Much wisdom in the reponse but... 1) Stability is an issue but most of my problems show up in the disk subsystem. I have had some nasty crashes which went away when I replaced the drives.
2) Performance is an issue but I suspect that too is in the disk subsystem. Processing HTTP logs is the biggest single burder on my servers. That generates tons of stuff few people read, so I think changing content of log analysis will take care of that one. Mail is a close second but that one is solved by judicious non-use of synced log files. 3) When I rebuild a server, newer technology is better than older and larger aggregates of RAM are better than smaller. The latter is probably the more important of the two so I would rather use single 512MB PC2100 than two 256MB faster SDRAMs. 4) Workstations are a different matter. I am content with much less than a game player but I do have an urge for decent multimedia - DVD , 6 channel sound, fast ripping. The most notable performance issue is fast program loading. That too is in the disk subsystem. So much of Tom's hardware doesn't speak to me. I'd like to avoid spending a lot of time on both hardware compatibility and software installation issues, I have lots of things to do. Unfortunately, what we see are reports of people having problems and others speculating on the latest whiz bang technology. It would be much more useful if someone maintained a database of "this worked for me". Jim Tarvid On Sunday 29 September 2002 06:59 am, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > On Sat, 2002-09-28 at 16:58, Ralph F De Witt wrote: > > Hi: > > I am contemplating building a new system. The two motherboards that I am > > looking at are, one a MSI KT3 Ultra2 w/o raid, lan, and video, and two a > > MSI KT4 Ultra w/o raid, lan, and video. This will be my primary > > workstation. I am wondering will these boards will work with Mandrake 9.0 > > and how well the built in audio works on both. And your preferences. > > - -- > > Yours, > > Ralph. > > I can see right off that you've been doing your homework. Not bad. > There are some concerns with the newer DDR400 based mobos, though. This > is evident by looking at the following: > > http://www17.tomshardware.com/mainboard/02q3/020905/kt400-11.html#opengl_be >nchmarks > > And the Directx benchmarks as well. The conclusion of this article is > interesting: > > http://www17.tomshardware.com/mainboard/02q3/020905/kt400-16.html > > But not truly "conclusive". Because if later day bios upgrades are able > to fix the memory standards that as of right now have not been > finalized, then the KT4 Ultra may well be the best choice for the > future. As you can see right now the KT333's are showing faster > benches. A bios upgrade may well fix that, however. > > Regarding the KT3 Ultra, this pick is perhaps a little confusing. If > you are considering a mobo with KT333 architecture, there are many more > superior choices available. Here are the benchmarks for a roundup of 18 > mobos that includes the KT3 Ultra: > > http://www17.tomshardware.com/mainboard/02q2/020509/kt333-29.html > > This in fact was the roundup that I was using to choose my next mobo. > As of now tho, the memory architecture has moved onward and I will > probably wait for Abit to release a KT400 mobo. The advantage with this > set of mobos is that they have been out for awhile and they are better > known personalitywise. It is very unlikely that you will see any > problems with the top performers in this list. Speaking of performance, > the KT3 Ultra is in the bottom half of both the opengl and directx > benchmarks. Dis is not good. > > When I was planning on getting one of these, I was looking at three: > > 1) Epox EP-8K3A+ -- Pros: Top performer, solid brand, reputation for > dependability > > Cons: Unsure of overclocking virtues compared to Abit AT7 > > 2) Enmic 8TTX2+ -- Pros: German manufacturer, looked solid, top > performer; real fast and stable > > Cons: New company, no history, unsure of overclocking virtues compared > to AT7 > > 3) Abit AT7 -- Pros: I have extensive prior experience with this > brand and know the overclocking and stability virtues of this brand, the > quality has never let me down. > > Cons: Not a top performer (unless overclocked !) hehe > > In which case it can theoretically exceed the default performance of any > of the 18. Depending on CPU limitations. > > Let me smash a few myths right off the bat. 1) An overclocking mobo is > typically superior stability (and quality) wise to a mobo that is > typified as a "server board", AKA Tyan mobos. The overclockers HAVE to > be more stable in worse situations than the much overpriced and > underperforming "server boards". Anything marketed as a server board is > probably going to be a money pipeline waiting for you to give your > frogskins away to the manufacturer. Synopsis: The overclockers are > better server boards than the server boards. > > 2) Since they are marketed to hardware hacker types, they are more > loaded with features than other boards. Also, just because you buy an > overclocker board doesn't mean that it's going to overclock the cpu. > You have to TELL it to do that; otherwise it operates the CPU at the > design spec for the CPU. In that case it theoretically is more rock > solid than the other types. > > 3). The reason I cite directx and opengl benches is simply because > there is no better stress test for the entire mobo and it's subsystems > as a team than these tests. They stress the graphics, memory, and all > other subsystems better than any business apps ever would in a million > years. The business benches are more or less like tits on a boar hog. > But, if you are still curious you can follow the other URL's on Dr Tom's > site to the business benches. > > OK. Darn this thing has gotten long... > > > HTH, > > LX > > P.S. I probably would have bought the Enmic. And..I was unsure of what > level of information to give, so I used the shotgun.
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
