Suggestions for a god long lasting motherboard? 1

[VincentDesrd]

My PC right now is a PIII overclocked at 775mhz with 256MB SDRAM and a very old Radeon 7500 64MB. I've been using it for close to 7 years now and as you can imagine I really want to upgrade it.

So far choosing the right motherboard has been the only real problem. I can't settle on one and most of the time don't really understand what I really need to build a new PC that will work great for 4-5 years and play games for around 3-4 years. Plus, even if I have been using a computer since I was 7 or 8(damn I miss that old Tandy 1000...) I stopped getting informed on new technology for a few years now.

Is DDR really that much better than SDRAM? Is there something better than DDR? If I want my PC to last that long do I need to buy the most expensive one with the most features?

Thank you for your help.

 

[VincentDesrd]

Oops, typo in the thread title, sorry.

 

[LWComputingMVP]

Yes, DDR is that much better than SDRAM - besides, SDRAM is now so rarely used, it's almost pointless to look for it. DDR2 is faster than DDR.

AMD, as I've heard (not much of a gamer myself), has the best gaming systems. Problem with AMD right now (or at least until recently) is that the boards don't support DDR2 RAM. Intel chipsets for Intel CPUs support DDR2 RAM - so it's something of a tossup. New (or coming soon) AMD boards should support DDR2 RAM and that, combined (presumably) with its HyperTransport bus and Dual Core Athlon 64 technologies would, in my opinion, make an AMD system a real good idea (I just put together an AMD server with a dual core 3800+ athlon that runs really nice).

You'll also want a system with SLI graphics ability and a good PCI-X 16 slot for the graphics adapter.

Brands or specific models... well, I'd probably say Asus or SuperMicro (but SuperMicro only does Intel boards). Although I generally will buy for myself any board from a known manufacturer - if the manual doesn't specifically name the manufacturer (they used to refer to the boards as "the manufacturer warrants... etc"), then DON'T BUY IT.

Fastest "consumer" level hard disk scheme would be a 4 disk RAID 0+1 using Western Digital 10K RPM Raptor SATA drives. Also, look for a board that supports SATA2/SATA300 (twice as fast as SATA/SATA 150/SATA1)

 

[VincentDesrd]

I just bought a 200GB UDMA HD... Can the new motherboards support both SATA and UDMA?

 

[LWComputingMVP]

Most new systems will support both types of drives. SOME only have one ATA/IDE controller for a max of two drives. Most new boards still have at least one PCI slot and you could always get another controller to handle additional drives, if necessary. You can probably find a SATA to PATA adapter too.

Note: I'm not necessarily recommending for or against this device, just showing they exist:

http://www.xpcgear.com/ide2sata.html

 

[tf1]

The problem with keeping a PC for more than 2 or 3 years is keeping up with developments. There's a whole new range of Intel processors coming out, the Conroe dual-cores with quad-cores coming not long behind it and even rumours of a 32-core version sometime on 2010 (though that is probably for servers)! And during this period, on board memory controllers (a la AMD) and even ring core buss architecture will added.

Hopefully well before the 3 years are up, 64-bit processors along with many 64-bit applications and games will be available too.

Hopefully these current accursedly slow disk drives will be faster too!


Regards: tf1

 

[kmcferrin]

Some the advice here seemed to be really off base, for example, suggesting SLI or a 4-disk RAID array is a requirement for a new PC (when the old PC hasn't been upgraded in 7 years). Rather than bog you down with specific models or brands, let's just talk in generalities.

1. AMD or Intel? The truth is, it doesn't matter. They're both making excellent CPUs. If you go with Intel you will probably want a mainboard that supports Conroe CPUs (which should be available at the end of this month). That means Socket 775 and the Intel 975 chipset. If you are going AMD, you should should go with Socket AM2 (which should be AMD's platform going forward for a few years).

2. DDR or DDR2? Well, if you go with Conroe or socket AM2, you will be required to use DDR2. That will be the memory standard going forward. If you choose an older Pentium 4 or Athlon 64 design, then you need DDR. DDR2 is a better choice going forward.

3. IDE, SATA (aka SATA 150), or SATA 300 (sometimes called SATA 2)? First off, SATA designs are the future. Performance-wise there is little difference between ATA133 (IDE), SATA, and SATA 300. Contrary to what some people will claim, SATA 300 is not actually faster than SATA 150. While the interface has the capability to be faster than the SATA 150 interface, the drive mechanics (rotational speed, data density, number of platters, etc) will have a greater effect on the speed of the disk than the interface. For example, the Western Digital Raptor drives are SATA 150 with a 10,000 RPM rotational speed, but they are the fastest SATA drives available today (even faster than SATA 300 drives). At this point, SATA 150 and 300 are almost priced equivalently, so going with the newer (and potentially faster) standard of SATA 300 makes sense. Don't forget to get a board that also has at least a single IDE/ATA133 controller as well though, because at the moment there are only a couple of SATA optical drives and they are all extremely expensive.

4. AGP or PCI-E? At this point, nobody should be buying AGP, as it is a virtually dead standard. Go with PCI-E.

5. Onboard audio? Gigabit ethernet? Both of these are pretty much standard now days, but I will say that in most cases gigabit ethernet is far more than people will need at home. Most DSL/cable modems only provide 1-5 megabits of bandwidth, and even those home users with internal home LANs don't typically have an application that can saturate a 100 megabit connection, so a 10/100 ethernet connection is more than sufficient.

 

[paparazi]

kmcferrin
It's nice to see sensible advice given for a change.
Star

We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[VincentDesrd]

Sorry I didn't reply sooner but I want to thank everyone with their great suggestions, it really helped me find what I really need and realised that what I really need doesn't cost nearly as much as what the best setup available would...

I'll go with a Asus Pentium board(does Asus even make AMD boards?) that supports the new Conroe CPU. I have however read very bad things about the design of the new Asus boards, from very very very geeky computer users but still...

I decided to wait for 54-5 months before building a new PC. By that time a few motherboards will have come out and I will have more choice if I decide at the last minute to stay away from Asus.

I'm quite surprised that the thing that will be the most expensive will be my LCD widescreen monitor... 700$CND!!! Do you guys think widescreen monitors will become a standard and the prices will drop?

Once again thank you for your help. I have recommended this site to a lot of friends and they are very satisfied.

 

[paparazi]

Intel 975 chipset for Conroe (be careful as it needs to be a revised version to support the lower voltages of this core)look the best NOW! but in a few months when 965 has matured and motherboards fitted with this chipset have hopefully dropped in price, a 965 chipset based motherboard might be the better buy (at the moment only high end 965 boards are released and are almost the same price as the 975 based boards which have more features)
Intel "Bad Axe" 975 is probably the best for the NON overclocking user.

Martin

We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[Nelviticus]

I bought an Asus P5B board for my Conroe for just over £100 UKP. It uses the 965 chipset. The layout is fine and I haven't had any problems with it. The 965-based board from Foxconn is getting very good reviews and costs under £100 UKP, but I can't find it in stock anywhere yet.

nVidia are due to launch a Conroe-ready chipset soon, I think it's called the nForce 590. Boards based on this should start to come out within a few weeks.

There are a lot of very cheap 19" widescreen LCD monitors around at the moment. The lowest price I've seen is £120 UKP from Amazon and most other on-line retailers. Obviously at that price they're not perfect - for starters there's only an analog connector, not DVI - but two people I know who've bought them are very happy with them.

Regards

Nelviticus

 

[kmcferrin]

ASUS makes good boards, and yes, they do make AMD boards. I'm using one at the moment.

Regarding the widescreen LCD, widescreens are just now beginning to be more common. The problem is that it used to be fairly difficult to make an LCD panel without at least one pixel being bad. The bigger the LCD, the more pixels it had, and the higher the chance of having bad pixels. LCD manufacturing has really taken off in the past couple of years, and we're finally getting to the point where the manufacturing processes used can be used to create larger numbers of larger panels. Whereas 17" used to be the mainstream, 19" is now the favorite and widescreen is coming into play more.

If you think back over the recent past in computer components, it has generally been the case that the most expensive component (or second most, if you buy $1200 CPUs) is the display. A good display can last you many years, even though you might go through 2 or 3 computers in that time span.

If you shop around you will probably find that prices vary widely on widescreen LCDs from manufacturer to manufacturer and store to store. Just keep in mind that there are only 3 or 4 companies out there that make the LCD panels used in LCD displays these days. The "manufacturer" of the display just puts the panel into a case, adds some buttons, and may add some functionality for adjustments (color temp/calibration, etc). So if you find an expensive LCD from manufacturer #1 that uses the same panel as an inexpensive LCD from manufacturer #2, you might be able to get by with the less expensive one and save a hundred dollars or so.

 

[PRPhx]

A couple of thoughts.

1) In my experience, I notice a BIG difference between ATA 133 and SATA. Probably due to the fact that my SATA drive has a much larger cache (8mb Vs 2).

Also, the SATA 300 SHOULD be faster due to 1) 16 mb cache, and Native Command Queing, which has the ability to prioritize what data gets moved when.

2) Yes, ASUS make AMD based mother boards.

3) If you are a gamer and want an LCD monitor, make sure the response time is no more than 8ms to help eliminate ghosting. The less the better. Shop around a little. Prices should be pretty good, since schools are going back in session and the holidays are just around the corner.

 

[VincentDesrd]

Is there any normal flat screen widescreen monitors out there? If so I assume those would be alot cheaper than LCD, altho alot bigger and heavier...

 

[Nelviticus]

Apart from TVs, I've never seen a widescreen CRT monitor although they probably do exist in small numbers. I very much doubt that they'd be cheaper than LCD ones though. Have a look for a widescreen TFT on Amazon or your favourite on-line retailer - as I said, here in the UK they all have very cheap ones; £120 UKP is about $60 USD.

Regards

Nelviticus

 

[kmcferrin]

Widescreen tubes tend to be at least as expensive as widescreen LCDs, at least around the 20 inch size. If you get up to television-sized tubes, they tend to be cheaper. But most people who are going to spend for a widescreen monitor on their desk aren't going to want a huge tube monitor (the old 3:4 ratio tubes were big enough as is), so availability would be extremely limited.

Regarding:

1) In my experience, I notice a BIG difference between ATA 133 and SATA. Probably due to the fact that my SATA drive has a much larger cache (8mb Vs 2).

Also, the SATA 300 SHOULD be faster due to 1) 16 mb cache, and Native Command Queing, which has the ability to prioritize what data gets moved when.

In your expieriece I would say that the cache size is skewing your perception of the difference in performance between ATA133 and SATA 300. However, a 16MB cache is by no means a requirement of a SATA 300 drive.

For that matter, NCQ is also not a requirement of a SATA 300 drive. NCQ typically won't make much of a difference at all on single-user workstations, either, unless they are heavily multi-tasked. NCQ is the SATA equivalent of SCSI's TCQ (Tagged Command Queueing), which basically lets the drive itself re-order random I/O requests based on the drive's knowledge of its current state (head position, rotational position, etc) so that they can be executed in the most efficient way possible to reduce disk thrashing. This not only can improve perforamnce, it can improve the lifetime of the drive by reducing wear and tear.

The performance improvement of NCQ over non-NCQ drives is typically only evident in drives that service a large number of non-sequential (i.e., random) I/O requests. Those drives are usually in a server environment, though a workstation that is heavily multitasked by running several disk I/O intensive applications simultaneously would probably see some improvement.

In a typical desktop environment you're just not going to see enough I/O traffic to get much of a boost, if any. If you want to see the difference between ATA133 and SATA 300 then I recommend that you get one of each type of drive, from the same manufacturer and drive family and with the same cache size, and run some I/O benchmarks on them. The difference will be almost negligible.