Is it safe to assume that an Intel mobo = most stable mobo for P4?

[RU482]

I need an all in one solution for an desktop PC I am building at work. Would it be correct to assume that an Intel motherboard with an P4 CPU should be the most stable platform I can build off of?

For this machine, onboard graphics and sound are fine, LAN would be a great option also. I'm thinking of the Intel D845GEBV2L would work great with a P4 2.4B and some Corsair DDR.

any thoughts?

 

[mechBgon]

I'm thinking that after a certain point, the weak link in the stability chain is no longer the hardware, but rather Windows itself, or what the user tries to make Windows do. Know what I mean? I've got a nice stable fleet of AthlonXP systems at work, but it sounds like you want to go Intel, so I won't bore you with the details. Suffice it to say, there have been no crashes reported by the users of the 19 AthlonXP's, which run Windows 2000. mechBgon --->

To answer the question, yes, that should be stable as heck as far as the hardware goes. Also, don't forget to pick up a decent power supply and perhaps a UPS in the 500-650VA range. Even the most stable computers don't run without a well-regulated supply of electricity.

 

[RU482]

Actually, I am going Intel purely on the assumption that they are more stable/higher quality. The stability coming from the fact that Intel chipsets are legendary for stability and well, AMD chipsets always wind up getting a KTxxxA revision or a some other type of revision 6mo's down the road.

I am actually running 4 AMD machines there now, but was silly and built them off of K7S5A boards to save money (which I actually didn't need to do, I'm just thrifty by nature) So now I am just doing the opposite of my gut feeling and going as expensive (and assumably as stable) as possible.

I'm figuring the onboard solution is the way to go for stability, since there won't be a variety of vendors' drivers floting around, just Intel's.



FWIW, I'd love for you to prove me wrong, cause for the most part I'm an AMD fan

Also, those machines run Win2000, considering getting XPpro for this machine...any thoughts?

 

[TonyB]

Intel boards are great, but so are ASUS. They both make boards based on Intel chipsets but if I had to put similar boards from both manufactures together and had to pick which one, I would choose ASUS boards because they offer more features and flexibility in terms of onboard peripherals and BIOS function. However, hands down, both boards are rock solid.

 

[mechBgon]

Regarding the hardware: I work for a great non-profit agency and money's tight, so I brewed up a configuration that happens to be a lot like AnandTech's recommended SOHO budget rig. If you look at my System Rigs, it's the one labelled "mechBgon's 18 kids" (mine is the 19th, and is listed as "Turbo" ). They really seem to work well, and that board takes all 266MHz AthlonXPs if you desired more muscle than an 1800+. We used retail-boxed CPUs for the 3-year warranty.

Or I'm sure the Intel-on-Intel rig would work great too, and it would have USB 2.0 to offer as well.

Regarding WinXP Pro, Microsoft will support it longer than 2000 since it's newer, so that may be a big factor down the road past 2004 when you want to visit Windows Update to patch the 50-millionth security hole they've found Personally, I would revert it to a Win2000-style GUI and shut off all the gee-whiz menu animations for increased performance (check out this AnandTech article regarding the performance hit of XP's eye candy).

 

[LouPoir]

Originally posted by: redly1
I need an all in one solution for an desktop PC I am building at work. Would it be correct to assume that an Intel motherboard with an P4 CPU should be the most stable platform I can build off of?

For this machine, onboard graphics and sound are fine, LAN would be a great option also. I'm thinking of the Intel D845GEBV2L would work great with a P4 2.4B and some Corsair DDR.

any thoughts?

I would agree that an Intel M/B would be the most stable.

Lou