Hot again - Soyo SY-KT600 Dragon Plus 1.0 -- $39 AR

[grrl]

Don't know much about the Soyo SY-KT600 Dragon Plus 1.0 but it has onboard sound, LAN, Serial ATA and RAID. And the NewEgg reviews are positive. For $39 is it worth not getting an Nforce mobo?

I don't care about overclocking, but would like to use PC3200 memory.

Anyone have this board or know about it?

.Edit Started at $37 or $38 AR, went up to $45 AR, now it's $39

 

[CD2459]

Looks like a Decent Mobo, I may have to bite. But note this is Not a Nforce mobo, it's actually a VIA chipset. This is actually better for me than the P4VGA FAR from Micro Center, because if I were to get this one I could use the spare AMD chip i have laying around rather than purchase a brand new Pentium 4 Chip.

 

[huesmann]

Hot!

 

[Triggerhappy007]

Good deal, but bad for people wanting to overclock. You cannot set the CPU voltage so beware.

 

[VirginiaDonkey]

If you can't set the voltage it is because of Soyo, not the chipset. I have the MSI version of this board and i can set everything. Great board. only drawbacks:

1) single channel memory controller ( not that big a deal )
2) no AGP/PCI lock ( not that big a deal either if you have quality components )

 

[Mac]

This is pretty hot...

Re the overclocking potential, aside from the chest thumping factor, OC'ing is basically passe' considering the negligible cost of high performing CPU's and small differential in final performance.

OC'ing was a big deal when you could buy a relatively inexpensive celeron 300 for $80 bucks, make it bark like a Pentium II 450 which cost $100's more and finally run Quake (that's the original Quake GL) at playable frame rates. Whoa...I'm smoking at 45 FPS...somebody stop me! In 1998, I bought the original OC'ers board, an Abit BX6 for $135, slapped a celeron in the slot1 and thumbed my nose at Intel. That's when OC'ing meant something. Contrast that with the multi GHz CPU's which are dirt cheap today and it's really not worth the hassle.

The more crucial decision is the video card. That's the critical path today.

 

[Slickone]

With a mobile Barton, you couldn't get multipliers above 12.5 with this mobo unless you use software or do the wire mod, correct?

 

[usernamemax20charact]

Damn. A mobo for 40 bucks? Definitely hot.

 

[masterc]

Originally posted by: Slickone
With a mobile Barton, you couldn't get multipliers above 12.5 with this mobo unless you use software or do the wire mod, correct?

I think wire mod is the only way... but like MAC said the real world results of this type on o'cing is not noticable...

 

[Slickone]

Many will disagree with most of what he said though. With the new games, I don't think it's any different than it ever was.

 

[Slickone]

Sorry for the double post. Been getting lots of server errors on AT since the upgrade.

Considering this mobo has no voltage adjustments, how high could I clock a Mobile Barton (2400)? If not enough over stock, maybe I'd be worth spending a little more money on a higher PR desktop Barton (say 2800). Or still buy the Mobile, and instead spend that money on an Nforce 2 board, like the $57 Shuttle AN35N-Ultra, which is only $17 more than this Soyo. Unless the Mobile can still overclock fairly well at it's default voltage. What would you do?

 

[papaschtroumpf]

Can I buy this, a Barton 2500+, PC3200 and simply set the FSB to 400 to get 3200+ performance? Since it's just an FSB change I would think that none of the remarks about AGP/PCI lock or multipliers matter much right?

 

[unclebud]

thanks for posting this! i saw this today in cusa for $99
this looks better

 

[huesmann]

Originally posted by: papaschtroumpf
Can I buy this, a Barton 2500+, PC3200 and simply set the FSB to 400 to get 3200+ performance? Since it's just an FSB change I would think that none of the remarks about AGP/PCI lock or multipliers matter much right?

Only if you can cool it enough, I think. Your FSB would have to be 200, really, since it's doubled.

 

[Mac]

Slickone said:Many will disagree with most of what he said though. With the new games, I don't think it's any different than it ever was.

Hey, if overclocking floats your boat, do it. I'm just saying that raw compute power is so cheap now, the impetus for overclocking has been removed. Consider it another way, why spend extra bucks to get a hot rod OC'ing friendly mobo and a heavy duty cooler when you can get a lesser featured mobo and spend the saved $ on a faster processor, run it at stock speed with no troubles.

Oc'ing made sense when you could bump up gaming performance up +40% for "free". Anymore, final improvement is only marginal. The graphics card is over 95% of the equation. A 10-20% bump in CPU speed doesn't really translate into anything meaningful.

BTW, we are only talking about gaming. The need for speed for perfunctory office apps was more than satisfied when the Pentium II hit the market. Today's machines are so fast that it is only when you get into gaming and multimedia do you begin to see bottlenecks. That's why top line video cards cost more than CPU's now.

The CPU (and OC'ing) is dead...nVidia/ATI (or whoever) is King. Long live the King.

 

[Slickone]

Yeah, some people just enjoy it.
You don't just get overclocking features with this newer mobos that are good overclockers, you also get a lot of other non overclocking related features that people may want whether they're overclocking or not. Or to look at it another way, you can buy slightly older mobo's with overclocking features for about what you'd pay for your lesser featured new mobo.
When did you get 'free' overclocking? I had to buy an overclocking mobo for my 300A->450mhz overclock just as you do now.
Of course you know AMD chips do more work per Mhz than CPU's used to, so that 20% increase in Mhz is giving you more work than just if you just related Mhz % increase to the old days Mhz % increase. Yeah, if graphics cards weren't a bottle neck, that would give you more of a boost than it does.
So why are you buying a more expensive faster CPU when you should be buying faster graphics cards?
Look at it another way, back then your overclock got you at best a 150Mhz increase, today you get a 500Mhz+ increase.

 

[Capster]

I once thought the same thing that oc'ing wasn't worth doing but after my 300a that went to 450 came the following:

533 celeron -> 800
1.6a P4 -> 2.1
AthlonXP 2500+ -> 3200+

All have been worthwhile bumps in speed for the multimedia and gaming I do. There were also huge differences in prices between the cpu I purchased and what I oc'd to.Until the manufacturers lock it all down oc'ing is here to stay and in cases like mine is very beneficial.

 

[whiteboy81]

Originally posted by: Capster
I once thought the same thing that oc'ing wasn't worth doing but after my 300a that went to 450 came the following:

533 celeron -> 800
1.6a P4 -> 2.1
AthlonXP 2500+ -> 3200+

All have been worthwhile bumps in speed for the multimedia and gaming I do. There were also huge differences in prices between the cpu I purchased and what I oc'd to.Until the manufacturers lock it all down oc'ing is here to stay and in cases like mine is very beneficial.

I don't think Mac is saying that you can't get considerably higher clocks by overclocking, just that how much real world performance does that 2500 -> 3200 clock give you. Also, I took a 2500 ran the FSB on a non Overclocking board at 400 with PC3200 memory and got 3200 speeds. The FSB imo is far more important than the CPU clock anyway...I'd take a 2500 with a 400 fsb over a 3200 with a 333 fsb anyday.

 

[rile0161]

This is showing up at $57.00 now.

 

[kenrippy]

Originally posted by: whiteboy81

The FSB imo is far more important than the CPU clock anyway...I'd take a 2500 with a 400 fsb over a 3200 with a 333 fsb anyday.

this is true. I am running my UNLOCKED 2500+ at the 11x220 because the fsb is what really makes it scream. since 2.4ghz is all this chip will give me, 11x is where it runs best. this is good news for all those locked 2500's out there. the default multiplier on 2600-3200's is much higher which will kill your fsb increase in the even you have a locked multi chip.


I get satisfaction out of having a $75 cpu to run faster than a $190 cpu.

 

[Northland]

The OP said $40 AR, but I can't find the rebate form. Does anyone know where it is, or have a copy?

Northland

Originally posted by: rile0161
This is showing up at $57.00 now.

 

[kenrippy]

Originally posted by: Northland
The OP said $40 AR, but I can't find the rebate form. Does anyone know where it is, or have a copy?

Northland

Originally posted by: rile0161
This is showing up at $57.00 now.

looks like the rebate ended 4/30 that's why it's not on newegg's site anymore
Text

 

[Capster]

Well considering my 2500 at 3200 has a 400 bus I think I'm in good shape.

At any rate this argument is nothing new if you're talking about real world gains. Lots of folks used to argue whether you needed to spend the money to get a 33mhz machine over a 25mhz machine.

I only overclock when it makes sense and that means running my bus at spec'd speeds. There is a large following of folks who do this and why not? It costs very little, if any, to give such a boost no matter how small or large it is perceived to be. In my case for "real world" uses I've gotten a nice performance boost each time.

 

[lordbob99]

dang... woulda jumped if i caught this one... wonder what happened to me on the 29th that i missed it.

 

[Slickone]

Originally posted by: kenrippy

Originally posted by: whiteboy81

The FSB imo is far more important than the CPU clock anyway...I'd take a 2500 with a 400 fsb over a 3200 with a 333 fsb anyday.

this is true. I am running my UNLOCKED 2500+ at the 11x220 because the fsb is what really makes it scream. since 2.4ghz is all this chip will give me, 11x is where it runs best. this is good news for all those locked 2500's out there. the default multiplier on 2600-3200's is much higher which will kill your fsb increase in the even you have a locked multi chip.

I get satisfaction out of having a $75 cpu to run faster than a $190 cpu.

But what if you can't run at 220? Some people can't get that high can they? And doesn't that require the most expensive RAM?