How important are Chipsets?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrettB
  • Start date Start date
BrettB

BrettB

Well-known member
hi all,

I am planning on purchasing a new PC and a digi 002 rack. I'm still a bit concerned about buying the parts of the PC, because digidesign has got some requests about the system: http://www.digidesign.com/compato/xp/002rack/

What I am wondering: how important are the Chipsets? Digidesing recommend a few, says some other won't be compatible, but there are a lot where they don't talk about.

Shouldn't I risk using another one than the small list of recommended ones and so not: why?

thx for your help
 
i'm sure you are looking at other chipsets/motherboards that don't hit the wallet quite so hard and although tempting at first you really are taking a chance...and in the end will wish you had spent the extra $20 and gotten one of the recommended chipsets..I've had a few computers in my day (I think I'm on #10 right now) and the ones I tried to save some cash on ended up biting me with instability..thus resulting in having to pay more money to replace the cheapo stuff with quality parts.

um short answer is yes I'd go with what they recommend...there is a point where you start buying high end equipment and the price/performance ratio is horribly skewed, but i'm sure their recommendations aren't too bad..if you aren't worried about the cost then kindly breeze over this answer :P
 
Well, I'd recommend a Mac over a PC, but... :)

Chipsets used to be extremely important...nowadays less so, but still worth looking at. Almost any consumer Intel chipset works great. early VIA sucked, but a lot of people these days are using newer VIA chipsets (for Athlon, not for Intel) with good success. SiS is generally discouraged by all and not a lot of people are around to shed light on the subject anyways. nForce is well liked for many other sound cards...


I'm not sure about the Digi hardware, but it's not like they're the only ones to say "choose this, avoid that." Echo has long detested SiS chipsets, though other guys like Aardvark says they'll work fine with them...
 
BrettB said:
how important are the Chipsets? Digidesing recommend a few, says some other won't be compatible, but there are a lot where they don't talk about.

Like what? The chipsets they recommend cover about 90% of all the Intel mobos available today. And they're definitely not overpriced, high-end chipsets. Unless you're thinking of buying an old, used computer, the Intel 865p is probably your best bet. You should be able to get a mobo for that CPU for under $100....

The other Intel chipsets they mention are older versions. I don't think you'll find any current production built around the 845 or 855.

-- Rick

P.S. How important are the chipsets? At least as important as the CPU.
[RF]
 
rfarris said:
the Intel 865p is probably your best bet


[RF]

sorry for my ignorance, but the digi website talks about 865 pe.. is there a difference?
 
Last edited:
The 865PE is a slight revision of the 865P. Basically the same, but add support for slightly newer processors and memory (the PE fully supports 800 MHz front side bus and dual channel DDR400) There's really nothing different between the two functionally.
 
Just get an Asus P4P800. It uses the 865PE chipset. They're cheap, fast, reliable and eminently overclockable
 
When it comes to using PT, I'd just stick by the compatibility list.
Chances are that they'll screw you hard when you contact PT support for a problem and your computer isn't 100% compliant.
 
I was reading around before I got my mobo, thought the 875P chipset would be best, so I got the Asus P4C800 E-Deluxe

Basically the same as the Asus P4P800, only with the 875 chipset, and a good spot of cash more expensive. I really have no clue if the difference will be beneficial for me, but at least I can say my mobo is better than yours :p

I am curious if the 875 chipset has any improvements over the 865 as far as DAW work goes
 
the 875 chipset has something called PAT, performance acceleration technology, I think, if my memory serves me correctly. The 865 is basically the 875 neutered of this.

Doesn't really matter too much since the performance rift between the two has become very small as motherboard manufacturers figured out ways too bost the 865 up near 875 levels without having to pay Intel extra for higher-end chipsets...

The people that see the most difference are the games players. In a DAW, where the limitations are the hard drive and the raw CPU power, rather than the memory bus, you won't see much difference. I think. :)
 
From the research I've done, it seems that both the 865 and 875 chipsets have PAT. However Intel cobbles the 865 chips by making the internal pathlength slightly longer.

What Asus have done on their mobos is fool the 865 into thinking it's an 875 so it bypasses the extra clock cycles. When Intel got hot and bothered about this, Asus changed tack and marketed the 865 mobos with 'Hyperpath' technology that can be switched on in the bios. Their 865 boards perform as well as the 875 boards for a good deal less cash
 
Man, I am so easily confused with this stuff: What's the deal with 865G ? where does the G stand for?
 
BrettB said:
Man, I am so easily confused with this stuff: What's the deal with 865G ? where does the G stand for?

Graphics. It's an 865 chipset motherboard with onboard graphics, usually micro atx.

Good for fitting in small cases like the Antec Aria.
 
Back
Top