becuase aparently they are owned by the same company. so why is FIC's boards are so crappy? you would think VIA would do something about it
found out why FIC is always first out with VIA;s AMD chipset boards
- Thread starter noxipoo
- Start date
You think Via makes good chipsets? They are crap, just like FIC. God I can't wait for nvidia to enter the chipset market, at least then we will have a decent source of quality chipsets.
I bag to differ, but I have never had a problem with a via chipset... They are my 1st choice in chipsets...
asus and abit's current flagship kt133 boards are damn stable. and yes i think VIA makes good chipsets. we will have to see on nVidia as they don't even have samples yet
VIA chipset are crap? they were. not anymore. remember who kickef away intel i820 by not using rdram in apollo chipset? and who is helping amd to support all tbirds an durons?
My VIA chipset based ASUS board is the best board that I have bought! I've had an ABIT BH6 REV1&2 both sucked, they both died with in a year! I then graduated to a Gigabyte 6BXE, not bad was pretty happy with it except for O/C, then I moved to the P3V4X by Asus with the VIA chipset, it is a wonderful and beautiful thing! I have two of them and I love them!
Considering of course that all current VIA chipsets are often SLOWER than the BX, a chipset intel designed 3 years ago, yes I would have to say that VIA is CRAP. If Intel hadn't decided to do this rambus sh!t I have no doubt that all the VIA intel chipsets would be 30% slower in every way than any SDRAM/DDRam Intel chipset. But because of rambus and the stupid memory translation hub they lose 30% performance. Think about what you say when you like the VIA chipsets, sure they have features but they often don't support them correctly, for example nvidia boards often have problems in via chipsets because VIA cuts every corner they can find and often cheats on every spec.
I don't like Via though so I'm a bit biased. I would prefer if AMD and Intel designed their own chipsets and let tiawan focus on building the boards not doing design, but I believe nvidia will be also capable of designing a kick butt chipset, so far VIA, ALi and the others design slow assed chipsets that often have features that don't always work right.
I don't like Via though so I'm a bit biased. I would prefer if AMD and Intel designed their own chipsets and let tiawan focus on building the boards not doing design, but I believe nvidia will be also capable of designing a kick butt chipset, so far VIA, ALi and the others design slow assed chipsets that often have features that don't always work right.
ravhin: why don't You try to make a Chipset yaself, its not easy to make one, and intel got years of experience in making so, Via took only portion of that time to make one that's on-par and even better than Intel's chipset.
meanwhile, the question in this thread is why
"FIC is always first out with VIA;s AMD chipset boards"
not
"Does Via sucks"
FIC comes out first just want to gain some market share, when SD11 came out that was particularly the only Athlon Mobo choice, and that's a lot of money made. with minimal time to tweak and fine tune the mobo's features, its always not the best mobo choice for DIYers.
meanwhile, the question in this thread is why
"FIC is always first out with VIA;s AMD chipset boards"
not
"Does Via sucks"
FIC comes out first just want to gain some market share, when SD11 came out that was particularly the only Athlon Mobo choice, and that's a lot of money made. with minimal time to tweak and fine tune the mobo's features, its always not the best mobo choice for DIYers.
rahvin
<<Considering of course that all current VIA chipsets are often SLOWER than the BX, a chipset intel designed 3 years ago, yes I would have to say that VIA is CRAP.>>
Fast by than by what? 5% averge? Thats not enough to call a difference. Oh yea, considering that the BX solutions cost an average 20% more than VIA 133A, with a feature list thats half the length and completely outdated, no 133MHz support, 1/2 divider, blah blah, can we say BX is crap??
<<If Intel hadn't decided to do this rambus sh!t I have no doubt that all the VIA intel chipsets would be 30% slower in every way than any SDRAM/DDRam Intel chipset.>>
Oh yea, so much for the PC133 greatness, the i815E is having a hard time beating VIA 133A. Despite costing close to 40% more. Oh thats some real crap.
<<But because of rambus and the stupid memory translation hub they lose 30% performance. Think about what you say when you like the VIA chipsets, sure they have features but they often don't support them correctly, for example nvidia boards often have problems in via chipsets because VIA cuts every corner they can find and often cheats on every spec.>>
Oh what a load of sh1t. First of all, I dont know where the f that 30% mark came from. Second, I have never heard of any major compatibility problems with the features they support. Cuts corner? Yea, my butt. And cheats on every spec. My friend, show me some evidence on this.
<<I don't like Via though so I'm a bit biased. I would prefer if AMD and Intel designed their own chipsets and let tiawan focus on building the boards not doing design, but I believe nvidia will be also capable of designing a kick butt chipset, so far VIA, ALi and the others design slow assed chipsets that often have features that don't always work right.>>
Slow ass chipsets that often have features that dont always work right is it? My friend, you're full of crap. Sorry I had to say this, you're not a bit biased, you're extremely biased. Any VIA antagonist realized VIA's recent advancements and acknowledged them as a great chipset maker. You're still living in the past.
<<Considering of course that all current VIA chipsets are often SLOWER than the BX, a chipset intel designed 3 years ago, yes I would have to say that VIA is CRAP.>>
Fast by than by what? 5% averge? Thats not enough to call a difference. Oh yea, considering that the BX solutions cost an average 20% more than VIA 133A, with a feature list thats half the length and completely outdated, no 133MHz support, 1/2 divider, blah blah, can we say BX is crap??
<<If Intel hadn't decided to do this rambus sh!t I have no doubt that all the VIA intel chipsets would be 30% slower in every way than any SDRAM/DDRam Intel chipset.>>
Oh yea, so much for the PC133 greatness, the i815E is having a hard time beating VIA 133A. Despite costing close to 40% more. Oh thats some real crap.
<<But because of rambus and the stupid memory translation hub they lose 30% performance. Think about what you say when you like the VIA chipsets, sure they have features but they often don't support them correctly, for example nvidia boards often have problems in via chipsets because VIA cuts every corner they can find and often cheats on every spec.>>
Oh what a load of sh1t. First of all, I dont know where the f that 30% mark came from. Second, I have never heard of any major compatibility problems with the features they support. Cuts corner? Yea, my butt. And cheats on every spec. My friend, show me some evidence on this.
<<I don't like Via though so I'm a bit biased. I would prefer if AMD and Intel designed their own chipsets and let tiawan focus on building the boards not doing design, but I believe nvidia will be also capable of designing a kick butt chipset, so far VIA, ALi and the others design slow assed chipsets that often have features that don't always work right.>>
Slow ass chipsets that often have features that dont always work right is it? My friend, you're full of crap. Sorry I had to say this, you're not a bit biased, you're extremely biased. Any VIA antagonist realized VIA's recent advancements and acknowledged them as a great chipset maker. You're still living in the past.
Since Intel MAKES the processor, I would hope that they would know all the intricacies of their own CPU better than a 3rd party. That being said, the BX doesn't even have a noticable real world performance edge over a VIA 133a.
Where exactly does VIA cut corners on their designs?
<< noxipoo: FIC and VIA owned by the same company? And what would that company be? >>
I could be mistaken, but I believe FPG (Formosa Plastics Group) owns part or all of both companies.
Where exactly does VIA cut corners on their designs?
<< noxipoo: FIC and VIA owned by the same company? And what would that company be? >>
I could be mistaken, but I believe FPG (Formosa Plastics Group) owns part or all of both companies.
VIA is, was and may never be a performance oriented company. None of their products are ever as fast as their competitors' products. That reason alone is why I don't buy VIA chipset based boards. Stability is secondary, but also necessary. VIA has made progress for stability but not much for speed. I don't think they care either. They just want to gain market share right now, not make the best of the best.
Hopefully AMD can show VIA how to properly make a DDR chipset for the Athlon. I hope that is soon.
Please, don't yell at me about how VIA is cheaper. I don't care. I buy the fastest my budget can handle. Considering the motherboard isn't the easiest component in the computer to replace, I buy the best absolutely possible regardless of price (within reason, mind you
).
Hopefully AMD can show VIA how to properly make a DDR chipset for the Athlon. I hope that is soon.
Please, don't yell at me about how VIA is cheaper. I don't care. I buy the fastest my budget can handle. Considering the motherboard isn't the easiest component in the computer to replace, I buy the best absolutely possible regardless of price (within reason, mind you
).<<ravhin: why don't You try to make a Chipset yaself, its not easy to make one, and intel got years of experience in making so, Via took only portion of that time to make one that's on-par and even better than Intel's chipset.>>
Maybe cause I'm not an EE, moron. By your analogy Via should be making better chipsets than Intel because they have been doing it LONGER. Via was one of the original chipset designers from the early PC days, Intel didn't start making chipsets till many years afterwards.
<<Oh what a load of sh1t. First of all, I dont know where the f that 30% mark came from. Second, I have never heard of any major compatibility problems with the features they support. Cuts corner? Yea, my butt. And cheats on every spec. My friend, show me some evidence on this.>>
How's a quote from Anand.
"One of the biggest problems with the 133A is that its performance is clearly not up to par with that of the BX chipset. VIA has never been known to be a performance leader, rather a leader of producing low cost chipsets, but if they are to lead the desktop chipset market while Intel reworks their platform strategy then the performance simply must improve. We did question VIA as to exactly why their 133A is so much slower than the BX running at the same frequency and unfortunately we didn't get a straight answer from them other than that the Intel BX is a very well designed chipset. So much for that."
<<BX doesn't even have a noticable real world performance edge over a VIA 133a.>>
Keeping in mind of course that the BX is over 3 years older than the VIA 133a I would say that is quite SAD. They cut corners everywhere they can to save cost, one of those is voltage regulation to the AGP slot, this a reason that Geforce cards tend to have problems with Via boards (not every board).
Maybe cause I'm not an EE, moron. By your analogy Via should be making better chipsets than Intel because they have been doing it LONGER. Via was one of the original chipset designers from the early PC days, Intel didn't start making chipsets till many years afterwards.
<<Oh what a load of sh1t. First of all, I dont know where the f that 30% mark came from. Second, I have never heard of any major compatibility problems with the features they support. Cuts corner? Yea, my butt. And cheats on every spec. My friend, show me some evidence on this.>>
How's a quote from Anand.
"One of the biggest problems with the 133A is that its performance is clearly not up to par with that of the BX chipset. VIA has never been known to be a performance leader, rather a leader of producing low cost chipsets, but if they are to lead the desktop chipset market while Intel reworks their platform strategy then the performance simply must improve. We did question VIA as to exactly why their 133A is so much slower than the BX running at the same frequency and unfortunately we didn't get a straight answer from them other than that the Intel BX is a very well designed chipset. So much for that."
<<BX doesn't even have a noticable real world performance edge over a VIA 133a.>>
Keeping in mind of course that the BX is over 3 years older than the VIA 133a I would say that is quite SAD. They cut corners everywhere they can to save cost, one of those is voltage regulation to the AGP slot, this a reason that Geforce cards tend to have problems with Via boards (not every board).
rahvin: Show me some numbers, not quotes. The VIA133A performs equally well against BX and i815E.
VIA's chipsets aren't the best but if it weren't for them the Athlon would never have it's broad appeal. FIC makes very good motherboards as my VA-503+ is still running fine with a few minor hiccups. Together these two companies have made a major contribution to us. They've brought the cheapest best performing platform to the mainstream. God bless VIA, FIC, and AMD.
Whatever... My VIA board bench marks just as good as my BX board and I can actually run at 133 stable on the VIA, more than I can say for the BX. And My Herc. 3DProphet GeForce II GTS 32MB works beautifully! Q3A 1280x1024x32 with out a hitch on the VIA at 133bus and can't even do that on the BX and at 550 on the VIA and BX they both are about the same so I would eat your words silly VIA haters!
VIA ASUS P3V4X stable as hell!
BX Gigabyte 6BXE also stable as all hell!
Need I say more?!
VIA ASUS P3V4X stable as hell!
BX Gigabyte 6BXE also stable as all hell!
Need I say more?!
"God I can't wait for nvidia to enter the chipset market, at least then we will have a decent source of quality chipsets."
LOL, you think nVidia is GOD don't u? ALi, and AMD make better chipsets when it comes to performance compared to Via, I think AMD's 750 was pretty close in RAM performance compared to the BX. however it wasn't that nice to non-certified/generic equipment. some people got lucky on that though.
LOL, you think nVidia is GOD don't u? ALi, and AMD make better chipsets when it comes to performance compared to Via, I think AMD's 750 was pretty close in RAM performance compared to the BX. however it wasn't that nice to non-certified/generic equipment. some people got lucky on that though.
The VIA 133A chipset is very good. My Asus P3V4X system is the most stable I've ever owned. Performance is so close to BX/i815 that you couldn't tell any difference just by using the machines (yes, even gaming).
rahvin, you may be confusing the chipset with the motherboard manufacturer. Sure there are POS 133A boards out there but don't fault VIA. As for VIA's AMD offerings, I can't say as I'm no expert there.
rahvin, you may be confusing the chipset with the motherboard manufacturer. Sure there are POS 133A boards out there but don't fault VIA. As for VIA's AMD offerings, I can't say as I'm no expert there.
Ravshin:
Your argument that Via is crap because they can't make a faster chipset than the BX is lame - hell, even Intel can't make a faster chipset than it's very own 3 year old BX...
Napalm
Your argument that Via is crap because they can't make a faster chipset than the BX is lame - hell, even Intel can't make a faster chipset than it's very own 3 year old BX...
Napalm
Intel handicapped themselves with rambus or I have no doubt they would be 30% faster than any Via solution. 815 is slow because of the MTH.
<<rahvin: Show me some numbers, not quotes. The VIA133A performs equally well against BX and i815E.>>
That is what I said, maybe you should read what I wrote and not what you implied over it.
<<LOL, you think nVidia is GOD don't u?>>
I think that is the first time anyone has ever said that to me, and I find it quite humorous actually.
<<rahvin: Show me some numbers, not quotes. The VIA133A performs equally well against BX and i815E.>>
That is what I said, maybe you should read what I wrote and not what you implied over it.
<<LOL, you think nVidia is GOD don't u?>>
I think that is the first time anyone has ever said that to me, and I find it quite humorous actually.
Intel handicapped themselves with rambus or I have no doubt they would be 30% faster than any Via solution. 815 is slow because of the MTH
That shows you dont know jack about Intel chipsets as well as VIA chipsets. Oh yea, MTH was produced only ONCE and was paired with the i820 ONLY, later recalled and was never produced again. i815 NEVER had an MTH but instead it has natural PC133 support, and 30% faster my butt. Heck, even i820+RDRAM wasnt faster than VIA 133A, and BX133 wasnt faster than VIA by 30% either, maybe 5%.
Stop spreading false information, you dont seem to know much about chipsets.
That shows you dont know jack about Intel chipsets as well as VIA chipsets. Oh yea, MTH was produced only ONCE and was paired with the i820 ONLY, later recalled and was never produced again. i815 NEVER had an MTH but instead it has natural PC133 support, and 30% faster my butt. Heck, even i820+RDRAM wasnt faster than VIA 133A, and BX133 wasnt faster than VIA by 30% either, maybe 5%.
Stop spreading false information, you dont seem to know much about chipsets.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter