Make Home Page
Add to Favorites
XbitLabs is using Twitter
Windows Live Alerts
1.
Based on the reviews of that motherboard, that thing puts the "d" in dog. It is so slow that many of these crooked review sites use it to benchmark Intel processor to show how lousy the processors are, without ever mentioning this motherboard is dreadfully slow compared not only to Nvidia based motherboards, but also to motherboards based on 975X chipset.
I am not talking about this site, by the way, which used an Asus board (possibly because they didn't have an Intel BadAxe), although even then they used Intel's chipset, which is slower than Nvidia's. But, the two big sites both chose this dreadfully slow motherboard to showcase Intel's new processors, which it naturally did a poor job of. I was surprised after reading the review and benchmarks here, which were generally equal to the Athlon 64, and then going to the other sites and seeing the Athlon 64 look much more favorable. At first I thought it might be the benchmark selections, which it may be to an extent, but then I noticed they used this crippled motherboard to showcase the new processor, without even disclosing that it was the slowest motherboard available that supported these chips, and by a lot.
So, unless you don't care about performance, avoid this motherboard unless Intel has dramatically improved the performance of it. The chipset is only a little slower than Nvidia, so I am not talking about that so much as this particular motherboard, which is catastrophically slow. I like Intel motherboards a lot because they are easy to work with, reliable, well documented, and well supported. I tolerate the performance is a little less. I wouldn't buy this if Intel included a free night with Monica Bellucci with every purchase. Hmmm, OK, that's an exaggeration, I'd buy them by the case with that deal, but I'd end up selling the motherboards on eBay at a loss.
I am not talking about this site, by the way, which used an Asus board (possibly because they didn't have an Intel BadAxe), although even then they used Intel's chipset, which is slower than Nvidia's. But, the two big sites both chose this dreadfully slow motherboard to showcase Intel's new processors, which it naturally did a poor job of. I was surprised after reading the review and benchmarks here, which were generally equal to the Athlon 64, and then going to the other sites and seeing the Athlon 64 look much more favorable. At first I thought it might be the benchmark selections, which it may be to an extent, but then I noticed they used this crippled motherboard to showcase the new processor, without even disclosing that it was the slowest motherboard available that supported these chips, and by a lot.
So, unless you don't care about performance, avoid this motherboard unless Intel has dramatically improved the performance of it. The chipset is only a little slower than Nvidia, so I am not talking about that so much as this particular motherboard, which is catastrophically slow. I like Intel motherboards a lot because they are easy to work with, reliable, well documented, and well supported. I tolerate the performance is a little less. I wouldn't buy this if Intel included a free night with Monica Bellucci with every purchase. Hmmm, OK, that's an exaggeration, I'd buy them by the case with that deal, but I'd end up selling the motherboards on eBay at a loss.
[Posted by: TA152H 
| Date: 04/10/06 03:51:03 AM]
| Date: 04/10/06 03:51:03 AM]
