• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What is the most reliable m/b for P4 and also for Athlon XP

B

bob332

Banned
i need a very reliable m/b for either a P4 or Athlon (haven't decided if i will go AMD or Intel). the application will be a web/ftp/mail server, so speed isn't of the highest value, rather reliablity is. i will be running win2kpro or serv, haven't decided if i will go apache or iis, but will have 2 hdds, i will ghost the hdd once a week. have a 300w antec case and all the other hardware.

So, for reliabilty and not speed, what would you suggest?
 
Originally posted by: Excelsior
For P4 itd have to be the stock intel motherboards, no doubt. Very stable. On the Athlon side it just depends really.
Click to expand...

any certain chipset? should i go 800fsb or stick with 533?
 
Go with 800MHz FSB. Keep in mind if you plan to OC the Intel board is not for you. If no OCing, a great choice. As for AMD, I usually reccomend ASUS, but this is only from my personal experiance.
 
If reliability is it, Intel/Intel is the way to go, regardless of chipset, though for best performmance, a P4C paired with an 865 or 875-based mobo and two sticks of PC3200 RAM.
 
What makes AMD less reliable than Intel? Not to start a flame war or anything but I have always heard how Intel is more reliable...bla bla bla

Why?
 
As a die hard Intel fanboy, with an AMD 2500+ system fedexing it's way to me as we speak, I really don't think intel is any more reliable. Just faster, and better in just about every way. 😛
 
Originally posted by: magomago
What makes AMD less reliable than Intel? Not to start a flame war or anything but I have always heard how Intel is more reliable...bla bla bla

Why?
Click to expand...

It's a holdout from a distant past when it was true(early Pentium/K6-2 era). Hasn't been true for quite some time though.
 
Anyone who still says AMD is less stable is either just an Intel fanboy or one of those old schoolers who has known nothing but Intel since they got their start in computers. I think the whole thing really started a few years ago when AMD's processors, namely the Athlon Thunderbird, starting posing a real performance threat to Intel's. Back then the only real chipset options for AMD CPUs were the ones from VIA, and some of them, particularly the KT133 and KT133A, were rumored to have all sorts of compatibility issues (although I had an Asus KT133A board than ran flawlessly). This left a really bad taste in some people's mouths, and to this day they still shun AMD platforms (kinda like how some people will never trust IBM hard drives anymore after their ill-fated 75GXP line).

However, now with nVidia taking over the AMD chipset market, I really believe that anyone who still complains about AMD instability needs to suck it up and get with the times.

Personally, I don't think you could go wrong with either platform. They both provide enough computing power than most of us know what to do with.
 
Originally posted by: Shooters
Anyone who still says AMD is less stable is either just an Intel fanboy or one of those old schoolers who has known nothing but Intel since they got their start in computers.
Click to expand...
As far as crashing goes, sure. As far as lifespan and surviving storms...nope. I've never seen an Intel motherboard blow up. I've seen an MSI, Shuttle, Epox, Asus, and FIC die. Not an Intel yet.
I think the whole thing really started a few years ago when AMD's processors, namely the Athlon Thunderbird, starting posing a real performance threat to Intel's. Back then the only real chipset options for AMD CPUs were the ones from VIA, and some of them, particularly the KT133 and KT133A, were rumored to have all sorts of compatibility issues (although I had an Asus KT133A board than ran flawlessly).
Click to expand...
Still puzzles me. 4in1 BSODs, cards that just would not work...and then thee Iwill KK266 that seemed to work just fine, with only the barest issues (such as the good old soundblaster thing). Er, seems, as there's one still running in about 150 feet away 🙂
This left a really bad taste in some people's mouths, and to this day they still shun AMD platforms (kinda like how some people will never trust IBM hard drives anymore after their ill-fated 75GXP line).
Click to expand...
Let's not forget that Epox board that burned out pins on the main ATX connector...
However, now with nVidia taking over the AMD chipset market, I really believe that anyone who still complains about AMD instability needs to suck it up and get with the times.

Personally, I don't think you could go wrong with either platform. They both provide enough computing power than most of us know what to do with.
Click to expand...
Oh, really...I don't know...I can rip and encode MP3s at almost 20:1 (maybe I'll get there with a better CDROM drive)...DVDs->DivX are still 2:1 at best 🙂.
 
The stability thing with AMD, IMO, comes from the fact that there seems to be more junk out there for AMD CPU's.
This of course isn't AMD's fault, their CPU's are fine, it's just harder to go wrong with mobos for Intel CPU's.

Oh and I agree on the Intel/Intel combo 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top