PDA

View Full Version : Problem with Soyo P4S 645DX Dragon Ultra Review?



WetWilly
06-05-2002, 10:33 PM
The review mentioned several times that the 645DX Ultra didn't have the 961B southbridge or ATA-133 support. However, assuming the board pictures on page 3 of the review (http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=review&dId=272&dPage=3) are from the board actually reviewed, the fourth picture down clearly shows the 961 southbridge is stepping B0, i.e. a 961B.

Thera_Veda
06-06-2002, 02:56 AM
Good point. I saw this too and was just going to remark on the fact that the pictures of this mobo in this review, at least, appear to be from the actual SY-P4S-645DX DRAGON Ultra, which does have the 961B chipset.

I'm a bit confused by this.

Thera

:confused:

WetWilly
06-06-2002, 05:05 AM
All shipping 645DX boards should have the 961B. The only 645DX boards I know of that didn't have it were some pre-release boards (MSI, I think) that were floating around.

Wiggo
06-06-2002, 09:41 AM
Really this should be in the Publication Discussion forum so I'll just move it there. :smokin:
<center>:cheers:</center>

Thera_Veda
06-07-2002, 02:37 AM
Another weird review of this board popped up down under at tweakers.com.au

http://www.tweakers.com.au/articles/motherboard/soyo_p4s645dx/page2.asp

They also describe their board as having the older 961 southbridge:

"Since SOYO decided to use the older SiS961 southbridge instead of the newer 961B or 962 chipset, the onboard USB is only 1.1 compliant being the reason for the USB 2.0 PCI card inclusion."

Yet the picture of the southbridge, though blurred, seems to be of the 961B as well (at least to my inexpert eyes).

http://www.tweakers.com.au/articles/motherboard/soyo_p4s645dx/south.jpg

So have all the review sites been reviewing prelease versions of this board? I have visions of Soyo passing around one older version of the board from reviewer to reviewer.

Thera

WetWilly
06-07-2002, 08:49 AM
This IS getting really odd. Either:

1) Sites are taking pictures of one board and reviewing another (in which case the reviewer should mention that the board pictured isn't the board reviewed), or

2) Reviewers are using canned/cut 'n' paste statements from previous reviews. I've seen examples of this all over the place, especially when you're looking at boards with incremental changes, like swapping out the 645/961A for a 645DX/961B.

BTW, Wiggo, thanks for the move. A suggestion - you guys might consider renaming "Publication Discussion" to something a little easier to catch, like "Article/Review Discussion." Just a thought.

Beefy
06-07-2002, 09:10 AM
Or it could be that they are actually using a pre-release version of the board, which is different to the final release. It has happened before. And if it's popping up over multiple sites, then I'm doubting whether it's a reviewer error...

And Publication Discussion is a good title. Articles / reviews / guides are all publications by the site.. :)

WetWilly
06-07-2002, 10:57 AM
Or it could be that they are actually using a pre-release version of the board

If both reviewers were reviewing a pre-release board then where did the board with the 961B in both reviews' screenshots come from? The pictures in both reviews aren't the same, and they definitely don't look like press shots from Soyo.

Plus if it's pre-release the review should state that explicitly, since things can obviously change before release. I'm not sure how long the review took, but a little over 3 weeks before the review was published, Soyo's press release announcing the P4S-645DX Dragon Ultra stated:


The board also includes two PCI bus mastering ATA133 E-IDE ports, and an Ultra DMA 66/100/133 IDE port, which supports four independent channels to accommodate eight IDE devices, including two for RAID.

At the minimum, the apparent absence of the 961B on the review board plus the observation of the 961B on the board whose picture was taken should have prompted a call to Soyo asking whether production boards would have the 961B or not. Both reviews leave the impression that the board doesn't have it, period.

I'm not trying to being a harda$$ about it, but these kinds of inaccuracies don't reflect fairly on the chipset.

Articles / reviews / guides are all publications by the site

True, but what's technically accurate and what's user-friendly aren't necesarily the same thing. How about "Article/Review/Guide Discussion?" :D

Beefy
06-07-2002, 11:24 AM
OK, I'm seeing what you are talking about now.. :) I just saw the Tweakers review of the board. Looks like it was a mistake by the reviewer in both cases. The Soyo site even says it's a 961B chipset.

I'm guessing that they just looked at the chip itself, didn't notice the B0 in the bottom corner and assumed it was only a 961.. i guess..

Optimal
07-03-2002, 04:25 AM
Having had problems with Soyo's P4S, I called SOYO
to verify this very question.
Their Tech Support checked with Manufac and said
that the 645DX mobo is using a 961 NOT a 961B,
but as others have pointed out, the photos clearly
show a 'B0' on the chip and SOYO specs state a 961B.

No standards in chip labels means they are free to concat
numbers all over the chip into one number that will confuse
even their own peoples.

I'll post again in the Hardware/Motherboards forum if I get
another answer from SOYO... I figure I'll get 3 answers and
then average them into some kinda reality. :p