For the record, has anyone got any proof regarding Abit's high RMA rate?

[Biggs]

I want to settle this once and for all.

 

[Phil21]

out of say, 10 boards that I know of (of friends) about 4 that I know of have been RMA'ed or just trashed. My bx6r2 works fine though.

peaece,

-Phil

 

[PCResources]

The RMA rate of Abit boards (specifically, but not limited to, the Athlon series) is way higher than any other manufacturer, Asus is close which must surprise many people, MSI and Soltek has the lowest, which would also surprise many people...

I base this informations on tests made by my company (which i own)... we tested thousands of boards under pressure, for three weeks, the company with the highest RMA rates as well as test failure rates is Abit, then Asus, then Gigabyte... The best were MSI and Soltek, pretty much the same...

And those motherboards cost less..

Patrick Palm

PC Resources

 

[rickn]

Asus also manufactures 3-4x as many boards per month as those other companies. It would think it would probably even out in failure rates within the given quantities produced

ASUS = 750,000 + motherboards a month. MSI and Soltek don't produce nearly that many.

 

[ModemMix]

i used to own a computer store which my uncle now owns as well as a second store, and after months of carrying abit boards we decided long ago to not cary them for all the returns and all the boards we had to RMA. I loved the features on the ones that worked but to many of them had problems.

 

[Viper GTS]

I'm 3 for 3 on dead ABIT boards. Every single BF6 I've used has died or had some defect.

[EDIT]Doh! I knew what I meant to say...[/EDIT]

Viper GTS

 

[Dulanic]

<< Asus also manufactures 3-4x as many boards per month as those other companies. It would think it would probably even out in failure rates within the given quantities produced >>



When you talk about RMAs you talk about % not #.

Here is what GamePC said and they USED to sell Abit KT7(A).



<< These boards aren't perfect either though. We've had (and continue) to have issues with factory unlocked Athlon CPU's with the KK-266R board. On the other hand, we've already have had some serious RMA issues with the Abit KT7A-RAID boards (Not surprising folks, this is Abit) which have forced us to pull this off our company store shelves. Our Abit testing board seemed to work just fine, but over periods of time Abit boards seem to have shorter lifespans than other Athlon boards on the market. Pity. >>



Straight from a resellers mouth.

http://www.gamepc.com/reviews/hardware_review.asp?review=kt133ashootout&amp;page=13&amp;mscssid=&amp;tp=

 

[PCResources]

<< Asus also manufactures 3-4x as many boards per month as those other companies >>



Well, if i were to buy all of those motherboards, then maybe my figures would be different...

I am talking about a percentage of boards tested, if you test 1000 boards from each manufacturer and get a result, then that result would be about right... that is what we did...

And of all boards, Abit still has the highest RMA rates, then Asus, that is just the truth...

So what you are saying is that if Asus manufactures 3-4x (which is way off, MSI is the not as big as Asus, but they are very big, No 3 in the business right now) as many boards they are allowed to have a higher percentage of flawed boards??

Patrick Palm

PC Resources

 

[KevinH]

PCResource, I just think rickn is mistaking # of RMA's boards as opposed to %. Basically what Dulanic said.

 

[hans007]

hmm odd. my dad works for the company that does the HP support. They do the manufacturing in another country. Most HP computers use asus, and well the RMA rate is like 1/2% . Most of their dead stuff actually is like 75% user error and about 75% of whats left is dead processors. Dead processors is on the level of 3 times as high as intel. When i was working there, a 3 years ago for summer, we hardly ever had a dead asus board. Maybe 1 in 300-400 . AMD chips (k6-300s / 333s) at the time were dying like 1.5 per 100. Intels in the .5 per 100. This was when they still had a manufacturing plant in america, and were making like 150000 units a month. ASUS boards, are insanely reliable, thats why HP and sony use them in their systems . They cost a little more, but they save a ton on support.

 

[Dulanic]

If PC Resources was the only one saying it then it could be just unlucky... 1000 boards is a good basis... but still compared to the total amount sent out its a small amount. But the case is PC Resources isn't alone here, we've heard it from other places also. I also know 2 local PC stores here that both can't get Abit because their suppliers dropped Abit 5 months ago.

 

[rickn]

The average failure rate for ASUS is generally around 5-7%

Abit failure rates have been as high as 10-12%

What I meant by my comment is the fact ASUS makes a hell of a lot more boards, it may appear smaller manufactures have less problems but you are comparing disproportionate amounts. I personally have never gotten a bad ASUS board, we have at work, but we had alot more RMA's on Abit and Biostar. We don't carry Abit anymore.

Also, as you increase your production you generally increase your failure rate. So, say MSI producing 250,000 boards per month at 3% failure rate, if they increased production to ASUS level you could see a 2-3 fold increase in the failure rates. It would be more of a fair comparison to see failure rates at the same level of production

 

[PCResources]

Ok, Asus aren't nearly as good as MSI, still you want an Asus board... why? because HP buys them...

Let me tell you something... hans007 i believe that you are correct, but the board shipped to HP are checked both by QC, Asus retail QC and then by HP QC... no wonder that RMA rate would be low then...

Rickn, it doesn't matter how many boards a company produce, if the failure rate is too high, then even more boards would be returned if you produce more boards, the only real measure of quality is the percentage...

Patrick Palm

PC Resources

 

[rickn]

ASUS failure rate is not to high. You need to compare MSI with Abit, they are on a pretty even playing field. If you want to compare MSI to ASUS, get back to me when MSI is on a level playing field with ASUS. Call it a false sense of security.

 

[merlocka]

FWIW, i've dealt with about 8-10 abit boards and almost all of them had something wrong with them. On most it was some small thing like a fan header going out, but I only do Asus now.

 

[Snoop]

rickn: MSI is the third largest motherboard manufacturer in the world, so whats wrong with comparing them to asus?
Also, this is a cut and paste:


<< In january of 2001 MSI surpassed ASUS in sales by over 10%, producing about 980,000 motherboards. >>

 

[Hanpan]

I have built a few less than 50 computers. IN that time i have rma'd two abit boards and 1 msi. I have never had to rma an asus board. However my sample size is too small to really base any observations on. Btw of the systems about half had asus maybe 35% msi and a couple of abit.

 

[rickn]

Nothing at all. MSI produces fine boards. I do not know what MSI's failure rate is. Do they publish statistics? My figures on motherboard production are probably fairly dated as well.

 

[ALstonLoong]

my friend rma a abit mobo before..cost him $80++ cdn to send to abit and get it back to here.

 

[PCResources]

<< MSI's failure rate >>



1-2,5% from Q1 to Q1
Patrick palm

PC Resources

 

[wyvrn]

It would be more of a fair comparison to see failure rates at the same level of production

No it doesn't. We are tying to determine who is the most reliable given current production. Who cares about what if scenarios. I want factual, current data, and PCResources seems to have pinned it with a fairly scientific test. 1000 is a good number to use in research. It is generally enough to show the rates for the whole population, wheras with just 100 tests your results might be skewed by a bad batch. But 1000 is a generally accepted number, like when they do a gallup pole, 1000 random people are surveyed and the statistics show it to almost always be representative of the whole population. I also learned that in my statistics class, BTW.

 

[PCResources]

<< You need to compare MSI with Abit >>



Why not compare it to Asus? Asus still have higher failure rates, and are more expensive...

So why not...

Patrick Palm

PC Resources

 

[rickn]

Patrick: that is well below the industry average. I don't usually deal with MSI, but I was checking up on them. They certainly have increased their motherboard production A LOT since the last time I had checked.

Anyways, I don't have any problem with ASUS. Every manufacturer has their share of problems at one time or another. I have had problems in the past with ASUS (flimsy simm sockets, stuff like that)

No manufacturer is perfect.

Wyvrn: I know this. There are many factors that can factor into statistics. Asus has a very good track record of producing stable and reliable motherboards

 

[wyvrn]

I never said Asus were not nice boards, only that PCResources stats look fine to me. I do not have a personal preference on mobos at all, I figure most of the top brands (with possible exception of Abit) are reliable enough for me not to worry about it.

 

[PCResources]

<< Asus has a very good track record of producing stable and reliable motherboards >>



This is quite true, except for some Socket 7 boards... But does that matter if you are going to buy a board today? No, it doesn't...

What does matter is, which motherboard manufacturer is the best as of today, my recommendation, based on experience and testing would be the MSI or Soltek boards... They are the best...

Patrick Palm

PC Resources