04ihgba,
I had two simple points that I disagreed with you on.
1) Gigabyte's quality is superior to Asrock
2) DDR3 is not new ,untested, nor unreliable
that's it, i did not debate cost, or the intention of the person asking for help, the rest of it is other things you have added since., but since you have broadened the debate.
.....
Indeed, and I accepted those as your views and decided to broaden the subject in order to state why I had said these things. In my experience, AsRocks reliablility has come a long way in a short period. You actually make my point in what your mention next about market share as to why most people are automatically judgemental about the boards they make. With such a little market share many rely on hearsay to judge them and they made some pretty abysmal boards in the SDRAM era.
Also DDR3 is not new, and I never debated that, I just said it wasn't as seasoned as DDR2, and due to the technology being around for much longer, DDR2 is inevitably more reliable. This is akin to saying that the new Semprons AMD make are probably more reliable than the original ones that they made. DDR2 has now been around long enough to go through countless redesigns and it still boasts a lower latency at similar speeds. Rather than debating it with you though, I'm interested to know what speed DDR3 you would recommend to him.
This is just faulty logic..the motherboard market share looks like this, Asus 41%-Gigabtye-20%-MSI-9%-DFI-4%,Asrock isn't even on the list (and not included in the Asus numbers) of course you don't see many googles' for "broken AsRock" ...very few are using them. Its like pointing out that MicroSoft needs a bigger help desk than Linux!
*source: CPU-Z
The market share of a company does not always suggest its the best ,and I already said It was a poor analogy, despite that, AsRocks have many reviews and awards and usually are the first to do new stuff in the market. They also have a 34 page awards list
here and are literally the innovation division of ASUS.
really? im glad you said that, because you make an awfully lot of assumptions about what this person wants...and uses. like this:
Nowhere prior to recommending that this person purchase 8Gb of DDR2, did you bother to ask what operating system he/she is using
. . this is bad advice for more than one reason
1) if they are using a 32 bit system, the second 4gb is useless
5GB you mean.
I haven't made an awful lot of assumptions, I have read everything the OP said in his post. He will NOT be gaming, he wants his PC for general use, and he wants it to be a competent multitasker. So I said go large DDR2 RAM, as heavy multitasking needs more RAM rather than fast RAM. I have no idea what he wants, I am only acting on what he has told me.
You promote DDR3 as futureproof, yet you don't want to recommend 64 bit to him. You do realise that they now make server OS's in 64bit only flavours, an had it not been for Intel having a 32bit laptop chip they probrably would have done the same for Win7. In fact, I can see you telling the OP to grab 3x1GB sticks for his OS but then where is all this "futureproof-ness" going to come from when he can't upgrade his RAM without a format and buying a new OS.
2)the very vast majority of user's will not use anything approaching 8gb of ram,and there is no performance increase in doing so. ( a little reference material for you):
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-module-upgrade,2264.html
Indeed, I read that yesterday incidentally, and I disagree. The sweet spot may be there for ultrafast 1600mhz performance RAM, but the slower the RAM, the more benefit you gain from having more of it, because quite simply, less clock time is spent scrubbing. Also, especially with Vista, pre-cacheing speeds up a lot of applications startup times vastly, and the more RAM the OS sees, the more it pre-caches and the speed difference is very noticeable, especially for the price. Of course the OP may not use all the RAM himself, but the OS will use a much bigger about if there is much more there.
3) by the time 8Gb of memory is useable for anyone but server users and those with ultra resource intense software. DDR2 will be antiquated legacy hardware with no upgrade potential.
By the time we reach 2012, you will be saying the same about DDR3 in the face of DDR4. The difference? By then the boards will be a lot cheaper.
4) you chastised Ritwik for his motherboard recommendation citing that the OP could use the additional wasted $50 on something else like the processor. aside from the fact that Ritwik proposed a quality choice of motherboard, why then do you not take your own advice and not waste an additional $50 on useless ram for an upgrade on the rest of the system?
I apologise to Ritwik if I came across harshly, but recommending a SLi motherboard to someone who explicitly said he was not intending to play any games at all seems to me like a careless decision.
nothing personal 04ihgba, its your ideas im debating not you
Hey, I'm not taking it personally, actually I'm quite enjoying this little debate. You bring some very good points to the table.
![hellokitty[hk]](/community/data/avatars/m/169/169488.jpg?1355088591){kind=avatar}
