via vs. nforce

[solofly]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
Honestly, I'm about to jump off of the nForce4 "wagon" myself..

I'm kind of sick of the SATA corruption issues, USB issues....

I'm waiting on initial reports of how the K8T900 chipset performs and its stability factor.. also waiting for more releases of ATI's Xpress 200 Crossfire boards to come out on the market..

NVIDIA should stick to doing what they do best: making graphics chips. Let AMD design chipsets for AMD processors.

Today's nForce chipsets are as stable as Intel chipsets. Even tho today I prefer AMD over Intel, I still buy Intel till this day. (83~05) (check my sig) I'm a folder. My rigs are on 24/7 and none of the crash, Intel or Nvidia.

 

[solofly]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I agree with googer.


I have two pcs. One runs an Athlon 64 3000+ with a ULI mainboard(the one in sig) while another pc runs an Athlon 64 2800+ with an Nforce 3 150(the only difference between nforce 3 and 4 is pcie and the htt bus) mainboard.

With both running at the same clock speed and such with very similar harddrives, the ULI machine always loads games faster by 5+ seconds every time I play a lan game with both.

But for the topic, I would pick nVidia over VIA because of drivers alone.

Anybody that's pointing out stable and fast harddrive access should be using hardware based addon controller to begin with.

I go by a rule when it comes to computer hardware. Stick with majority for compatibility purposes and troubleshooting.

 

[SonicIce]

Why do burst rates not matter? They are important too.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: SonicIce
Why do burst rates not matter? They are important too.

Burst rates do not matter since they only last half a second or two. It is sustained transefer speed that matters most, especially the minimum transfer rate because you know that it wont get slower than that certain speed.

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: SonicIce
Why do burst rates not matter? They are important too.

Burst rate only works when the data you need is in the cache, so it's only good for 8 or 16 megs.

Edit: NForce, ULI, Via and ATI are all good chipsets. I think most people buy NForce just because it's popular. I also think ULI was on the way to making a much better chipset than Nvidia can produce, though we'll never know now.

 

[BFG10K]

nForce definitely. I trust nVidia to design better chipsets than anyone else except maybe Intel.

 

[allanon1965]

the hard drive controllers are made on the hard drive fellas, the IDE ports on the motherboards are more appropriatley named Host Bus Connectors....IDE has had the crive controllers on the circuit boards on the drives for years....qoute" the earliest hardrives were called Hardcards, and were nothing more than hardisks and controllers bolted together and plugged into a slot as a single unit. companies such as the plus developement division of quantum took small 3 1/2 drives and attatched them to a standard controller. the assembly was then plugged into a ISA bus slot as though it were a normal disk controller. Unfortunatley, the mounting of a heavy, vibrating hard disk in an expansion slot with just a single screw holding it in place left a lot to be desired. several companies got the idea to redesign the controller to replace the logic board assembly on a standard hard isk and then mount it in a 3.5 drive bay just like any other drive, but because they still needed to plug into the expansion bus, they used a cable between the drive controller board and the IDE host bus" ....quoted from Scott Mueller's Upgrading and Repairing PC's Volume 4......so this would lead me to think that the hard drive would have more to do with the IDE hard drive controller speeds and other performance issues since it has the controller built into it....or am I missing something here and confused on the issue?

 

[PhlashFoto]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
Honestly, I'm about to jump off of the nForce4 "wagon" myself..

I'm kind of sick of the SATA corruption issues, USB issues....

I'm waiting on initial reports of how the K8T900 chipset performs and its stability factor.. also waiting for more releases of ATI's Xpress 200 Crossfire boards to come out on the market..

NVIDIA should stick to doing what they do best: making graphics chips. Let AMD design chipsets for AMD processors.

Since when does AMD design chipsets? They don't. Only time I can recall them having a chipset of their own was back in 1999 with the original Slot A Athlon cpus; since VIA and other 3rd party were late in releasing chipsets. It was a horrible chipset too. So was the VIA I used after that. I swore off AMD platform ever since then.

I only prefer the Intel based chipsets as the most stable platforms to this day. I would only consider possibly of recommending the nVidia chipsets, definately not VIA. For me Intel.

And by the way, yes I am an Intel fanboy. As I will not use any chipset board that is not designed by Intel.

As for the OP, I'd go with nForce chipset

 

[allanon1965]

well I have used amd and intel and readily switch between the two, depending on which is better at the time, right now my amd 64 system blows intel outta the water....not even a close match for what I do, so its amd for the time being. Mine is every bit as stable a platform as any intel out there today!

 

[Greenman]

Based on nothing more than hear-say, Intel seems to have rock solid chipsets. It's rare to find anyone with an intel chipset and bsod problems. Again, thats based only on what I've read on different forums.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: allanon1965
the hard drive controllers are made on the hard drive fellas, the IDE ports on the motherboards are more appropriatley named Host Bus Connectors....IDE has had the crive controllers on the circuit boards on the drives for years....qoute" the earliest hardrives were called Hardcards, and were nothing more than hardisks and controllers bolted together and plugged into a slot as a single unit. companies such as the plus developement division of quantum took small 3 1/2 drives and attatched them to a standard controller. the assembly was then plugged into a ISA bus slot as though it were a normal disk controller. Unfortunatley, the mounting of a heavy, vibrating hard disk in an expansion slot with just a single screw holding it in place left a lot to be desired. several companies got the idea to redesign the controller to replace the logic board assembly on a standard hard isk and then mount it in a 3.5 drive bay just like any other drive, but because they still needed to plug into the expansion bus, they used a cable between the drive controller board and the IDE host bus" ....quoted from Scott Mueller's Upgrading and Repairing PC's Volume 4......so this would lead me to think that the hard drive would have more to do with the IDE hard drive controller speeds and other performance issues since it has the controller built into it....or am I missing something here and confused on the issue?

Thanks for the reminder, I have not seen stuff like that for 15 or 16 years now. When IBM moved the hardcard on to the drive they created the generic term Intergrated Drive Electronics or also known as IDE.