|
The Official PC building thread - 4th Edition
|
|
|
|
Member
|
26. September 2012 @ 08:47 |
Link to this message
|
I was also disappointed to see Intel switching to SandForce initially, but they really did pull it off and the 330 series has interesting pricing. They're still not Intel's most reliable drives as far as I'm aware, but they showed that they can get failure rates on SandForce as low as one in twenty and I consider that respectable when we have one in six or one in seven failure rates from many other SandForce partners.
If I recall correctly, the failures with SandForce based SSDs are generally caused by failures in either the firmware or the power delivery circuitry that can be designed by the partner for their own SSDs (this is also probably the cause of what can be very different power consumption characteristics between seemingly similar or identical SSDs from different companies and Intel probably did quite god at this).
Still, I think that OCZ really stepped up with their Vertex 4 SSDs in both reliability and customer service, although Agility 4 is still kinda meh because of its performance. Agility 4, like previous Agility models, uses asynchronous NAND, but this is more of a problem for it than with previous SandForce models because SandForce's compression is a good partner to masking asynchronous issues whereas a higher quality Marvell or any other non-compressing controller is more tuned to synchronous and toggle mode NAND. I think that enabling NTFS compression might help the Agility 4 to mask its poor NAND interface a little better when working with compressible data, but I don't have an Agility 4 to test this (I'm considering buying one though, it often drops below 50 cents USD to the GB here in the USA).
What's really got me interested now is Samsung's new 840 Pro series, or at least I'd be more interested if Samsung would drop prices a little. It really shows that OCZ isn't the only one who can work with non-SandForce controllers excellently and not only that, but Samsung is determined to not only not release a product before it is really ready (unlike OCZ that released Vertex 4 months before they had the excellent firmware that they now have and has consistently done this with prior SSDs and even other products in the past), but also that Samsung, although still a little stringent on prices, is proving that they can make an SSD completely by themselves. I don't think that any other SSD is made by a single company without the aid of others.
I really have to agree with you, Sam, in that overall, the electronics industry as a whole seems to have let product quality and reliability drop in most places. Motherboards, graphics cards, and that's just the start of getting into it...
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. September 2012 @ 08:50
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
26. September 2012 @ 12:04 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Yeah it's a shame Intel switched to Sandforce rather than using their own controllers, but it has brought the continuous transfer speeds way up, and quite interesting, their SSDs still post far lower failure rates than other brands that use the same controllers. It's infuriating as it shows what's possible if other countries paid a blind bit of notice to quality. Fortunately due to the higher importance of what they do and the tolerances involved, the storage industry tend to pay a bit more attention to this than other areas of the PC hardware market, but many SSD brands, particularly OCZ have abandoned it.
Considering how often consumer-grade motherboards and graphics cards in particular fail, it's appalling really.
Considering my PC only has continuous speeds of about 160MB/s read and 35MB/s write, it's still incredibly fast having not been reformatted for a year, loads windows in seconds, and I still have about the fastest loading times for the game that's installed to it of my peers (some of which are other SSD users). Performance isn't really an issue with it apart from one area which is when downloader applications use C: for their temporary storage before writing it elsewhere - then 35MB/s can be a bottleneck when extracting stuff, and I would eventually like a bit more than 40GB, hence eying up the 120/180GB 330/520 series drives. Still, apart from that I'm in no pressure to remove it, and I'll certainly reuse it in one of the other machines afterwards, it's a good performing drive.
Sam,
http://i1171.photobucket.com/albums/r556/theonejrs/Intel330.jpg
As you can see, the Intel 330 is a little faster than advertised, and slightly faster than the Patriot 60GB Pyro SSD was. When it comes to Sata II or Sata III for an SSD, buy the Sata III. It's easily twice as fast as Sata II, and you'll have something to look forward to when you do upgrade to a motherboard that supports Sata III!
I look at Intel's switch to SandForce controllers, as a brilliant move by Intel! If anything, it's vindicated SandForce, in a lot of people's eyes, as the failure rates have remained as low as they had been with the Intel controllers! Judging by the difference in weight, I would say that the SF controller is better protected, by a more stout case, as the bare drive weighs almost 4 times as much as the Patriot Pyro, and that's with the Pyro mounted to the 3.5" to 2.5" bay adapter from Mushkin, all sheet metal and light. The Intel feels solid, top and bottom, and you can't flex the drive at all. I'm guessing here, but it sure looks and feels like more "real steel" is the likely reason! :)
Best Regards,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
 |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
26. September 2012 @ 14:32 |
Link to this message
|
Yeah I have to say I was dubious about Sandforce given that all those drives had such high failure rates until Intel came along - just goes to show the flaws are mostly down to the manufacturer putting the thing together. That said, that's not so much a surprise - reference manufactured graphics cards (although moreso from AMD, nvidia's aren't great) are usually far more reliable than the non-reference versions, likewise Intel's own motherboards are much better than the third party ones. It always amuses me when I see labels like 'military grade ultra reliability' on boards that statistically have the highest failure rates in the industry (high-end gaming/enthusiast boards), especially when compared to the solidity of, e.g. server grade hardware, which apart from featuring no such branding, has no special hardware on it to that end either, just the plain green circuit board and basically heatsinked components.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. September 2012 @ 06:42 |
Link to this message
|
Sam,
I did notice that while the scores were about the same for both drives with ATOS, yet the Patriot raised the bar for the primary hard drive from 7.1 for the Sata II HDD, to 7.4 for the Patriot. The Intel runs at a maximum of 7.9! It can't get any higher, yet my WEI number is still 7.4. Intel needs to sort that out a bit better! LOL!!
Patriot SSD
Intel 330 SSD
As you've said many times in the past, I guess speed is not everything. That .5 difference in the primary HDD in the WEI score, proves that.
Best Regards,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
Member
|
28. September 2012 @ 11:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Meh, WEI isn't particularly accurate, to say the least. I've had it report some parts as better than other parts that were actually superior, not inferior. Also, the WEI can vary even with identical computers.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. September 2012 @ 11:20
|
Senior Member
|
28. September 2012 @ 11:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
Either is ATOS! I've got two SSD's from different mfg's the one that has higher benchmarks is more of a dog then the other, go figure!
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. September 2012 @ 20:40 |
Link to this message
|
I've been hearing rumblings about hard drive prices going up again, after all these big drive sales are over. I just bought two of these drives from Newegg for $63.99. Came to just over $135, delivered. I went back the next day to buy 4 more, and they were $93.99 each! I passed!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a...#scrollFullInfo
Maybe there is something to that rumor, since the price increased about 50% above the sale price! WD, Enterprise drive, 64 MB cache buffer, 7200 rpm, and a 5 year warranty! What's not to like? :)
Best Regards,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. September 2012 @ 20:44
|
|
sytyguy
Senior Member
|
28. September 2012 @ 21:50 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by theonejrs:
I've been hearing rumblings about hard drive prices going up again, after all these big drive sales are over. I just bought two of these drives from Newegg for $63.99. Came to just over $135, delivered. I went back the next day to buy 4 more, and they were $93.99 each! I passed!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a...#scrollFullInfo
Maybe there is something to that rumor, since the price increased about 50% above the sale price! WD, Enterprise drive, 64 MB cache buffer, 7200 rpm, and a 5 year warranty! What's not to like? :)
Best Regards,
Russ
Wow, that is very expensive. A year or so ago I purchased two 2TB drives for $63 a piece. Plus, recently I have seen your drives for less than that. However, they are no longer on the market.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
28. September 2012 @ 23:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
500Gb? Russ... What are you doing LOL! I'd fill that badboy in a day LOL!
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. September 2012 @ 03:13 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by omegaman7:
500Gb? Russ... What are you doing LOL! I'd fill that badboy in a day LOL!
Oman7,
I've got a 40" 1080p HDTV, not a 60" or 65" one. I'm more than happy with the quality I get in my movies.
All I have to do is install the new 500GB drive and it's as updated as I can make it for now. I guess I'll be waiting for PileDriver! LOL!!
Best Regards,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. September 2012 @ 05:20 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by theonejrs:
I've been hearing rumblings about hard drive prices going up again, after all these big drive sales are over. I just bought two of these drives from Newegg for $63.99. Came to just over $135, delivered. I went back the next day to buy 4 more, and they were $93.99 each! I passed!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a...#scrollFullInfo
Maybe there is something to that rumor, since the price increased about 50% above the sale price! WD, Enterprise drive, 64 MB cache buffer, 7200 rpm, and a 5 year warranty! What's not to like? :)
Best Regards,
Russ
To be fair, $94 is the correct price, those drives have been that much for a while, you obviously happened across a good deal. Buying 7200rpm enterprise drives for a media center is a bit bizarre, and you will pay extra for that privilege.
|
Senior Member
|
29. September 2012 @ 07:15 |
Link to this message
|
A media center drive should be an Enterprise drive as it is like a RAID drive, as it is running 24/7 and that is what Enterprise drives are designed for. However there are drives designed just for video usage and those would be even better to use of course.
I have to agree with Kevin though why only a 500G drive, and it should not have anything to do with your TV size?
I agree though that for a business performance drive that $94 should be the going price if you base it on the status quo, and actually that is a good price at that still.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. September 2012 @ 07:35 |
Link to this message
|
My point is though that there are 5400rpm enterprise drives (and indeed cheaper versions specifically designed for home NAS/MC use).
I assume Russ' argument about the size is that he's only using SD or 720p content due to a smaller screen being used, and therefore the files aren't as big. For the price he got the drive for I can't criticise, as it's not common to find any hard disk as cheap as $60 these days (in the UJ hard disks of any size start at £45, or $60 before tax), so to get an enterprise drive for that money, fair play.
Normally speaking you'd expect drives of any worth to be around the $100 mark (and indeed Russ' drive is now priced around that area) - 1TB Caviar Reds are $100 and they would work well in a media center, IMO.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. September 2012 @ 12:36 |
Link to this message
|
Some hardware failure rates from H1 2012:
Motherboards:
ASRock: 1:53 (improved from 1:48)
MSI: 1:47 (worse from 1:66)
Gigabyte: 1:46 (worse from 1:62)
Asus: 1:37 (worse from 1:45)
P67 specific boards:
ASRock: 1:57
MSI: 1:40
Asus: 1:26
Gigabyte: 1:19 (largely attributed to P67A-UD3)
Worst in class:
6th: Asus P8P67 Evo 1:15
5th: Asus Sabertooth X58 1:14
4th: Asus P8P67 Deluxe 1:14
3rd: Gigabyte P67A-UD3 1:13
2nd: Asus P8H67-M Evo 1:11
1st: Asus M4A79XTD Evo 1:8
--
Power supplies (400-550W):
Antec: 1:125 (worse from 1:140)
FSP: 1:123 (improved from 1:20)
Coolermaster: 1:80 (improved from 1:70)
Seasonic: 1:52 (worse from 1:80)
Corsair: 1:45 (improved from 1:43)
Worst in class:
10th: Coolermaster GX 550W (1:73)
9th: Antec HCGamer 520W (1:64)
8th: Corsair CX 500W (1:58)
7th: Coolermaster SilentPro M500W (1:58)
6th: Antec TruePower New 550W (1:57)
5th: Corsair CX 430W V2 (1:50)
4th: Seasonic S12-II 520W (1:48)
3rd: FSP Aurum 400W (1:42)
2nd: Corsair CX 430W (1:41)
1st: Corsair CX 500W (1:32)
--
Memory:
Crucial: 1:430 (improved from 1:250)
Kingston: 1:250 (improved from 1:200)
G-Skill: 1:90 (improved from 1:70)
Corsair: 1:69 (improved from 1:63)
Worst in class:
5th: Worst Crucial product: 1:80
4th: Worst Kingston product: 1:47
3rd: Worst G-Skill product: 1:31
2nd: Corsair XMS2 2GB PC6400 CAS5: 1:18
1st: Corsair Dominator 2x2GB 1333mhz CAS9: 1:7
--
Graphics:
Sapphire: 1:83 (improved from 1:58)
Asus: 1:64 (worse from 1:75)
PNY: 1:61 (worse from 1:100)
Club3D: 1:46 (worse from 1:52)
Zotac: 1:45 (worse from 1:47)
Gigabyte: 1:45 (worse from 1:63)
MSI: 1:44 (first assessment)
Gainward: 1:41 (first assessment)
HD6870: 1:50 (improved from 1:42)
HD6950: 1:24 (worse from 1:25)
HD6970: 1:17 (worse from 1:21)
GTX560Ti: 1:26 (worse from 1:75)
GTX570: 1:40 (unchanged)
GTX580: 1:17 (worse from 1:58)
Worst in class
3rd: Gigabyte GTX560Ti OC 1:21
2nd: Gainward Phantom GTX580 3GB 1:16
1st: Gainward Phantom GTX580 1.5GB 1:6
--
Mechanical storage
Samsung: 1:81 (improved from 1:65)
WD: 1:61 (improved from 1:50)
Seagate: 1:52 (worse from 1:55)
Hitachi: 1:25 (worse from 1:33)
Worst in class
6th: WD30EZRX 1:18
5th: WD RE4-GP 2TB 1:17
4th: Hitachi 7K2000 2TB 1:13
3rd: Seagate XT 2TB 1:13
2nd: Hitachi 7K3000 1.5TB 1:11
1st: Seagate XT 3TB 1:10
2TB ranking
9th: Samsung F4 2TB 1:55
8th: WD20EARS 1:46
7th: WD20EARX 1:43
6th: Seagate LP 2TB 1:39
5th: WD AV-GP 2TB 1:32
4th: WD20FAEX 1;31
3rd: Hitachi 7K3000 2TB 1:22
2nd: WD RE4-GP 2TB 1:17
1st: Seagate XT 2TB 1:13
--
Solid-State Storage
Crucial: 1:122 (worse from 1:125)
Intel: 1:58 (worse from 1:800)
Crucial: 1:34 (unchanged)
OCZ: 1:14 (worse from 1:23)
Worst in class
10th: OCZ Vertex 2 100GB 1:16
9th: OCZ Agility 3 60GB 1:15
8th: OCZ Vertex 3 240GB 1:15
7th: OCZ Vertex 2 3.5" 120GB 1:15
6th: OCZ Vertex 2 60GB 1:13
5th: OCZ Vertex 3 120GB 1:11
4th: OCZ Vertex 2 120GB 1:10
3rd: OCZ Vertex 2 80GB 1:8
2nd: OCZ Vertex 2 160GB 1:7
1st: OCZ Vertex 2 240GB 1:6
GOLDEN TURD AWARD
Motherboard industry: Asus P67 boards
PSU industry: Corsair CX series
Memory industry: Corsair (all products)
Graphics: Gainward Phantom series
Mechanical disks: Seagate XT series
Solid state disks: OCZ (all products)
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
29. September 2012 @ 14:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
I believe I'll get my building fix today :) I'll rebuild that 939 board for my older brother. That way he has a computer in his room ;) And I'll get a definite, Dead or Not Dead on that system. I firmly believe that PSU may be the weakest link though...
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
Senior Member
|
29. September 2012 @ 17:40 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Some hardware failure rates from H1 2012:
GOLDEN TURD AWARD
Motherboard industry: Asus P67 boards
PSU industry: Corsair CX series
Memory industry: Corsair (all products)
Graphics: Gainward Phantom series
Mechanical disks: Seagate XT series
Solid state disks: OCZ (all products)
LOL Golden turd! I've seen green before, but golden?
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. September 2012 @ 17:44 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
A media center drive should be an Enterprise drive as it is like a RAID drive, as it is running 24/7 and that is what Enterprise drives are designed for. However there are drives designed just for video usage and those would be even better to use of course.
I have to agree with Kevin though why only a 500G drive, and it should not have anything to do with your TV size?
I agree though that for a business performance drive that $94 should be the going price if you base it on the status quo, and actually that is a good price at that still.
Mr Movies,
Bingo, "what Enterprise drives are designed for." Very good!
Why only the 500GB WD Black drive? It's the only enterprise model I have not ever had to send back. Lot's of 750GB and 1TB models, but no 500's! They are quiet, fast, reliable, and at $63, were relatively cheap.
Contrary to what Sam said, I download little that isn't 1080p these days, usually only if there is no 1080p available.
Best Regards,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
29. September 2012 @ 17:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
There's so little that's worth watching these days anyhow... Perhaps 500Gb will suffice!
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. September 2012 @ 18:41 |
Link to this message
|
That '1080p where possible' objective simply combined with stuff either I want to watch, or some of my friends want/recommend, has so far seen my HD Films and TV directories reach about 15TB. You could easily almost fill a 500GB drive with a single show.
As an example, all three of the main CSI shows are 960GB, and that's only 720p for all but three seasons, the other three are only SD.
Or, the three middle era Star Trek shows (TNG/DS9/Voyager) are 460GB including the HD first season of TNG - the rest is all SD. You only get 465GB on a 500GB drive!
|
Senior Member
|
29. September 2012 @ 18:50 |
Link to this message
|
I knew Kev would come back with that statement and I agree, however I would still go bigger, but I do (understand/support) that if something is working well for you stay with it so it's a no brainier for Russ of course.
Nice stats and 2% and under no big deal but some of those rates are above 6% and that should be unacceptable these days. 30 years ago that might be acceptable but not today.
ASRock is the new Gigabyte, full featured boards at bargain prices typically.
Nice post Sam!
Stevo
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. September 2012 @ 21:08 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
I knew Kev would come back with that statement and I agree, however I would still go bigger, but I do (understand/support) that if something is working well for you stay with it so it's a no brainier for Russ of course.
Nice stats and 2% and under no big deal but some of those rates are above 6% and that should be unacceptable these days. 30 years ago that might be acceptable but not today.
ASRock is the new Gigabyte, full featured boards at bargain prices typically.
Nice post Sam!
Stevo
Stevo,
Now if only they could match GigaByte in quality! I've yet to see an Asrock board last much past the warranty, typically they fail after about 14-16 months.
I just checked out the Sata II vs Sata III speeds, and the Sata III runs about twice as fast.
Typically, a fast Sata II drive runs peak, around 93 MB/s. The Sata III Intel SSD peaks at about 193 MB/s, or about 100MB faster.
Best Regards,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
Senior Member
|
29. September 2012 @ 21:33 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by theonejrs:
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
I knew Kev would come back with that statement and I agree, however I would still go bigger, but I do (understand/support) that if something is working well for you stay with it so it's a no brainier for Russ of course.
Nice stats and 2% and under no big deal but some of those rates are above 6% and that should be unacceptable these days. 30 years ago that might be acceptable but not today.
ASRock is the new Gigabyte, full featured boards at bargain prices typically.
Nice post Sam!
Stevo
Stevo,
Now if only they could match GigaByte in quality! I've yet to see an Asrock board last much past the warranty, typically they fail after about 14-16 months.
I just checked out the Sata II vs Sata III speeds, and the Sata III runs about twice as fast.
Typically, a fast Sata II drive runs peak, around 93 MB/s. The Sata III Intel SSD peaks at about 193 MB/s, or about 100MB faster.
Best Regards,
Russ
I actually have three ASRocks that are still working well after 3 years, maybe pushing 5 years now in fact, that is all 3 that I have so I don't think quality is an issue with them and Sam's failure rate has them the lowest. Also as to when it comes to speeds ASRock performs faster then Gigabyte boards I've owned and I've owned tons of Gigabytes, in fact Gigabyte boards for me have always been the slowest boards in the bunch. The only reason I've used them is that you get more features for the money, and that's the only reason I've used them as they are NEVER speedsters.
ASRock's have only given me issue with their USB removable HDD compatibility and that is a driver issue really not a hardware issue. I stopped using ASRock for some of my systems were testing and recovery is necessary and presents the biggest problem.
So no disrespect but I must disagree with you on this subject based on hard experience with them, both of them, and like I've said I've been using Gigabytes primarily for the last 20 years with exception to a couple of years were they had all sorts of cap problems.
Stevo
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. September 2012 @ 05:40 |
Link to this message
|
ASRock boards used to be awful, but that was so many years ago that it's entirely possible they're a lot better now. I'm still wary because of who the parent company is, of course.
Also, apart from the BIOS, in what way is any brand of motherboard 'slower' than another?
|
Member
|
30. September 2012 @ 05:54 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
ASRock boards used to be awful, but that was so many years ago that it's entirely possible they're a lot better now. I'm still wary because of who the parent company is, of course.
Also, apart from the BIOS, in what way is any brand of motherboard 'slower' than another?
Isn't ASRock currently owned by Asus?
By slower, he might have been referring to overclock potential.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. September 2012 @ 05:55
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. September 2012 @ 05:59 |
Link to this message
|
Correct.
I haven't seen any proof of overclocking differences beyond perhaps 1% with Gigabyte vs. any other brand. I assumed it referred to actual perceived performance with the same CPU at the same speed, but there's no proof of that out there either, so I'm a bit baffled...
|
