TUSL2-C or TUV4X?

[mricks86]

I'm looking at throwing together a system with all my spare parts and the only thing I need is a motherboard (for a socket 370 Celery 900). I really want an ASUS and am considering both the TUSL2-C and the TUV4X. Any opinions out there on which one is the best overall performance board? Does the 512mb RAM limit on the TUSL2-C really make any difference in performance? Any input would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

 

[AndyHui]

I would pick the TUSL2-C over the TUV4X. I'm not saying that the TUV4X is a bad board; it's just that the TUSL2-C is better.

 

[mricks86]

Thanks! Any more opnions appreciated!

 

[maddmax]

I think I would have to agree with Andy on the TUSL2-C as being the better pick overall. The 512 mb ram limit really does not come into effect very much unless you do a lot of work with Photoshop and/or run Windows 2K/XP. I believe the TUSL2-C suffers from the same issues that plagued it's older sibling the CUSL2-C. That is to say no more than four sides of ram even if less than the 512 limit. It also does not add the bump up in core voltage until after post. That's kind of an important issue for overclockers whose processors require additional voltage to successfully post. The TUV4X may be a better choice if overclocking a finicky cpu is a must. So far I've used three 800 mhz Celerons at 133 fsb at default core voltage, so I doubt this would be an issue for you. IMHO the TUSL2-c gets the nod for better AGP implemetation and more recent chipset.

 

[mricks86]

I am using Win2k and I also use Photoshop, so do you still think the 512mb limit will be a problem? I could probably install Win98 on this machine if you think that would work better.

Thanks for the opinions.

 

[blackhawk]

I have both asus motherboards but limited experience with them. My tuv4-x is running a celeron 1.1 and I got it to 1.46 with a larger fan/hs and the stock voltage but didn't run it extensively there. Its a typical via cs mb and the ability to run asynchronous memory for me is an advantage.
The tusl2-c I picked up as everyone says its the best and its my first 815 cs but I cant run the 1.1 stable at 133 fsb even with 1.525v and the larger hs/fan. Have to experiment some more but without asynchronous ram or ram that I can run at an asynchronous speed I'm probably losing out.

These are my first asus motherboards and seem good quality though a little dated looking. The bios takes a bit of getting used to for me.

What cpu you plan on running?

OOPS! I see, a 900 celeron.

Why the tusl/tuv then? You dont need the tualitan support. I had a couple of these fine cpu's and both did 1200/133fsb with a little voltage help on a BX motherboard. I'm thinking that one of these would be equal to my tualitan 1.1/100fsb.

All the 900's are cdo steppings too which is good for oc'ing.

 

[Athlon4all]

Originally posted by: AndyHui
I would pick the TUSL2-C over the TUV4X. I'm not saying that the TUV4X is a bad board; it's just that the TUSL2-C is better.

 

[cool]

Originally posted by: mricks86
I am using Win2k and I also use Photoshop, so do you still think the 512mb limit will be a problem? I could probably install Win98 on this machine if you think that would work better.

Thanks for the opinions.

This has nothing to do with the OS. It's a limitation from the chipset. 512MB that's all, anything above doesn't get recognized. And between, 512MB's enough...