swaaye wrote:

Sure you could build a AM2+ setup with AGP that's nice too.

ie
http://www.asrock.com/mb/overview.asp?Model=AM2NF3-VSTA

That is tooo sweet! Phenom + DDR2 support.... oh man! Must control desire to build totally irrelevant, limited usability, non-period correct AGP supahmonster rig....

🤣

check out this other board they make. AM2+ plus real AGP 8x and PCIE x16 enabled by using two chipsets! SATA 2, GigE. Insanity.
http://asrock.com/MB/overview.asp?Model=ALiveDual-eSATA2

ASRock engineers are crazy.

ASRock have released stacks of oddball frankenstein mobos over the years.

They're usually of surprisingly good build quality, too. I have a soft spot for em.

swaaye wrote:

lol […]
Show full quote

🤣

check out this other board they make. AM2+ plus real AGP 8x and PCIE x16 enabled by using two chipsets! SATA 2, GigE. Insanity.
http://asrock.com/MB/overview.asp?Model=ALiveDual-eSATA2

ASRock engineers are crazy.

That board's been in our main pc for a few years. Also running a couple of 4coredual's, the socket 775 equivalents. Were a godsend when the switch to pci-e was happening, and now they give nice flexibility still - got one 4coredual with a dual core cpu and pci-e card, the other has a prescott and fx5950 ultra. alivedual has an x4 phenom.

swaaye wrote:

lol […]
Show full quote

🤣

check out this other board they make. AM2+ plus real AGP 8x and PCIE x16 enabled by using two chipsets! SATA 2, GigE. Insanity.
http://asrock.com/MB/overview.asp?Model=ALiveDual-eSATA2

ASRock engineers are crazy.

That's the one Tom's used before I think, in 2008 to examine differences between AGP and PCIE bandwidth using Radeon 3850s. Wooohoooo....all this is getting too much! 😲

And Asrock = Asus. That's why the build quality is good. Check out their latest X79 and AM3+ boards. Gold caps, fat heatsinks, thick PCBs, top quality mosfets, the list goes on...

Duuuude, I didn't know you've made a build based on this board, swaaye! One question, please: is there any CPU option in the BIOS to disable a core/use only one core? Btw, what revision you have?

I see no option for disabling cores.

Board is labeled rev G/A 2.03.
BIOS is 3.30.

Interesting. Windows 98 and ME aren't working correctly with Hyperthreading/Multi cores. AFAIR, Catalyst drivers are freezing too in multicore Win9x...
Or it was more then 512 Mb or RAM?,,

I have only once tried to use 98SE with this board and it did seem like it was unstable but I didn't spend much time on it. I use this board primarily for testing 2001-2004 GPUs with maximum CPU power and XP.

98SE shouldn't become unstable on a SMP machine as far as I know, but there are many possibilities as to what would make it unstable. It could be ACPI related for example. And yeah >512MB can cause problems. Using >1GB does not work at all without a system.ini tweak to prevent 9x from using beyond 1GB.

ASRock also sold a line of combo AGP/PCIe Socket 775 boards using the VIA PT880.

http://asrock.com/mb/VIA/4CoreDual-VSTA/

I briefly considered one for an AGP rig but decided against it due to VIA's reputation for stupid compatibility problems. I later went with a period correct Gigabyte i865 Socket 478 board.

What C2D chips do these i865 Socket 775 boards support anyway? This is the first I've seen a Wolfdale on one of these. All the compatibility lists show early Conroes tops!

The best choice is an 800 MHz FSB model because it works best with the 865 chipset. There are compromises with 1066, like RAM being underclocked.

It looks like 775i65G r3.0 officially supports Wolfdale, but it works with my r2.03 board too.

I've got an E5200 in my Conroe865PE, which does not officially support Wolfdales. Works quite nicely on... I think it's the 1.70 BIOS.

There is a little caveat, though. Some of the older BIOS versions won't even boot with the newer chips, so if you have an out-of-date board, you'll also need to have an older processor on hand in order to boot it and update the BIOS before you can use a newer chip with it.

As for the 775Dual/4CoreDual boards, I wasn't overly impressed with the one I had. I never really ran into any compatibility issues, but it always seemed... a little shoddy, I guess is the best way to put it. Too many limitations, too many weird BIOS bugs, and it eventually failed completely. I was basically hoping for an Intel equivalent of the fantastic 939Dual-SATA2, but the 4CoreDual was just not on the same level.

swaaye wrote:

I have only once tried to use 98SE with this board and it did seem like it was unstable but I didn't spend much time on it. I use this board primarily for testing 2001-2004 GPUs with maximum CPU power and XP.

Maybe it's the SATA controller in the ICH5R that's causing problems. Also, it is generally recommended to stick with just IDE/PATA for 98SE.

Btw I can only find used rev 2.xx local, looks like the R3.0 is not imported here. So far have only seen it listed in newegg and some European online store.

sgt76 wrote:

And Asrock = Asus. That's why the build quality is good.

I LOVE this myth. See it all the time. Laugh when I see it too.
.
Originally Asustek (aka Asus) wanted a bigger piece of the low end motherboard market but they didn't want their name on them.
So they formed a subsidiary and named it ASRock.
They then contracted Hsing Tech (aka PcChips) to build the ASRock branded boards.
That was all in 2002.
It WAS publicized at the time (by PcChips) but Asus didn't want their name affiliated with PcChips so they hushed them up.
[FYI: Hsing Tech owns PChips. Hsing Tech is the actual manufacturer. PcChips is just their distributor.]
.
In 2005 PcChips merged with ECS.
.
In 2010 Asus split into two independent companies - Asus and Pegatron.
ASRock went with Pegatron and so hasn't been related to Asus at all since 2010.
.
So: ASRock boards come out of the same fabs (factories) as PcChips and ECS.
Asus probably designed some of them, but Asus has NEVER BEEN the builder. Ever.
.

PCBONEZ wrote:

I LOVE this myth. See it all the time. Laugh when I see it too. . Originally Asustek (aka Asus) wanted a bigger piece of the low […]
Show full quote

sgt76 wrote:

And Asrock = Asus. That's why the build quality is good.

I LOVE this myth. See it all the time. Laugh when I see it too.
.
Originally Asustek (aka Asus) wanted a bigger piece of the low end motherboard market but they didn't want their name on them.
So they formed a subsidiary and named it ASRock.
They then contracted Hsing Tech (aka PcChips) to build the ASRock branded boards.
That was all in 2002.
It WAS publicized at the time (by PcChips) but Asus didn't want their name affiliated with PcChips so they hushed them up.
[FYI: Hsing Tech owns PChips. Hsing Tech is the actual manufacturer. PcChips is just their distributor.]
.
In 2005 PcChips merged with ECS.
.
In 2010 Asus split into two independent companies - Asus and Pegatron.
ASRock went with Pegatron and so hasn't been related to Asus at all since 2010.
.
So: ASRock boards come out of the same fabs (factories) as PcChips and ECS.
Asus probably designed some of them, but Asus has NEVER BEEN the builder. Ever.
.

That's exactly why AsRock in the first years didn't have high-end offerings, but in the last 4-5 years they do have and they are decent ones. 😉

GeorgeMan wrote:

That's exasctly why AsRock in the first years didn't have high-end offerings, but in the last 4-5 years they do have and they are decent ones. 😉

I'm laughing again.

ASRock's ownership changed but their manufacturing didn't.
If ASRock became higher quality recently then presumably ECS did too. Still come from the same factory.
.
Personally I haven't thought much of Asus's (Asustek's) quality since about the time PC133 faded away. (Before that I liked them.)
I of course look at such things from the perspective of an Electronics Tech. Not a PC Tech.
.

PCBONEZ wrote:

I'm laughing again. […]
Show full quote

GeorgeMan wrote:

That's exasctly why AsRock in the first years didn't have high-end offerings, but in the last 4-5 years they do have and they are decent ones. 😉

I'm laughing again.

ASRock's ownership changed but their manufacturing didn't.
If ASRock became higher quality recently then presumably ECS did too. Still come from the same factory.
.
Personally I haven't thought much of Asus's (Asustek's) quality since about the time PC133 faded away. (Before that I liked them.)
I of course look at such things from the perspective of an Electronics Tech. Not a PC Tech.
.

I said that, meaning "When they were the cheapo-ASUS brand, they were not allowed to offer high-end-category mobos". 😉

As of electronics quality, I'd agree, but as long as there are no problems in whatever use one makes of them, I don't really care :p

Honestly, I can't see a lot of things wrong with later PCChips/ECS boards other than the choice for cheap (and crap) components. If ASRock designs their boards and use higher-quality components I see no reason they would suck, even sharing their fabs with ECS.

alexanrs wrote:

Honestly, I can't see a lot of things wrong with later PCChips/ECS boards other than the choice for cheap (and crap) components. If ASRock designs their boards and use higher-quality components I see no reason they would suck, even sharing their fabs with ECS.

ASRock does not design PCChips/ECS boards. They have their own R & D engineers.
They hire PCChips/ECS (or rather their parent company) to manufacture ASRock boards IAW ASRocks designs.
As with most such industries, parts procurement occurs at the factory level.

What is funny is that people say ASRock = Asus therefore ASRock is good.
It's funny for two reasons.
ASRock does not = Asus
With the exception of really high end boards ($200-$300 5-6 years ago) Asus's quality has sucked since about 2001.

From 2001-ish until the adoption of solid polymers almost all Asus boards used cheap Ch/Tw caps.
IMHO their customer service went to hell about the same time.
Also with Asus there are an unusually large number (compared to other manufacturers) of boards that just quit for no apparent reason.
I call that ASDS "Asus Sudden Death Syndrome". It's so common it needed a name.
I coined that expression years ago while over at BCN. Other people have picked it up.
https://www.google.com/#q=%22Asus+Sudden+Death+Syndrome%22
.

PCBONEZ wrote:

alexanrs wrote:

Honestly, I can't see a lot of things wrong with later PCChips/ECS boards other than the choice for cheap (and crap) components. If ASRock designs their boards and use higher-quality components I see no reason they would suck, even sharing their fabs with ECS.

ASRock does not design PCChips/ECS boards. They have their own R & D engineers.

That is exactly what I meant. Guess I should've said "If ASRock designs their OWN boards", as in not relying on ECS/PCChips designs.

Now that I think of it, with the exception of an Intel H61 board I passed on to my brother, all my motherboards since my Athlon 64 system way back in the mid-late 2000's have been ASUS (not brand preference, I did not even pick the parts for the Athlon 64 and the Pentium D I had after it). None of them died, but the LGA775 board does have bloated caps despite being in a machine with a good PSU (still works, though). Both the S754 and the LGA775 aren't exactly trouble-free (the LGA775 one being the most troublesome of the duo - even when it had no bloated cap - but I blame VIA more than ASUS), but the later ones (Z77-A and Z97-A) have been great. Guess that using solid caps and the fact Intel integrated everything into the chipset gave manufacturers fewer places to screw up.