GA-8IRXP a good choice for a non-overclocker?
Dan Harkless
normal web browsing and desktop publishing use, and I was all set on
the GA-8IRXP for the motherboard, but some of the threads here about
the board have made me hesitate a bit.
I personally do not have any intentions of overclocking, so the
limitations the board has in this area do not bother me. I've seen
several posts (and read reviews) that say that as long as you don't
overclock, the board is rock-solid. However, I've also read posts
that say that the reboot problems also occur for some people who are
not overclocking. Not sure if that's only true for a few individuals,
or if it's true across the board (so to speak). 'Course, even that
wouldn't be a huge problem for me, since I intend on leaving the
machine on 24/7 most of the time.
I guess I'm more concerned about the characterizations of Gigabyte's
support w.r.t. this board. I'm a bit worried that if I encounter some
non-overclocking-related BIOS bug in the future, Gigabyte may be slow
to fix it, or may not fix it at all. For maximum stability and
compatibility, I decided to go with an Intel CPU and chipset for this
machine, so it would suck if I then threw away these advantages by
going with a motherboard with a poorly-written BIOS.
I'm thinking I may have no choice but to go with this board, however.
It's the only i845D-based board that I know of that has 6 PCI slots,
onboard Ethernet, RAID, and USB 2.0. I didn't check to see if there
were any i850-based boards with these features, since I want to avoid
the 850 chipset's PCI bandwidth limitation bug.
Anyway, the reason I want a motherboard that has those three features
onboard is that I expect my slots will eventually all be used up as
follows:
AGP: Matrox G550
PCI 1: Creative Labs Audigy
PCI 2: Creative Labs Audigy daughter card -- connects to eX box
PCI 3: ViewCast Osprey-210
PCI 4: RAID 0 card for 4 data drives (onboard RAID will be used
for the 2 system drives, in RAID 1 configuration)
PCI 5: Canopus DVRaptor RT or DVStorm SE, or Matrox RT-2500
PCI 6: PC-HDTV tuner card
So you can see why I want a board with onboard Ethernet, (system
drive) RAID, and USB 2.0 -- I won't have room for PCI cards to support
those features. Although I guess there are two ways I could make do
with lesser boards. I could do without onboard RAID if I used a 6- or
8-channel RAID card to handle both my system drives RAID 1 and my data
drives RAID 0. And I could make do with a 5-PCI board (or a 6-PCI
board with one of the onboard features of the GA-8IRXP provided by a
PCI card) if the Audigy could be put in the last PCI slot, with the
daughter card occupying a slot in the case's backplane, but not
actually blocking a PCI slot (I guess whether this is possible would
depend on the particular motherboard and case used (I'm planning on a
Lian Li full tower)).
In any case, given the above constraints, can anyone suggest an
alternative to the GA-8IRXP, or do you think it'll do a good job for
me and provide a few years of useful and relatively trouble-free
service considering I don't plan on overclocking? If you do recommend
the GA-8IRXP, which BIOS would you suggest I use?
--
Dan Harkless
use...@harkless.org
http://harkless.org/dan/
Dr. Joachim Neudert
> Howdy. I'm building a new system for video editing, home theater, and
I`m completely happy with mine.
Here a citation of my own posting from a week ago:
"I am overclocking my 8IRXP from 2,0 to 2,2 GHz, slightly increased the
Core voltage as well.
It is working perfectly stable, so I don`t mind waiting until there is a
final version of the BIOS (I flash them on a regular basis, in fact I
shouldn`t even do since I have no problems with my system).
And btw, my PC ist heavily packed with periphery: 2 U2W SCSI discs
(boot and system discs), 3 IDE discs (2 as raid 0 on the onboard Promise
RAID controller), DVD, CD-Burner, 5 PCI slots full incl. CL Audigy,
Connexant 878 video, 29160N Adaptec SCSI, Firewire and USB 2.0 in heavy use.
And still rock-solid under NT2000, XP and Linux (Triple-Boot).
Don`t worry, be happy.
Greetinx from Bavaria (I live here: www.5sl.org/webcam)
Joachim
--
Dr. Joachim Neudert
One zone to rule them all, one zone to find them
One zone to bring them all and in the darkness BIND them...
Andy Powell
I am happy with mine also. No overclocking and v.stable. However, I have the
same concern as you. The way gigabyte has screwed around with the
overclocking vcore bug makes me wonder what if it was, say, the onboard
network, or using all pci slots or something. I don't think we can be sure
they would pay any attention at all. Or even if they did, whether they would
fix it or just leave it half fixed (i. bios f7a). I bought the board for all
its features, which are all excellent (and work!) and at the time it was the
most feature filled. However, again, now you could look at the new abit it7
(but I see you need 6 pci slots... so ignore that).
It should be fine for what you want.. but be warned
Andy
"Dan Harkless" <use...@harkless.org> wrote in message
news:4189894b.0205...@posting.google.com...
Gord
news:4189894b.0205...@posting.google.com:
Extremely happy with mine too. Very feature rich. Although I haven't done
any long term overclocking, it remained stable except for the reboot.
John
I have Kingmax DDR-400 CL2.5.
I can't get the 8IRXP to run stable with the RAM multiplier set to 2.66 on
my 8IRXP - I have to keep the multiplier at 2.0 - some people are reporting
success at 2.66 but not all of us.
It probably won't worry you, but thought I'd mention it as I'd imagine that
RAM bandwidth could be important to you when editing videos.
John
"Dan Harkless" <use...@harkless.org> wrote in message
news:4189894b.0205...@posting.google.com...
Croc
reboot and communications issues, I think the board is great if you
are not overclocking.
I can't recommend Gigabyte for service or support but others have said
that poor support is an industry wide problem. Others have suggested
if you are not overclocking, go with an Intel motherboard for the
ultimate in stability.
Croc.
Gord <gpi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns920758F6CC0A7...@24.71.223.159>...
Doc
ease of setup, attributes on board, and overclocking
ability .
I just installed the board.
Booted it at 'stock' settings of 100 FSB and AUTO for memory.
Have 512 MB of Mushkin 'weekend special' PC2100.
Have older HD (this will be converted in a day to a novell server
for study purposes, but just installed Win2K onboard) of 10 GB.
Using Radeon 7000 (VE was the old nomenclature) OEM w/64 mbs SDram.
After a morning of running at FSB, I changed the setting to 133
and the PCI/AGP Divider to PLL/16 - Dram Clock ratio is low at 2.0
(so remaining at 266 - the memory is low priced, far from Mushkin's
BEST RAM, but I won't need high speed for the learning server)
All voltages are set to NORMAL. Running at 34 C. after all day.
I have had no rebooting problems with Memory bus at 266 and FSB
at 133.
I will try to go upwards, maybe just start with the memory but
I don't think it will work well being the "low end" stick...
Boots fine at 2.13 Ghz and 133 FSB is accurately portrayed.
Can anyone TELL ME exactly where to plug in the Enermax 'fan'
connector to have the system monitor the heat (should it go
into the 'system fan' or the 'power fan' ??) and WHAT program
from GB monitors that (there are a couple on the CD)
Thanks.
--
Rich "Doc" Colley
mailto: pc-d...@attbi.com
Dan Harkless
> I have Kingmax DDR-400 CL2.5.
>
> I can't get the 8IRXP to run stable
How do the failures manifest themselves?
> with the RAM multiplier set to 2.66 on
> my 8IRXP - I have to keep the multiplier at 2.0 - some people are reporting
> success at 2.66 but not all of us.
>
> It probably won't worry you, but thought I'd mention it as I'd imagine that
> RAM bandwidth could be important to you when editing videos.
Any concensus on which brands of DDR266 are most likely to work?
Short of any recommendations to the contrary, I'd probably be buying
Crucial, which I've had good experiences with in the past...
Ruel Smith
> Any concensus on which brands of DDR266 are most likely to work?
> Short of any recommendations to the contrary, I'd probably be buying
> Crucial, which I've had good experiences with in the past...
I have a single stick of Crucial 512 MB DDR266 CAS 2.5. I've never
"overclocked" in my life. I've been waiting for the vcore fix to do some
serious overclocking. However, today I changed my DRAM timings to 2,5,2,2
and did nothing else. Windows bit the dust on me during a round of NBA Live
2001. It even through an error dialog at me during bootup saying some
startup program couldn't write to memory. I'm going to play with it a little
bit, including upping the clock for the memory. Again, this is the first
board I've ever played with these settings at all. Wish me luck. Also, if
anyone knows why it bit the dust - too many board options turned on, no
increase in clock, etc. - let me know!
Doc
are the end all (look at the board in question, no
reveiwer gave it any 'thumbs down'... although so
FAR I really LIKE mine!)...
http://www.vr-zone.com/reviews/Memory/HighPerfDDR/
--
Jim Heck
on a 2.0A rock friggin solid works great).
I don't know how high the Matrox card is, but I lose a PCI slot to my
GF3 Ti200 card with a high fan. I also read somewhere (in this group)
that the first PCI slot (the one nearest AGP) can't be bus-mastering.
Just food for thought.
-jheck
use...@harkless.org (Dan Harkless) wrote in message news:<4189894b.0205...@posting.google.com>...
Doc
had the experience that some may have, but I find the
device to be a nice stable product (so far - I reserve
the right to bitch later)...
I'm at 2.3 with 1.5 volts on a 1.6A using a low end
(a "weekend" special on the PC2100 - 512 MBs for $105!)
DIMM from Mushkin (wonder what would happen if I
plugged in their GREAT module?) and have the DIMM
bus set to 2.0 - it is booting at about 290 right now.
BTW, it is in the SECOND slot.
No other changes. Have a TekRam SCSI device, an ATI
Radeon 7000 (VE model, OEM) and I am using the onboard
NIC.
I've run SiSoft for memory, came out fair for the current
RAM. Been running just business apps, I don't game.
But it has been nice so far. The install of the Office
Suite was almost instantaneous. Very fast and very
stable so far. Heat range acceptable at 33-35 C and
using basic Intel Fan/heatsink combo with good
heat sink thermal compound (Artic Silver II).
Overall, nice so far.
Croc
Mine has a 2 wire connector ( black and white ). It is plugged into
the "PWR_Fan" mobo connector to the right of the bottom of the IDE and
floppy drive connectors. See page 6 of the manual.
The SIV Hardware monitor is on your Gigabyte CD. The CD will give
options at startup. On the left click on UTILITIES ( click the hammer
). Click on the pane on the "right". A list of utilities then
appears including Face-Wizard, Easy Tune3 setup, etc. Click on the
SIV Hardware Monitor and go from there.
The monitor launches abug eyed happy face on the task bar. Click on
that and it pops up.
Hope that helps,
Croc.
<pc-d...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3CD83092...@attbi.com>...
John
Hi Dan,
I've done a bit more experimentation with the 2.66 RAM multiplier since I
made that post - I'm going to start a new thread with my findings in the
next day or so.
The problems are unmissable. Programs fail to load during bootup. Quake 3
crashes. etc etc. That sort of trouble never happens with the RAM multiplier
at 2.00.
Some people can run 2.66 just fine - some can't.
John
"Dan Harkless" <use...@harkless.org> wrote in message
news:4189894b.02050...@posting.google.com...
Doc
Notice the 'manual' shows the install procedures for
Win ME (never liked 'Me'..)
While we're chatting.. What is the WINBOND device for?
I've tried to find out what it "runs" or drives and so
far, stricking out. USB? 2.0?
Thanks...
Dan Harkless
> Although I am one of those that is frustrated and annoyed over the
> reboot and communications issues, I think the board is great if you
> are not overclocking.
Communications issues? Do you mean that in some technical sense, or
are you just referring to communications between Gigabyte and its
customers?
> I can't recommend Gigabyte for service or support but others have said
> that poor support is an industry wide problem. Others have suggested
> if you are not overclocking, go with an Intel motherboard for the
> ultimate in stability.
Yeah, I would have if they had one with enough onboard doodads for me
to have the 6 free slots I need. Unfortunately they're pretty
bare-bones.
Dan Harkless
> This was an interesting review, not that reviews
> are the end all (look at the board in question, no
> reveiwer gave it any 'thumbs down'... although so
> FAR I really LIKE mine!)...
>
> http://www.vr-zone.com/reviews/Memory/HighPerfDDR/
Not sure if we can draw any conclusions from the review to determine
which brands of DDR266 are more likely to work properly in a
non-overclocked GA-8IRXP. Seems like it would have made more sense
for the reviewer to use a real memory testing tool like DocMemory
(<http://www.simmtester.com/>) or Memtest86
(<http://www.memtest86.com/>), rather than just verifying that the
system can boot up and run a brief Sandra memory benchmark.
But since Samsung was determined to be the most overclockable PC2700,
anyone tried their PC2100 (DDR266) in the GA-8IRXP and experienced no
problems? Other brands...?
Dan Harkless
> I've done a bit more experimentation with the 2.66 RAM multiplier since I
> made that post - I'm going to start a new thread with my findings in the
> next day or so.
Look forward to it.
> The problems are unmissable. Programs fail to load during bootup. Quake 3
> crashes. etc etc. That sort of trouble never happens with the RAM multiplier
> at 2.00.
>
> Some people can run 2.66 just fine - some can't.
Still seems to me this should be at least partially brand-related.
Other manufacturers post lists of particular validated RAM modules for
use with their motherboards, but I didn't see such a list on the
Gigabyte website.
Dan Harkless
> > AGP: Matrox G550
> > PCI 1: Creative Labs Audigy
> > PCI 2: Creative Labs Audigy daughter card -- connects to eX box
> > PCI 3: ViewCast Osprey-210
> > PCI 4: RAID 0 card for 4 data drives (onboard RAID will be used
> > for the 2 system drives, in RAID 1 configuration)
> > PCI 5: Canopus DVRaptor RT or DVStorm SE, or Matrox RT-2500
> > PCI 6: PC-HDTV tuner card
>
> GF3 Ti200 card with a high fan.
Ah. Thanks for the heads-up, Jim. I wouldn't have thought of that.
But it turns out the G550 is quite svelte (heatsink, no fan) and
should not block the neighboring PCI slot as long as the card in that
slot doesn't have a bunch of protrusions on the back or something.
> I also read somewhere (in this group) that the first PCI slot (the one
> nearest AGP) can't be bus-mastering. Just food for thought.
Interesting. I'm not too up on bus-mastering, so I'm not sure if any
of the cards I plan on using will be fine without it, but thanks for
the tip!
Ruel Smith
news:4189894b.02050...@posting.google.com...
> > I don't know how high the Matrox card is, but I lose a PCI slot to my
> > GF3 Ti200 card with a high fan.
>
> Ah. Thanks for the heads-up, Jim. I wouldn't have thought of that.
> But it turns out the G550 is quite svelte (heatsink, no fan) and
> should not block the neighboring PCI slot as long as the card in that
> slot doesn't have a bunch of protrusions on the back or something.
Why can't board makers put enough room between the AGP slot and PCI slot 1
to prevent this? Every major graphics card these days has a fan.
John
Dan,
I've just started a thread in "alt.comp.hardware.overclocking" explaining my
findings with my 8IRXP and 2.66 RAM multiplier - the thread is called:
8IRXP and 2.66 RAM Multiplier Stability Problems
Regards,
John
"Dan Harkless" <use...@harkless.org> wrote in message
news:4189894b.02050...@posting.google.com...
John
You'd need a special case as well if you change the distance between the AGP
and first PCI slot
"Ruel Smith" <rue...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:udjuk0...@corp.supernews.com...
gbt-tech
address so there would be a conflict if you use AGP and PCI 1.
--
Mike Mullen
CST
Gigabyte UK
The information contained in this post is intended to provide support to the
users of this forum. The material remains the property of Gigabyte and
should not be reposted or used as the basis for an article, website or other
media without the express permission of Gigabyte.
We cannot accept any responsibility for viruses, so please scan all
attachments.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect those of the company. The company does
not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
(C) Gigabyte 2002
"Ruel Smith" <rue...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:udjuk0...@corp.supernews.com...
Ruel Smith
mean fewer of them... I guess it's give and take.
"John" <knig...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cda1680$0$2526$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Dan Harkless
> "Dan Harkless" <use...@harkless.org> wrote:
> > > I don't know how high the Matrox card is, but I lose a PCI slot to my
> > > GF3 Ti200 card with a high fan.
> >
> > Ah. Thanks for the heads-up, Jim. I wouldn't have thought of that.
> > But it turns out the G550 is quite svelte (heatsink, no fan) and
> > should not block the neighboring PCI slot as long as the card in that
> > slot doesn't have a bunch of protrusions on the back or something.
>
> Why can't board makers put enough room between the AGP slot and PCI slot 1
> to prevent this? Every major graphics card these days has a fan.
Not the Matroxes, as I mentioned.
Dan Harkless
> You can't use both at the same time so it isn't necessary. They share an
> address so there would be a conflict if you use AGP and PCI 1.
Really?? It says nothing about this in either of the GA-8IRXP
manuals! You'd think something this important would get a mention.
Guess I won't be able to fill the 6 PCI slots as I had intended and I
need to look at other motherboards than the GA-8IRXP after all. Is
that a common restriction? I've never heard of that before.
John Veldthuis
motherboard?
Mine is running at standard at present and the temperature ranges from 33
degrees while it is idling to about 45 degrees when it is playing games. Is this
the normal range for this or has the guy who installed the CPU damaged the
thermal tape that was on the heatsink?
gbt-tech
inherent in the architecture.
--
Mike Mullen
CST
Gigabyte UK
The information contained in this post is intended to provide support to the
users of this forum. The material remains the property of Gigabyte and
should not be reposted or used as the basis for an article, website or other
media without the express permission of Gigabyte.
We cannot accept any responsibility for viruses, so please scan all
attachments.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect those of the company. The company does
not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
(C) Gigabyte 2002
"Dan Harkless" <use...@harkless.org> wrote in message
news:4189894b.02050...@posting.google.com...
John Veldthuis
On all Gigabyte boards?
On my older board it is certainly not a problem. I am quite pissed to hear that
as one of the reasons I brought my MB was because of the 6 PCI slots.
Billie NO MATES Gates
must be delirious.............for as long as I can remember debates of
expansion slots have raged and will probably continue to rage including that
good old debate debates in the days when PCI graphic cards on ISA slot
motherboards having to share a common back plane where the two interfaces
connectors meet, due to ISA cards being right handed and PCI cards being
left handed...now there was a debate........LOL
Anyway Motherboards have normally shared the hardware resources of the last
and closest PCI to AGP slot partly as a legacy thing,
A lot of motherboards manuals used to state that the last PCI slot was best
used for a PCI Graphics adapter due to the order of precedence on IRQ and
resources sharing and allocation during start up.
So it's unfair in this instance to blame GBT (though I would love
too......LOL...I still think they've got a link to global warming and the
fall of the Roman Empire..............LOL)
Anyway the fact that AGP cards are taking up more space can hardly be blamed
on GBT but more on the short sighted standards committee which never saw
this as a problem when they formulated the ATX layout format, (I think
mainly Intel on that committee), Or maybe they saw the advent of fans of
Graphic cards and decided that the chances of needing 6 PCI slots and AGP
graphic card all in one system as highly unlikely and saw the likely hood of
a PCI graphic card being present when an AGP was as a more realistic
possibility and so set the standard.
I believe the standard of AGP/PCI sharing resources is part of the ATX
standard anyway.........though I could be wrong on that one..........either
way it requires a new ATX-B or what eve standard to resolve it.
Maybe the solution would have been for AGP graphic cards to have been made
right handed (or maybe this was looked at and decided that this would place
the CPU fan (if present) toward the CPU cooler and this may effect air
flow.....I don't know just a guess on that one).....or maybe some cunning
Card manufacturer could make a right handed AGP card that fits in a left
handed back plane. (make the card double sided) like a card manufacturer a
few years back making a PCI/AGP card all in one just turned it upside down
and remove the back plane plate
"Dan Harkless" <use...@harkless.org> wrote in message
news:4189894b.02050...@posting.google.com...
John
What I meant was that if anyone made a motherboard with the AGP and PCI
slots further apart, it would not fit in a standard case
"Ruel Smith" <rue...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:udltqsm...@corp.supernews.com...
John
Just because it says there are 6 pci slots doesn't mean they are all going
to work - hehehehehe
That's acceptable for the 8IRXP.
It's a wonder they didn't add another non-working pci slot or two -
hehehehehehehe
"Dan Harkless" <use...@harkless.org> wrote in message
news:4189894b.02050...@posting.google.com...
Croc
Good luck finding a board with 7 pci slots. Actually, I have never
personally heard of one. Most are limited to 5.
Croc.
use...@harkless.org (Dan Harkless) wrote in message news:<4189894b.02050...@posting.google.com>...
Dan Harkless
> > > You can't use both at the same time so it isn't necessary. They share an
> > > address so there would be a conflict if you use AGP and PCI 1.
> >
> > Really?? It says nothing about this in either of the GA-8IRXP
> > manuals! You'd think something this important would get a mention.
>
> inherent in the architecture.
Even if it is an industry-standard thing, I can't believe it's not
documented. And I'm having trouble establishing that it is standard
across ALL motherboards, as you claim. I just did a bunch of
searching, and the only common thread I can find is that PCI 1 seems
to always share an IRQ with the AGP slot. This shouldn't be a problem
under ACPI, though, since generally all PCI/AGP devices share a single
interrupt under that scheme.
I was able to find claims of people using PCI 1 and AGP simultaneously
(with the caveat that it won't work if the particular cards are
unhappy sharing an interrupt). Are you saying that ALL motherboards
share not just an IRQ for PCI 1 and AGP, but also an I/O address
range, so it's impossible for that to work, and all those people must
be lying/mistaken?
Or is it just that boards with the maximum number of PCI slots
supported by their chipset (6 for the i845D) have this problem? The
3xISA + 3xPCI + AGP board I'm currently using allowed me to use all
three PCI slots simultaneously with the AGP slot -- sounds like this
was possible because its VIA MVP3 chipset supported up to 5 PCI slots.
Dan Harkless
> I think that is pretty much the industry standard, Dan.
> Good luck finding a board with 7 pci slots. Actually, I have never
> personally heard of one. Most are limited to 5.
I guess most boards use a chipset that supports 6 PCI devices (which
apparently includes the AGP slot), so the manufacturers are honest and
include only 5 PCI slots (all usable simultaneously with the AGP
slot). Manufacturers that include 6 PCI slots are apparently just
including a fake extra slot for marketing purposes (unless they are
honest and make it clear in their specs or documentation that you can
only use all 6 PCIs if you don't use the AGP).
As far as boards supporting more than 5 PCIs together with AGP goes,
you're right -- looks like that's rare. However, before I decided to
go with an Intel CPU and chipset for maximum compatibility and
stability, I was considering an AMD solution based on the 760MPX
chipset. That chipset allows 8 PCI devices, so it seems that there
I'd be able to use all 6 PCI slots (4 33Mhz / 32-bit and 2 66Mhz /
64-bit) together with the AGP slot.
User
Mark
Dan Harkless
> "gbt-tech" <gbt...@btclick.com> wrote:
> > You can't use both at the same time so it isn't necessary. They share an
> > address so there would be a conflict if you use AGP and PCI 1.
> Guess I won't be able to fill the 6 PCI slots as I had intended and I
> need to look at other motherboards than the GA-8IRXP after all.
Well, I looked around and even with the 5 PCI + 1 AGP simultaneous
restriction, there are no other i845D boards that can compete with the
GA-8IRXP for my purposes. If there were a board that had onboard LAN,
RAID, and USB 2.0, but only 5 slots, it would be equivalent in
functionality to the GA-8IRXP (if my theory is correct that it's only
impossible to use PCI 1 and AGP simultaneously on boards with the
maximum number of PCI slots supported by the chipset), but no such
board exists. So it looks like I'm "stuck" with the GA-8IRXP (I know,
there are worse things one could be stuck with).
Also, if I'm not mistaken, it should be possible to put the Audigy
daughter card in a lower-numbered PCI slot rather than a
higher-numbered one as shown in the Audigy documentation (as as the
cables make more natural, I believe), so I should be able to put the
Audigy in slot 2 and the daughter card in slot 1 (it doesn't actually
plug in -- just takes up that backplane slot) and not be affected by
that slot being unusable in conjunction with an AGP card.
Ruel Smith
> "gbt-tech" <gbt...@btclick.com> writes:
> > > > You can't use both at the same time so it isn't necessary. They
share an
> > > > address so there would be a conflict if you use AGP and PCI 1.
<snip>
> > I guess I wasn't clear, this is on all boards regardless of model, its
> > inherent in the architecture.
>
> Even if it is an industry-standard thing, I can't believe it's not
> documented. And I'm having trouble establishing that it is standard
> across ALL motherboards, as you claim. I just did a bunch of
> searching, and the only common thread I can find is that PCI 1 seems
> to always share an IRQ with the AGP slot. This shouldn't be a problem
> under ACPI, though, since generally all PCI/AGP devices share a single
> interrupt under that scheme.
>
> I was able to find claims of people using PCI 1 and AGP simultaneously
> (with the caveat that it won't work if the particular cards are
> unhappy sharing an interrupt). Are you saying that ALL motherboards
> share not just an IRQ for PCI 1 and AGP, but also an I/O address
> range, so it's impossible for that to work, and all those people must
> be lying/mistaken?
On my Dell Dimension XPS T600 that uses a proprietary Intel motherboard, I
had 5 of the 6 slots filled, including slot 1 and had the AGP slot filled as
well. I had a TNT2 Pro card in the AGP slot, a NIC card, a Winmodem card,
Soundblaster Live! card, Cinemaster DVD decoder card, and a Promise Ultra66
card. No stability problems what-so-ever with the machine.
John
Which card did you have in PCI #1 ?
"Ruel Smith" <rue...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:udr4sa9...@corp.supernews.com...
Ruel Smith
>
> Which card did you have in PCI #1 ?
Don't remember. I took most of that stuff out and turned it into a Linux
computer (that I still haven't gotten to configure correctly). Since most of
that stuff was unsupported in Linux, I jerked it out.
Dan Harkless
> Well, I looked around and even with the 5 PCI + 1 AGP simultaneous
> restriction, there are no other i845D boards that can compete with the
> GA-8IRXP for my purposes. If there were a board that had onboard LAN,
> RAID, and USB 2.0, but only 5 slots, it would be equivalent in
> functionality to the GA-8IRXP (if my theory is correct that it's only
> impossible to use PCI 1 and AGP simultaneously on boards with the
> maximum number of PCI slots supported by the chipset), but no such
> board exists. So it looks like I'm "stuck" with the GA-8IRXP (I know,
> there are worse things one could be stuck with).
Have to take this back -- it appears that there are flavors of Asus'
P4B266 board that would also have all the features I need. The P4B266
line is extremely confusing -- there are 5 different variations, and
for each variation, there are several onboard features that are
optional. However, Asus' website (at least the http://usa.asus.com/
version) doesn't give specific model numbers for particular
combinations of options, or even state which options are available in
which combinations. Went to a few popular component-selling sites and
couldn't find anyone selling a version of the P4B266 with the options
I'd need.
Also poked around on news:alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus and it
appears that the P4B266 has more compatibility/stability issues than
the GA-8IRXP (though most of them appear to be problems with the
onboard audio or with ATI or Nvidia graphics cards, neither of which
I'd care about).
In any case, I think I'll stick with the GA-8IRXP. Thanks again to
those who responded to my query.
Ruel Smith
> Have to take this back -- it appears that there are flavors of Asus'
> P4B266 board that would also have all the features I need. The P4B266
> line is extremely confusing -- there are 5 different variations, and
> for each variation, there are several onboard features that are
> optional. However, Asus' website (at least the http://usa.asus.com/
> version) doesn't give specific model numbers for particular
> combinations of options, or even state which options are available in
> which combinations. Went to a few popular component-selling sites and
> couldn't find anyone selling a version of the P4B266 with the options
> I'd need.
You're referring to the P4B266-E? Only available in Europe and Taiwan. I
waited for that board for 3 months and it never materialized... They do have
a newer version coming out with the i845E chipset that'll support the 533
Mhz FSB called the P4B533-E.
> Also poked around on news:alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus and it
> appears that the P4B266 has more compatibility/stability issues than
> the GA-8IRXP (though most of them appear to be problems with the
> onboard audio or with ATI or Nvidia graphics cards, neither of which
> I'd care about).
I think this is because most of the enthusiast users have RMA'd their boards
already. Traffic in this newsgroup has grinded down to a crawl. I think
everyone who bought the GA-8IRXP with intentions of OCing them has given up
or RMA'd for a board that works.
> In any case, I think I'll stick with the GA-8IRXP. Thanks again to
> those who responded to my query.
I'll stick with mine too. I don't want to pull it all out and fool with it
again.
Dan Harkless
> > Went to a few popular component-selling sites and couldn't find anyone
> > selling a version of the P4B266 with the options I'd need.
>
> You're referring to the P4B266-E?
Well, not that simple, due to the optional features hoo-ha I
mentioned. It'd have to be a P4B266-E with onboard LAN and USB 2.0.
Alternatively, I could go with another version of the P4B266 that had
onboard LAN and USB 2.0 and use a 6- or 8-channel RAID card for both
my system drives RAID 1 and my data drives RAID 0.
> Only available in Europe and Taiwan. I
> waited for that board for 3 months and it never materialized...
Okay. I read a post where someone had claimed to find a U.S. vendor
for it, but apparently the vendor was merely listing it without
actually having stock (or they were importing the European or
Taiwanese versions!).
> They do have a newer version coming out with the i845E chipset that'll support
> the 533 Mhz FSB called the P4B533-E.
Building this system has been dragging out too long, so I don't think
I can wait for the 533 motherboards to come out. And the benchmarks
I've seen show that only really memory-intensive tasks get a big boost
from the 100->133 MHz jump. Not going with the cutting edge should
help with the price, too, since Intel, unlike AMD, really gouges for
the latest-and-greatest.
> > Also poked around on news:alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus and it
> > appears that the P4B266 has more compatibility/stability issues than
> > the GA-8IRXP (though most of them appear to be problems with the
> > onboard audio or with ATI or Nvidia graphics cards, neither of which
> > I'd care about).
>
> I think this is because most of the enthusiast users have RMA'd their boards
> already. Traffic in this newsgroup has grinded down to a crawl. I think
> everyone who bought the GA-8IRXP with intentions of OCing them has given up
> or RMA'd for a board that works.
Argh! I hadn't thought of it that way. You just HAD to inject more
doubt into my decision, didn't you? ;^> Oh well, I can only hope
that there are a certain amount of enthusiasts who don't overclock,
and that their relative lack of problem-reporting is telling.
Croc
I am sure that there are lots of "enthusiasts" who don't overclock and
who are happy with the board as I am sure a great many of the
overclockers have abandoned it because, as an overclocker's board,
it's a dud. There are other alternatives than waiting for 845E
boards. The SiS645DX is a licensed version of the Intel845 which is
very hot right now. My son and I are now both going for the
AsusP4S533. Check out the review of the MSI 645DX board too at
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/motherboards/article.php/1121091.
Check out the prices of the SiS boards, they are a great deal. The
MSI845AR and ARU boards are excellent right now too.
I like to consider the company too. Based on my experience with
Gigabyte I would have to hold my nose before buying one.
Croc.
Ruel Smith
news:4189894b.02051...@posting.google.com...
> > I think this is because most of the enthusiast users have RMA'd their
boards
> > already. Traffic in this newsgroup has grinded down to a crawl. I think
> > everyone who bought the GA-8IRXP with intentions of OCing them has given
up
> > or RMA'd for a board that works.
>
> Argh! I hadn't thought of it that way. You just HAD to inject more
> doubt into my decision, didn't you? ;^> Oh well, I can only hope
> that there are a certain amount of enthusiasts who don't overclock,
> and that their relative lack of problem-reporting is telling.
I have this board, but don't overclock it. I'm planning on taking it as far
as I can get it, as soon as I get finished messing with Linux on my other
PC. I know I can't take it that far now, thanks to the vcore issue. However,
with it not being overclocked, I only had one minor gripe about the board.
Seemed the included USB 2.0 connector for the back of the case has a screw
in the wrong place for my Antec case. It either fits in crooked or hangs
loose - not being able to get the tab into the slot. If they'd provided one
that had the ports slightly closer together it would have fit properly.
That's it. Everything else works like a charm! I'm 99% happy with it. I just
wished I could OC the thing to 133 MHz FSB...
Jeff
> with it not being overclocked, I only had one minor gripe about the board.
> Seemed the included USB 2.0 connector for the back of the case has a screw
> in the wrong place for my Antec case. It either fits in crooked or hangs
> loose - not being able to get the tab into the slot. If they'd provided
one
> that had the ports slightly closer together it would have fit properly.
> That's it. Everything else works like a charm! I'm 99% happy with it. I
just
> wished I could OC the thing to 133 MHz FSB...
>
>
Ruel,
I have the COMPUSA brand Case, same problem with the usb 2.
0 backplate.
I replaced the 4 port usb 1.1 backplate in lieu of a front panel usb
connector (Antec manufactured and 14.95 at compusa
jeff
Ruel Smith
news:qG%E8.45577$ja.11...@news02.optonline.net...
> I have the COMPUSA brand Case, same problem with the usb 2.
> 0 backplate.
>
> I replaced the 4 port usb 1.1 backplate in lieu of a front panel usb
> connector (Antec manufactured and 14.95 at compusa
I have the two USB 1.1 @ the IO plate, 2 connected to the font of my Antec
case via EasyUSB, and the 4 port USB 2.0 connector in the very last slot on
my case. I'd love to have 2 USB 1.1 and 2 USB 2.0 in front. Oh well, I'll
take what I can get...
Jeff
In theory, couldn't another Antec easy USB connect to one of the orange USB
pinouts on out Motherboard?
In theory it should work, and wouldn't that now give you 2 usb 1.1 and 2 usb
2.0?
Also, there's a front panel HUB (I'll get the link if you wish that would
feed (as an internal wraparound from one of the usb 2.0 connectors on the
back onto the front panel hub.
With connecting easy USB to the 1.1 on our MB, I had to rearrange one of the
pins on the EASY USB cable.
Mind you, I just got to building it this week.
Are you using win xp? If so, did you opt for NTFS or fat 32?
Jeff
Ruel Smith
> In theory, couldn't another Antec easy USB connect to one of the orange
USB
> pinouts on out Motherboard?
> In theory it should work, and wouldn't that now give you 2 usb 1.1 and 2
usb
> 2.0?
Not only in theory, but in practice it works. Antec varified it when I was
planning out my machine. You just have to make sure the wires are in the
right places. The wires could care less which version of USB they're on.
Problem is, I have all my bays filled: DVD, CD-R/RW, Audigy Platinum box,
and the EasyUSB with a floppy in the 3-1/2" bay adapter. I have a Zip250 and
an Orb 2.2 in the case's 3-1/2" bays. No room to have it all. With the 4
port connector, I thought it was best to just hook the front to the USB 1.1
since there mostly used for gamepads. I was just thinking of the future and
digital camera/MP3 devices hooking up via USB 2.0. It would be much easier
from the front, but oh well...
> With connecting easy USB to the 1.1 on our MB, I had to rearrange one of
the
> pins on the EASY USB cable.
So did I. I only changed a single wire on one of the header connectors only
if I remember correctly.
> Are you using win xp? If so, did you opt for NTFS or fat 32?
I use XP Pro and NTFS. I read everywhere that NTFS is more stable. However,
I was also told that FAT 32 was faster and you can set your cluster size for
RAID. Seems you don't want to do that with the boot partition for NTFS
because of the file compression it uses.
Jeff
I got the COMPUSA case, great case, 5 CD bays, 5 3.5
inch spaces too.
It's Black though, not too great a compliment to standard beige cd colors.
jeff
Ruel Smith
I saw that case at CompUSA. I shyed away from non-beige so I could get
everything to match. I like something different, but my Audigy drive bay box
only comes in beige. Funny the Audigy Platinum EX breakout box is in black.
Jeff
Ruel,
I just thought of somrhing, using that ONE EASY USB box you have in the
front, couldn't yopu kind of trade off, connect one of thos cables to one of
the mb usb 1.1 ports and the other to one of the orange usb 2.0 connectors,
then you would have one usb 1.1 and one 2.0 connector in the ta easy usb
front panel adapter.
i also just bought a pinnacvle dv500+ editing card, that has an internal
firewire connector, so now my challenge is to get it to the front. I'm not a
fraid to drill, and cut out holes, so If i could find the right hardware,
I'd incorporate firewire to the front pnael
Jeff
Ruel Smith
> I just thought of somrhing, using that ONE EASY USB box you have in the
> front, couldn't yopu kind of trade off, connect one of thos cables to one
of
> the mb usb 1.1 ports and the other to one of the orange usb 2.0
connectors,
> then you would have one usb 1.1 and one 2.0 connector in the ta easy usb
> front panel adapter.
Yeah, I could, except for the fact that the supplied connector for the back
of the case has all 4 ports on it. That means I'd have to configure one of
them as 1.1 instead of 2.0 and that's just too messy and confusing. I can
run a hub to a spot on top of my desk if I want easy access that bad.
> i also just bought a pinnacvle dv500+ editing card, that has an internal
> firewire connector, so now my challenge is to get it to the front. I'm not
a
> fraid to drill, and cut out holes, so If i could find the right hardware,
> I'd incorporate firewire to the front pnael
My Audigy Platinum drive bay box has it so it's nice, neat, and convenient
right on the front. :o) Now to save for a digital camcorder...
Dan Harkless
> Howdy. I'm building a new system for video editing, home theater, and
> normal web browsing and desktop publishing use, and I was all set on
> the GA-8IRXP for the motherboard, but some of the threads here about
> the board have made me hesitate a bit.
[...]
> In any case, given the above constraints, can anyone suggest an
> alternative to the GA-8IRXP, or do you think it'll do a good job for
> me and provide a few years of useful and relatively trouble-free
> service considering I don't plan on overclocking? If you do recommend
> the GA-8IRXP, which BIOS would you suggest I use?
Thanks to all who answered my questions about the suitability of the
GA-8IRXP in the non-overclocking case. I've now bought my GA-8IRXP
and am just waiting for the balance of the components to come in
before setting it up.
One question no one offered any input on, however, was the one at the
very end -- what BIOS would you recommend? Any issues (other than the
Vcore limitation thing, which doesn't affect me) with F7 (which I see
is now out of beta)?
How about the 8IRXP drivers on Gigabyte's site
(<http://www.giga-byte.com/support/d_ip4.htm#link8irxp>)? Are those
preferable to the ones on the install CD?
Thanks in advance!
Kurt Berg
wrote:
I got the GA-8IRXP never having had any intent to overclock. It came
with the f4 bios. I have never changed it. I have had some boot time
strangenesses where I simply booted again. These do not often involve
restarts. They are mostly cold starts. All of this is not much to
tell you but at least you probably do not have a wholly unworkable
machine on your hands if you choose not to overclock. I do not know
if I would be better off if I went to a more recent bios. If someone
could tell me that I would be better off I would flash it especially
since there seems to be a safety net with this board.
Hope this helps,
Kurt Berg
Andy Powell
to use the IDE3/4 without RAID, fixes a stupid restart FSB at 66MHz bug (I
think) and is generally OK. I guess F7 should be just as good but I
personally have no need to upgrade.
I would definitly use F6 over F5/4/3 but have no experience with F7
Andy
"Dan Harkless" <use...@harkless.org> wrote in message
news:4189894b.02052...@posting.google.com...
Peter
see no reason to upgrade.
Peter
Dan Harkless
Great -- thanks, guys! If my board has F6 already loaded, I'll stick
with it; else I'll download F7.