ASROCK motherboards, are they any good

  • Thread starter Thread starter Goran Boo
  • Start date Start date
G

Goran Boo

hey,
Can anybody tell are the Asrock motherboards any good
I'm planning on buying a PC and some guys offering
me an ASROCK P4I65GV, with intel 800 chipset, ATA 133, AGP 8x?
Please Help Thnx, Boo
 
Thanx man. A question: So what, theyre not tested as ASUS and they don't
last as asus, or something else?
 
All that is probably ok except I would recommend steering clear of onboard video.
 
Art said:
Any particular reason?

Art Leonard
Click to expand...

Apart from the fact it's usually rubbish, it munches system RAM. Say you
only have 128MB (unlikely these days), as much as a quarter of it could be
wasted on the on board graphics chip. As a fairly decent graphics card can
be purchased for around £50, it's a pointless waste.
 
Miss said:
Apart from the fact it's usually rubbish, it munches system RAM. Say you
only have 128MB (unlikely these days), as much as a quarter of it could be
wasted on the on board graphics chip. As a fairly decent graphics card can
be purchased for around £50, it's a pointless waste.
Click to expand...


Hi, the Asrock boards I have installed recently have a pretty decent
onboard video system. It is adjustable regarding the amount of shared
memory from 4-64 meg. I have tested these systems with sustained frame
rates of 30 - 60 fps using standard bench programs. I find it impressive
that the board + 512meg ddr ram costs about $100 US and there is no need
to buy any additional adapter cards... a decent low end system.
Certainly not a pointless waste to those needing to stay within a budget.

Art Leonard
 
Any particular reason?
Click to expand...

All depends on what you need... for a few bucks more a video card will
have relatively insignficant 2D performance boost, or for enough $ a
larger 3D performance boost. Shared video memory eats up a small amount
of system memory but these days with systems being recommended at 256MB,
or more often 512+MB memory, the reduction in memory isn't all that
signficant. Memory bandwidth is reduced but with a modern DDR
dual-channel memory subsystem that also isn't very signficant. It boils
down to what you need out of the video, for most common tasks,
office/email/DVD/etc, today's integrated video is more than sufficient,
even in it's slower versions instead of nForce varieties. Even so, it's
still not a bad idea to get a board with an AGP slot even if the
integrated video is to be used, occasionally the image quality isn't the
best and it would allow for a viedo upgrade if later deemed necessary.

One of the more significant factors for me is that too often the
integrated video boards are mATX, so too few PCI slots. If you had need
to add an AGP card later, if it takes up a PCI slot, you suddenly have
only two slots left, so if filled with a moden and NIC, you're out of
slots already.
 
I just finished my first system using ASROCK socket A board. Everything worked
right away. Very good docs. Labels in pics and on board easy to read.
did not have to change jumpers.

This one cost $42, but only supports fsb up to 333. Next time I'll spend a few
bucks more and get another asrock with 400 fsb.
 
Miss Perspicacia Tick said:
Apart from the fact it's usually rubbish, it munches system RAM. Say you
only have 128MB (unlikely these days), as much as a quarter of it could be
wasted on the on board graphics chip. As a fairly decent graphics card can
be purchased for around £50, it's a pointless waste.
Click to expand...

Surley that depends on what you want to do with the system? e-mail, basic
word processing, storing some digitial camera images etc. This describes a
fair chunk of PC users. Spending £50 on a graphics card they don't need is a
pointless waste.
 
Jabba said:
Surley that depends on what you want to do with the system? e-mail, basic
word processing, storing some digitial camera images etc. This describes a
fair chunk of PC users. Spending £50 on a graphics card they don't need is a
pointless waste.
Click to expand...

£50 is quite an expensive video card, if users just want email etc then they could get away with a much cheaper card. In the price
of the onboard vga card you have to factor in the cost of the onboard memory because it is memory that you have paid for. You also
have to factor in the cost of the vga card on the motherboard. And you also have to factor in the cost of a faster cpu because the
onboard card slows the whole system down (see below). The price difference ends up being very little and you get much greater
flexibility. Quite often people who only wanted to browse the web suddenly find they want to play a game, capture video, upgrade to
a vga card with tv out or maybe even use an LCD screen with DVI.

The reason onboard video slows the system down in that the video memory has to be read about 75 times a second, which equates to
around 150 meg/sec. So even when your system is sitting idle the memory is still transfering 150meg/sec. This slows down all
transfers to memory and so slows down the entire system. Also, these motherboards usually have a slower chipset. This might not
matter that much but if you bought a pentium 2.8 and you are only getting the performance of a 2.5 then you could have saved a few
dollars and just bought a 2.5.
 
Art Leonard said:
Any particular reason?
Click to expand...

It uses up the system ram
Makes the whole system slower by reading about 2 meg of the system ram around 75 times a second.
Video is slower because it doesn't use ram specifically designed for video.
Video is slower just because they use a slower video chip.
Upgrading the video card is not always possible (some boards don't have agp slots)
If you can upgrade the video card you are left over with a second vga port.
Problems with video capture cards.
Not that good for games (not that I consider this much of a loss but some people do :-)
Generally the chipset is slower because it is aimed at the budget market.
Usually the boards have less PCI slots and less memory slots

These problems only affect onboard video, I would say that onboard sound, lan, ide, usb, firewire etc is all fine but onboard video
is always crappy.

I remember reading a magazine article that concluded that the cheaper board was 10% slower meaning that you had to buy the next
speed up CPU to keep the same speed, which was the difference in the price to the real motherboard. So it was a false economy buying
the cheaper board. The user doesn't see this though, they just see a P2.8 at $X less than someone else.
 
I remember reading a magazine article that concluded that the cheaper board was 10% slower meaning that you had to buy the next
speed up CPU to keep the same speed, which was the difference in the price to the real motherboard. So it was a false economy buying
the cheaper board. The user doesn't see this though, they just see a P2.8 at $X less than someone else.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that a benchmark used to test memory throughput, or at least
stressing that, may be quite different than a typical use where there
isn't a constant saturation of the memory bus to begin with, so that
bandwidth used up by integrated video, was going unused otherwise. That
is the case with all of the most common PC tasks, only something fairly
demanding like video editing is going to be memory-bound enough that the
CPU or other bottlenecks do not eclipse a minor memory hit... quite often
the memory bus is nowhere near saturated, could run TWO integrated videos
without the user ever noticing the slight performance hit, if there was
any. This is considering only modern DDR dual-channel solutions, I would
not advise integrated video on a 100MHz SDR memory bus for anything more
than casual web surfing or email, office, etc, though it can still support
30FSP @ 32bpp, 1024x768 (DVD/videos/etc).

Integrated video is a great way to lower the cost of a system, but
certainly not belonging in a box built to be "high-end". In the
mid-range, it's just another trade-off, money saved on integrated video
could be put towards a faster CPU or hard drive, etc, so it can be
positive or negative benefit at certain price-points.
 
kony said:
Keep in mind that a benchmark used to test memory throughput, or at least
stressing that, may be quite different than a typical use where there
isn't a constant saturation of the memory bus to begin with, so that
bandwidth used up by integrated video, was going unused otherwise. That
is the case with all of the most common PC tasks, only something fairly
demanding like video editing is going to be memory-bound enough that the
CPU or other bottlenecks do not eclipse a minor memory hit... quite often
the memory bus is nowhere near saturated, could run TWO integrated videos
without the user ever noticing the slight performance hit, if there was
any. This is considering only modern DDR dual-channel solutions, I would
not advise integrated video on a 100MHz SDR memory bus for anything more
than casual web surfing or email, office, etc, though it can still support
30FSP @ 32bpp, 1024x768 (DVD/videos/etc).
Click to expand...

At 1280x1024 75Hz 32bpp the ram is being subjected to 400meg/second. Ram is pretty fast these days but this would have to equate to
at least a few percent.
Integrated video is a great way to lower the cost of a system, but
certainly not belonging in a box built to be "high-end". In the
mid-range, it's just another trade-off,
Click to expand...

It doesn't really lower the cost of the system that much, all you save is buying a vga card. For an extra few dollars you also get
more pci slots, more memory slots, more features such as extra USB ports, a better quality board, a faster chipset, faster video, a
faster system and more ram.
money saved on integrated video
could be put towards a faster CPU or hard drive, etc, so it can be
positive or negative benefit at certain price-points.
Click to expand...

Problem is that you have to get a faster cpu just to keep the same speed. Generally the difference in price is about the same as a
vga card.
 
At 1280x1024 75Hz 32bpp the ram is being subjected to 400meg/second. Ram is pretty fast these days but this would have to equate to
at least a few percent.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily... only if the bus was so saturated that it delayed the
other data. Typically, the bus is not so saturated. If you had a 4 lane
highway, having 2 cars already on it will not necessarily slow down a 3rd
car.
It doesn't really lower the cost of the system that much, all you save is buying a vga card. For an extra few dollars you also get
more pci slots, more memory slots, more features such as extra USB ports, a better quality board, a faster chipset, faster video, a
faster system and more ram.
Click to expand...

True, it is not a large cost difference, but then for someone considering
such a low-to-mid range system, it may easily be a signficant percentage
of total cost. Some people have no need for more PCI slots if a board
already has sound, network adapter, video.

It is not necessarily true that a board with integrated video has
drawbacks of too few USB ports (almost all have 4-6 including the
front-port pin header, how many do you really need?).

It can't be assumed a board with integrated video is better quality. If
you buy a low-end brand it could be, but so would that brand's offerings
without the integrated video.

It is not true that the chipset is faster, except in isolated instances.
For the most part the chipset is also offered in a non-integrated-video
version. On the contrary, the fastest integrated video is nForce2, which
is still the fastest Athlon chipset.

More ram? Who cares? If the integrated video uses 64MB, which is worth
about $9 worth of memory. You're saving $40 for a video card so if memory
is the issue then you can put that $40 towards 256MB more. In many
instances, a low-end box would benefit more from the 256MB than a seperate
video card, UNLESS the user wants good 3D gaming.

Integrated video also allows a much smaller system case. yesteryear's
pizza box cases look large compared to some of today's boxes. It might
not be suitable as primary system for a power user, but certainly a good
alternative for a file server or internet kiosk, office machine, etc.

Problem is that you have to get a faster cpu just to keep the same speed. Generally the difference in price is about the same as a
vga card.
Click to expand...

You're making a lot of assumptions that are, as I mentioned previously,
only based on certain types of benchmarks. Besides particularly demanding
uses, like gaming or video editing, name a task that's common, that will
be slowed down enough to be noticable? I'm not claiming there aren't any,
but that for most uses, even a die-hard power user will not be able to
notice a performance difference in most 2D tasks.

If someone knows they have a particularly demanding task, then of course
they will plan accordingly, whether it be a good video card or memory or
something else, but at a certain point the budget is best spent on only
what matters to that particular user, not what you feel everyone should
have.

Your claim about "faster CPU just to keep same speed" is not true except
in very isolated instances. If we wanted to nitpick, it would be a wasted
to pay for a video card if the user didn't game and didn't already have a
pair of RAIDed Raptors, but again the budget has to stop somewhere if it's
not a no-expense-spared build.

Ultimate performance is not everything though. There is no point to
paying more for performance that isn't needed. Your previous example of a
P4 2.8GHz, would not be my idea of a good example, that a box built for
low cost would certainly not have a P4 2.8 in it, and that is exactly why
some choose integrated video, for the cost reduction. If they already
favor cost over utmost performance, then there's no point in aruging to
spend a bit more, since just about any system could be faster for a few
dollars more, then a few dollars more, then a few dollars more. It's all
a matter of what the budget is and how that budget best applies to the
user's needs, and for some that means integrated video.
 
kony said:
/snip/

Ultimate performance is not everything though. There is no point to
paying more for performance that isn't needed. Your previous example of a
P4 2.8GHz, would not be my idea of a good example, that a box built for
low cost would certainly not have a P4 2.8 in it, and that is exactly why
some choose integrated video, for the cost reduction. If they already
favor cost over utmost performance, then there's no point in aruging to
spend a bit more, since just about any system could be faster for a few
dollars more, then a few dollars more, then a few dollars more. It's all
a matter of what the budget is and how that budget best applies to the
user's needs, and for some that means integrated video.
Click to expand...

This nicely sums up my attitude to "the it's only of few more pounds" to get
this, that is slightly better but which you have no need for. If you do this
with the processor, graphics card, sound card, mouse, keyboard, monitor and
onwards you suddenly end up spending and extra £100 - £200 for features
which you just don't want or indeed need.

IMHO most systems sold are completelty over the top for what they are
actually used for. Yes I know that many PC users play cutting edge games (I
love Far Cry myslef) but would your average user notice the difference
between say an 1.5GHz and 2.5GHz based system? except in terms of money.
 
Back
Top