[Valnar]

Well, not really. I still have one, but I wanted to get the FAQ updated. Moderator: hint hint.


There is no longer a reason to recommend this great ASUS board. The i845E chipset boards are now out, and both MSI and Gigabyte are selling theirs currently. You can get the Gigabyte GA-8IE mobo at Newegg.com for $120. It has the newer 845E chipset (as apposed to the 845D on the ASUS) which allows for USB 2.0 and 533Mhz FSB.


Until ASUS comes out with their replacement, this is the board of choice for HTPC use with its great Intel chipset compatibility.


And, if you didn't want to fork over the big $$$ for a P4 2.4Ghz with 533FSB just yet, you can pick up the newly released P4 Celeron 1.7Ghz for under $100.


Robert

 

[Dizzy49]

Asus does have the P4B533 but every place I've checked out wants between $100 and $200 for it, and it's backordered almost everywhere.

 

[xcel]

Hi Valner:


___The last post in this thread should say something about the latest I845E’s As far as the greatest board, I prefer not to make hasty judgments until I have seen a review or two or have had one in my own hands.


___And for the CPU of choice to place on this board … The $135.00 1.6A is the best value for the buck IMO. Even a novice can jack the FSB up to 133 MHz w/ most any HQ OC’ing P4 board. Than again, there are a few 1.6A’s that failed to make it there and you are safely stuck at just 1792 MHz … YMMV of course.


___Good Luck


___Wayne R. Gerdes

___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.

___ [email protected]

 

[Valnar]

xcel:


I read your post. I have a old Gigabyte BX chipset board and it works great. I don't overclock, so I can't say I've had any problems.


For $120, I ordered that new Gigabyte 845E board today from Newegg. I don't think waiting for reviews will be necessary. You get a feeling for the entire line of a manufacturer based on previous reviews. I have no reason to believe this won't be a great board. I only wish it didn't hafe the built-in audio so I'd have a "cleaner" look on the back of the PC. Oh well.....


Robert

 

[jahesh]

Has anyone seen any micro-ATX versions of the 845E boards in their travels? I'm mainly interested in the Asus P4B533-M, but I'd consider others, as long as they've got on-board LAN. Hopefully, I'll find something at a store that ships to Canada - strangely enough, it seems that many U.S. stores don't want our business!


Thanks in advance.

 

[Dizzy49]

Personally, with the experience I've had with the Asus P4S533 I don't think I'll ever buy another board from them again.

 

[xcel]

Hi Dizzy49:


___I have been running a highly OC’ed P4S533 for a few weeks now and haven’t seen any problems to date although I have seen a few threads about problems when using one in the various tech forums. Mostly DOA’s. What kind of trouble are you having with yours? As for Asus, I have had 2-P4B266’s go bad in the last few months as well but given Asus’ past, I have to say it was a fluke. Than again, some of their manufacturing is headed to China and there may be some problems with the build quality from the newer and cheaper plants …


___Wayne R. Gerdes

___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.

___ [email protected]

 

[Bon]

I've read nothing to confirm this, but I suspect that the i845E is exactly the same chipset as the i845D (which, in turn, is exactly the same as the original i845). So I'm guessing performance/stability/etc. will be identical.


i845G, on the other hand, is much newer, and apparently performs better due to some tweaking and enhancements (particularly in the memory department). Again, we'll have to see some real-world test results to be sure.


-Bon

 

[xcel]

Hi Bon:


___I have read that 133 MHz FSB on the P4B266 Full version (not –C) can kill the USB 1.1 ports. On the last P4B266-C I shipped using a 1.6A at 2.13 GHz (133 MHz FSB), I was using a USB based Intellimouse Explorer from initial build all the way to the last DVD player install and it worked fine at that FSB. In any case, there were a number of Fulls (non-C’s) that had this problem at 133 MHz + so the E based chipsets would have had to have been tweaked to make sure this problem did not appear in the P4B533’s. Just do a search in Anadtech’s MB forums for more information.


___I have also read that the –G with AGP as well as an onboard video solution has a slightly faster performance but no site that I know of as of yesterday has tested any of these boards just yet.


___Good Luck


___Wayne R. Gerdes

___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.

___ [email protected]

 

[Bon]

Quote:

I have read that 133 MHz FSB on the P4B266 Full version (not –C) can kill the USB 1.1 ports. On the last P4B266-C I shipped using a 1.6A at 2.13 GHz (133 MHz FSB), I was using a USB based Intellimouse Explorer from initial build all the way to the last DVD player install and it worked fine at that FSB. In any case, there were a number of Fulls (non-C’s) that had this problem at 133 MHz + so the E based chipsets would have had to have been tweaked to make sure this problem did not appear in the P4B533’s. Just do a search in Anadtech’s MB forums for more information.

Ah yes, I know the issue of which you speak... I'm typing this from a P4B266 system with USB 1.1 disabled and an Intellimouse Explorer plugged into a USB->PS2 adapter right now, as a matter of fact.


Thanks for the clarification. I had heard of some kind of modification to help all i845E boards run at 133 MHz, but had previously thought it was a change in the motherboard implementation rather than the chipset itself.

Quote:

I have also read that the –G with AGP as well as an onboard video solution has a slightly faster performance but no site that I know of as of yesterday has tested any of these boards just yet.

The recent "DDR400 vs. Rambus" article at Tom's Hardware Guide included some benchmarks for a "future chipset 1" and "future chipset 2" (which were previously labelled i845E and i845G, but the report has since been changed). Not sure if you've already seen that one, but there are benchmarks there... I'm not sure how they were acquired, though. (Of note is the mention of the i845G supporting DDR333 where the i845E does not... but whether it does or not, chances are that it won't be enabled, since Intel wants to release "official" DDR333 variants in September).


-Bon


-Bon

 

[xcel]

Hi Bon:


___I read the Tom’s HW article on release but did not realize they were the I845E’s and G’s. The site I picked up the 845E/G performance differences from was over at Overclockers.com , here .


___In a similar light, the newest I850E with PC1066 support has not officially been sanctioned for use at 133 MHz FSB by Intel either. Intel is letting the chipset board builders certify the board for that frequency but Intel will not spend the money on certification for that chipsets operation at 133 MHz FSB if you can believe that!


___Good Luck


___Wayne R. Gerdes

___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.

___ [email protected]

 

[Dizzy49]

xcel,


I bought a P4B533 from Googlegear.com about 3 weeks ago. I installed XP on it, and it was working fine for about 10 days. Then when I booted it up I got a missing system file. I didn't have much on it, so I just formatted the drive and tried to reinstall. Upon installation I received a STOP error about a PAGE_IN_NONPAGED_AREA or something like that. I tried it again and the same thing.

I thought the drive was bad, so I hit Maxtor's site and downloaded their drive utility. It passed all the tests fine, and I did a low level format for good measure. I then pulled out all cards, so the only things hooked up were GeForce4 MX440, 60gig Maxtor liquid bearing drive, single stick of ram, and cpu.

I tried reinstalling XP, and got the same error. I then figured I'd give Win2k a shot. Installed fine. Installed the nic drivers from CD. Downloaded video drivers, installed them, and then upgraded IE. After the IE upgrade it rebooted and when it came back the onboad NIC was dead. Said the cable was unplugged. I swapped cables, changed ports, etc, same thing. I hit the Asus site, and there are no driver updates, but there were some bios updates. I updated the bios, and noticed that v1006 fixed the problem with XP installing. (v1006 shipped with the board). I upgraded the bios to v1008. NIC still dead. I thought upgrading IE killed the nic so I removed it, no change. I reformatted and reinstalled 2k, and no change.

I emailed Asus tech support at this point (now 4 days later). Two days pass and no response. I then call Asus tech support at 4:30PST while I was at work. He said that they were busy and asked if he could call back in 30min. Worked out great for me, I could run home and be there to answer any questions or do anything. I run home and wait for his call, an hour and a half later, I hop on their site, and realize they close at 5pm PST. He blew me off, and I fell for it.

Next morning I wake up to a reply from Asus, telling me that either the hard drive, or the CD is bad. I was pissed. I wrote back asking if she even read what I wrote. The fact that I tested the drive because it's the first thing *I* thought of. I told her I had several XP cds (ton from work, they pay for the licenses, but then pay to have 2k loaded on the laptops instead). I pointed out the fact (again) that the NIC doesn't work anymore and asked for reasons why.

At this time I contacted Googlegear about returning the board, and they have a 15 day return policy. It broke in 10 days, I spend 4 days putzing around with it myself, then 3 days before I got a disappointing response from Asus tech support. That's 2 days out of warrenty.

I woke up early and called Asus tech support (Long distance, NO 800#!!) and was placed on hold for about 15min, then I explained my situation to the tech and he said the board was bad and to send it back. He connected me to the RMA department. The RMA department said they couldn't find any tickets logged under my name so they wouldn't issue me an RMA, so I was reconnected to tech support and told their database was down, and reconected to RMA and told them the database was down. The guy gave me an RMA number. I asked if it was possible to cross ship to cut down on downtime, and he said they only repair, or replace after checking it out. He stated turn around time was 7-10 days after receiving it. Needless to say, I was pissed again. I told him that was unacceptable and he told me to contact the vendor for replacement then.

I get home last night and then see another email from tech support stating that my video card is causing the problem. I basically replied saying that I've had better help ans service from untrained apes, and I can't believe the company is paying her for what she calls tech support.

I then hopped on the phone with Googlegear and they agreed to replace the board since I wanted to exchange it with the same thing. I asked about a cross ship and I was told to email their manager.

I sent the board off via Fex-Ex 3-day, and then emailed the manager. I stated that I would be happy to give them a credit card to hold money on for a cross ship, and I would like to shipped asap via 2nd day. I also included the tracking number of the package I sent.

He replies saying that they will look for the package and process it once it gets there. So, I'm stuck without the computer until sometime next week, possibly even the week after depending on when they get it, and how long they take to process it.



So, after this experience, I will NEVER buy another Asus board, or deal with Googlegear again! I've owned Tyan and MSI, and both gave me EXCELLENT tech support (highest praise to Tyan), and Tyan even shipped me a board overnight for no additional charge, and I shipped mine back AFTER I received theirs.

 

[DCypher]

Dizzy49 - I feel for you, and thanks for taking the time to post your experience! I have been buying ASUS MB's for the past few years, and have been VERY happy with their quality, but now I'm reconsidering them based on your post (and some other negative posts out there).


I have also bought Tyan and been happy with them in the past, perhaps I'll give them a shot again!


Jeff

 

[Bon]

Quote:

Originally posted by xcel Hi Bon: ___I read the Tom’s HW article on release but did not realize they were the I845E’s and G’s. The site I picked up the 845E/G performance differences from was over at Overclockers.com , here .

Hi Wayne,


I could have sworn that that article specifically referred to them as i845E and i845G when I first read it, but could have it wrong. I can't think of any other place I recently visited with the exact info I'm thinking about (even after checking the link you provided above).

Quote:

___In a similar light, the newest I850E with PC1066 support has not officially been sanctioned for use at 133 MHz FSB by Intel either. Intel is letting the chipset board builders certify the board for that frequency but Intel will not spend the money on certification for that chipsets operation at 133 MHz FSB if you can believe that!

As far as I can tell, it's not the 133 MHz FSB that they are not officially supporting, but the use of PC1066 RAM. PC800 RAM can be run at default speed on a 133 MHz FSB by using a lower multiplier (3x133=400), and I guess that this will be the combination Intel supports.


This is the impression I'm getting from here , anyway.


Either way, it's obvious that Intel aren't too concerned about pursuing RD-RAM any more, and are doing their best to wash their hands of it!


-Bon

 

[xcel]

Hi Bon:


___My reference was when running RDRAM at 133 MHz FSB - 533 MHz QP’ed, you have to run the P4T-E at 133 MHz FSB w/ the 1/3 divider. I did say 133 MHz FSB without mention of the PC1066 as in the first paragraph which was my mistake. Anandtech has a great explanation for the PC1066 RDRAM not being supported in his Intel Introduces 533MHz FSB CPUs - Pentium 4 2.53GHz article. If you look at the 2.4 and 2.4B benches, without RDRAM running synchronously at 133 MHz FSB (PC1066), you have between 0 and 2% increase in performance in all of the benches run. This is less than the significance of error in the benches themselves. Without PC1066/133 MHz FSB support, the latest I850E gained nothing over the I850 std. predecessor. As Anand mentioned, “You are then in fact, widening one end of a pipe but leaving the other end untouched and expecting a gain in throughput†which in this case, gives us a net increase of 0.


___I do think there is a problem with Intel’s cautious statements in regards to the I850 and PC1066. Intel is usually a pretty conservative company in terms of CPU and chipset overhead. That was until the I820 w/ the MTH and 1.13 GHz PIII fiasco. Since that time, I believe Intel has applied another conservative mindset and they probably found an issue with PC1066 RDRAM at 133 MHz FSB that the rest of the world knows nothing about. I just cannot see them releasing an updated chipset (850-E) that supports a FSB that does not improve performance by any statistical amount with the –B step P4’s.


___Good Luck


___Wayne R. Gerdes

___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.

___ [email protected]

 

[Bon]

Quote:

I believe Intel has applied another conservative mindset and they probably found an issue with PC1066 RDRAM at 133 MHz FSB that the rest of the world knows nothing about. I just cannot see them releasing an updated chipset (850-E) that supports a FSB that does not improve performance by any statistical amount with the –B step P4’s.

Good point. Surely the PC1066 RD-RAM solution is the ultimate showcase of the P4's performance potential, and I would have thought they'd like to support it for a bit longer (in spite of their migration to DDR) for that reason.


At first I thought that this move was mainly in spite of Rambus, but I can't imagine that Intel would do that if there were still significant profit potential in RD-RAM solutions. They must have come to the conclusion that it's simply not worth bothering about any more. Otherwise, they would give the i850E the same extensive testing and problem-fixing that they give every other chipset.


-Bon