipsets on the PNY/VT? What OS were you running?
What kind of troubles? Were those GF3 Ti chipsets on the PNY/VT? What OS were you running?
Yes........read above, they are both GF3 Ti500's, the problem is worst with XP Pro, but the Ti500's also have problems with both my KT266A boards with 2K. (don't mess with anything 9X anymore) The Ti500's also seem to have problems with Mandrake 8.1 as I can use an Ultra and not have any problems, but, the Ti500 has to be "tweked" and manually configured!
) The Ti500's also seem to have problems with Mandrake 8.1 as I can use an Ultra and not have any problems, but, the Ti500 has to be "tweked" and manually configured!What kind of problems were you getting? Artifacts or outright crashes? These were with the 23.11 dets?
I'm just curious cause I don't seem to experience these problems at all on W2K and I like to fix things...
I'm just curious cause I don't seem to experience these problems at all on W2K and I like to fix things...
Used damned near every driver and Via drivers available............in some instances the install would crash before Whindows/Linux was even installed, in others, you can acheive loading of the O/S, but, it is so unstable formating is the only logical alternative. I have actually had the best luck using all drivers native to XP and allowing it to run on those, but, this also means one must not implement the ATA-133 channels and use everything on the default channels because XP will not detect the HD without the updated Highpoint drivers!
Try and solve it if you like and good luck! My point has been from the start, why have I and so many others found that this and the other problems do NOT exist on the AMD or SiS based boards, but do on the Via???????
Try and solve it if you like and good luck!
My point has been from the start, why have I and so many others found that this and the other problems do NOT exist on the AMD or SiS based boards, but do on the Via???????Candoman wrote:
"VIA southbridges outpace the competiotion from SIS and ALI, of course, benching only an unnoticable 1-2 % slower than Intel ICHs, in real-world benchmarks."
ROFLMAO VIA south bridges "outpace" the competition? You're obviously misinformed or purposely spewing garbage. VIA's south bridges consistently benchmark and perform considerably lower than south bridges from Intel, SiS, and ALi.
"Synthetic benchmarks are also high, but they may (and do not) not tally with real-world performance of the excptionally speedy VIA chipsets."
Yeah, those 60MB/s burst rates from 686B are super impressive Seriously, take a look around and you'll find the numbers from VIA south bridges to be anything but "high". And I don't think even the most die-hard VIA fan would call them "exceptionally speedy".
"VIA southbridges outpace the competiotion from SIS and ALI, of course, benching only an unnoticable 1-2 % slower than Intel ICHs, in real-world benchmarks."
ROFLMAO
VIA south bridges "outpace" the competition? You're obviously misinformed or purposely spewing garbage. VIA's south bridges consistently benchmark and perform considerably lower than south bridges from Intel, SiS, and ALi."Synthetic benchmarks are also high, but they may (and do not) not tally with real-world performance of the excptionally speedy VIA chipsets."
Yeah, those 60MB/s burst rates from 686B are super impressive
Seriously, take a look around and you'll find the numbers from VIA south bridges to be anything but "high". And I don't think even the most die-hard VIA fan would call them "exceptionally speedy". Candoman wrote:
"I can ask you the same... What issues exactly have U found with the KT266A? P4X266/A? Where are these 'issues' of yours, Pabster? Pls name at least one."
KT266A:
- dismal south bridge (IDE, USB) performance
- IRQ difficulties with a wide array of common PCI cards
- inexplicable difficulties with top-end mainstream graphics cards (Radeon 8500, in particular)
- dismal SCSI performance, with several PCI controllers -- both RAID and non-RAID
- PCI latency issues with several mainstream audio controllers (not just Creative cards)
P4X266:
- everything from above
- quirky RAM compatibility and stability, particularly with 2 or 3 DIMMs
- general instabilities related, unquestionably, to all of the above
Anand has even mentioned P4X266 was riddled with issues on several mainboards he tested. I don't have any information on the "A" revision, because I haven't tested one yet. And, due to SiS 645, I don't intend to.
"I can ask you the same... What issues exactly have U found with the KT266A? P4X266/A? Where are these 'issues' of yours, Pabster? Pls name at least one."
KT266A:
- dismal south bridge (IDE, USB) performance
- IRQ difficulties with a wide array of common PCI cards
- inexplicable difficulties with top-end mainstream graphics cards (Radeon 8500, in particular)
- dismal SCSI performance, with several PCI controllers -- both RAID and non-RAID
- PCI latency issues with several mainstream audio controllers (not just Creative cards)
P4X266:
- everything from above
- quirky RAM compatibility and stability, particularly with 2 or 3 DIMMs
- general instabilities related, unquestionably, to all of the above
Anand has even mentioned P4X266 was riddled with issues on several mainboards he tested. I don't have any information on the "A" revision, because I haven't tested one yet. And, due to SiS 645, I don't intend to.
Pabster,
Are you a fan boy? You can admit VIA chipsets suck (and so can I), can you admit all the other chipsets have "issues" as well? Some are esoteric and aren't seen as often but every chipset has quirks and incompatibilities. Sure VIA has more than their fair share but if you think SIS is godly you are in for some serious dissappointment some day....
Personally I have had these little quirks with every single non-intel chipset I have ever used. I wish Intel would make chipsets for AMD procs.
Are you a fan boy? You can admit VIA chipsets suck (and so can I), can you admit all the other chipsets have "issues" as well? Some are esoteric and aren't seen as often but every chipset has quirks and incompatibilities. Sure VIA has more than their fair share but if you think SIS is godly you are in for some serious dissappointment some day....
Personally I have had these little quirks with every single non-intel chipset I have ever used. I wish Intel would make chipsets for AMD procs.
rahvin wrote:
"Are you a fan boy? You can admit VIA chipsets suck (and so can I), can you admit all the other chipsets have "issues" as well? Some are esoteric and aren't seen as often but every chipset has quirks and incompatibilities. Sure VIA has more than their fair share but if you think SIS is godly you are in for some serious dissappointment some day...."
Yep, I'm a fan boy. LOL Anyway, I'm still waiting for the list of issues with SiS 735.
"Personally I have had these little quirks with every single non-intel chipset I have ever used. I wish Intel would make chipsets for AMD procs."
Intel chipsets are, by and large, rock solid. We can agree on that. But I'm a little tired of hearing people offer up the excuse that SiS 735 has "issues". Where are they? It's rock solid, and high performing. It's also one of the cheapest!
"Are you a fan boy? You can admit VIA chipsets suck (and so can I), can you admit all the other chipsets have "issues" as well? Some are esoteric and aren't seen as often but every chipset has quirks and incompatibilities. Sure VIA has more than their fair share but if you think SIS is godly you are in for some serious dissappointment some day...."
Yep, I'm a fan boy. LOL
Anyway, I'm still waiting for the list of issues with SiS 735. "Personally I have had these little quirks with every single non-intel chipset I have ever used. I wish Intel would make chipsets for AMD procs."
Intel chipsets are, by and large, rock solid. We can agree on that. But I'm a little tired of hearing people offer up the excuse that SiS 735 has "issues". Where are they? It's rock solid, and high performing. It's also one of the cheapest!
You have to admitt........there's no Creative glitch, no nVidia glitch, no 4 in 1's to keep up with on the Sis boards and every damned one I've built has been rock solid and fast as hell!
Why don't you just call this thread: "If you have VIA, come post here." Calm down with these completely biased threads. If you don't, I'm going to start up a thread about every company who has ever made a mistake. I am going to do some research and nitpick every little flaw that can possibly be brought to the attention to those who love to put down companies so badly. Not everyone is perfect, but I think VIA does a pretty darned good job most of the time.
Um, not to quibble, but, that article is a bit outdated no??????? Things may well be seen in a different light by now........
- VIA's New South Bridge:
VT82C686B Supporting UltraATA/100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Created:
October 26, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By:
Patrick Schmid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category:
Mainboard Guide
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary:
VIA's new South Bridge chip with ATA/100 support is some months behind. In exchange, manufacturers may utilize it with either the Apollo Pro 133A or the KT133 chipset. The VT82C686B is finally able to unleash a maximum IDE performance, while it's predecessors, 596B and 686A, have never been able to achieve throughputs like the competing products from Intel, Promise, HighPoint and others did.
ROFL, that is like when the rollout of the kt133a's where....It takes time to find these bugs...the sblive issue didn't surface for like 4-6 months I think...
Candoman wrote:
"Do yourself a favour, look here, please. So much for your '60 MB/s' burst rates. The 686B benches right up to the competition from Intel's ICH2."
You really had to dig hard for that, didn't ya? Probably forgot to notice that was in October 2000. Another year has passed. That was before the plethora (read: myriad) of issues surrounding 686B was discovered. ICH2 outpaces 686B. It also outpaces 8233.
"Are you sure that SiS and ALi ATA/100 southbridges outpace Intel's ICH2? When they don't even have performance-type drivers?"
Heh. "Performance Type Drivers"? You mean 4-in-1 "patch" packs? SiS 735 has the speediest IDE performance out there today.
"ROFLMAO The situation is exactly the same with newer VIA southbridges - one word - incredibly speedy. I don't understand where you get your numbers from, sorry."
8233 is dismal, and each and every review (which actually touched upon disk subsystem performance) verifies that. Unfortunately, many did not. And to add insult to injury for VIA, it appears 8233A (the "new" ATA/133 south bridge) has already experienced some issues with Windows XP. Which is why AK35GTR is (reportedly) shipping with 8233 rather than 8233A. Let's just say I wouldn't be surprised.
"As for the 'issues' with the KT266a and P4X266 you've specified, well... Do you really think these are 'issues'? They have nothing to do with VIA chipsets, these are board and BIOS problems, just like with the K7S5A. These are not chipsets flaws."
No, I mean, who could imagine USB/PCI/IDE issues with VIA chipsets. Give me a break. I've tested enough VIA based boards (including KT266A flavors) to know.
What's more hilarious is the change in tune: when a VIA chipset is in question, it must be the mainboard or BIOS or some other such excuse. But when a SiS chipset is being scrutinized, it is always the chipset. Again, I ask you, where are the issues with SiS 735?
"Do yourself a favour, look here, please. So much for your '60 MB/s' burst rates. The 686B benches right up to the competition from Intel's ICH2."
You really had to dig hard for that, didn't ya? Probably forgot to notice that was in October 2000. Another year has passed. That was before the plethora (read: myriad) of issues surrounding 686B was discovered. ICH2 outpaces 686B. It also outpaces 8233.
"Are you sure that SiS and ALi ATA/100 southbridges outpace Intel's ICH2? When they don't even have performance-type drivers?"
Heh. "Performance Type Drivers"? You mean 4-in-1 "patch" packs? SiS 735 has the speediest IDE performance out there today.
"ROFLMAO The situation is exactly the same with newer VIA southbridges - one word - incredibly speedy. I don't understand where you get your numbers from, sorry."
8233 is dismal, and each and every review (which actually touched upon disk subsystem performance) verifies that. Unfortunately, many did not. And to add insult to injury for VIA, it appears 8233A (the "new" ATA/133 south bridge) has already experienced some issues with Windows XP. Which is why AK35GTR is (reportedly) shipping with 8233 rather than 8233A. Let's just say I wouldn't be surprised.
"As for the 'issues' with the KT266a and P4X266 you've specified, well... Do you really think these are 'issues'? They have nothing to do with VIA chipsets, these are board and BIOS problems, just like with the K7S5A. These are not chipsets flaws."
No, I mean, who could imagine USB/PCI/IDE issues with VIA chipsets. Give me a break. I've tested enough VIA based boards (including KT266A flavors) to know.
What's more hilarious is the change in tune: when a VIA chipset is in question, it must be the mainboard or BIOS or some other such excuse. But when a SiS chipset is being scrutinized, it is always the chipset. Again, I ask you, where are the issues with SiS 735?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter