In comp.os.linux.hardware Igor <donotreply@nospam.com> wrote: > Howdy. > I'm putting together an AMD Athlon 64 X2 based PC. I plan on running > (dual-booting) both Windows 2000 and one of the Unix-based OS's > (either one of the more user-friendly Linux distros or something like > PCBSD or Desktop BSD) on this machine. > I'm currently trying to select a motherboard. I've decided to go with > a socket AM2 type, since I intend to use DDR2 RAM. However, I'm having > trouble choosing a chipset, especially in relation to Linux/BSD. Are > some chipsets less likely to cause problems with Linux and BSD than > others, or are they all equally well supported? > I've heard that nVidia graphics cards are better supported under Linux > than ATI ones; is this true of nVidia chipsets as well? > Thanks for your time. I have an Asus M2N32 WS Professional. Drivers and such are ok, but ithere are some issues. One is that the chipset gets far, far too hot IMO. And the sensor chip lies about the temperature and pretends it is about 15C colder. I find that highly suspicuous. The other is that the external SATA connector seems not to have hot-plug. Oh, and it is unreliable, except with the newest BIOS. I would advise against getting this board. Not Asus-like quality. Pretty bold to label this "professional". Seems to be marketing lies at work. Arno

In comp.os.linux.hardware Igor <donotreply@nospam.com> wrote: > On 20 Oct 2007 04:28:48 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote: > <snip> >> >>I have an Asus M2N32 WS Professional. Drivers and such >>are ok, but ithere are some issues. One is that the >>chipset gets far, far too hot IMO. And the sensor chip >>lies about the temperature and pretends it is about 15C >>colder. I find that highly suspicuous. <snip> > If that's true, that does indeed sound very underhanded. Well, it is displayed temperature in the BIOS vs. an infrared thermometer directly on top of the chipset cooler. I am fairly sure my measurements are correct. Arno

In comp.os.linux.hardware Igor <donotreply@nospam.com> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:50:04 -0500, "R. C. White" <rc@grandecom.net> > wrote: >>Hi, Igor. >> >>A year ago I built my new system for Vista, starting with this mobo: >>http://www.epox.com/USA/product.asp?id=EP-MF570SLI >> >>EPoX is not well known, but this is my 3rd mobo from them and all have >>worked well for me. <snip> > Honestly, this is the first time I've heard of them. If I see their > stuff listed in any of the catalogs that I'll be ordering from, I'll > remember the good word you put in for them. > At this point, however, I've decided to select a board more by > features, price, and availability (and compatibility with Linux/BSD) > than by brand. I was initially thinking in terms of brand, but after > going through the user reviews at newegg.com, I realized there were an > equal number of horror stories about *every* manufacturer and gave up > on that approach. > Over the years, I've owned PCs with motherboards by MSI, ECS, and > AOpen and never had problems with any of them. A relative of mine > recently replaced a computer she had gotten in '99. There was nothing > wrong with it, she just wanted something more powerful. That one had > an Asus motherboard in it. > So maybe I'm wrong, but I'm thinking that all manufacturers must > produce their share of defective or poorly designed boards, and that > they're probably all fairly equal quality-wise (as long as you're > comparing apples with apples, that is). I think you are right on this one. I have made good experiences with Epox, until I needed to repair 4 boards and had problems with BIOS settings vanishing on occasion with 22 others. A real bother and I will not get Epox again. Some people believe Asus can do no wrong, but I have observed otherwise. Server-boards are not that much better: I have had to send an MSI board back, because of poorly (visilby !) mounted components. I used to like Tyan, but not anymore for much the same reason. Best choice is probably to get a board a bit older, say on the market for a year or so. Then you should at least be able to google its faults and can decide whether they are still acceptable to you. Arno

In comp.os.linux.hardware kony <spam@spam.com> wrote: > On 25 Oct 2007 16:05:56 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> > wrote: >>I think the heatsink is pretty good. It seems this chipset is just way >>over the top in its power consumption. > I definitely wouldn't call it a cool running chipset but > there are quite a few boards w/same out there which don't > have this problem. I would suspect one of three things: > 1) Poorer than average case ventilation > 2) Specific model of board has inferior heatsink > 3) Chipset voltage regulation subcircuit has a feedback > resistor that's a little out of spec, raising the voltage a > bit beyond what the target was. > I'd tend to suspect #1 the most since a duct helped. I am pretty sure 2) and 3) are not the case. 1) might be, since it is a pretty old case from an area where ventilation was not that critical. It is also isnulated to dampen noise. That may result in much worse cooling than ist standard today. Arno