Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: ASUS Vs LEADTECK - Need help




  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Ok, it seems the vast majority of you whacky shanties in here seem pretty switched on, hence this cry for help.

    Here is my current setup (inbound on my loc as I type) :-

    MSI K7T266-Pro2-RU
    AMD Athlon 2000+ XP
    ThermalTake Volcano 7
    Kingmax 512MB PC2700 - 333Mhz DDR
    Lian Li Alu Midi tower
    Topower 420W ATX P4 Power Supply
    Creative Audigy: Platinum eX
    Creative Inspire 5700 5.1 Surround
    Pioneer 16x DVD 40x CD-ROM
    Mitsubishi 40x16x10 Diamond Data CD-RW
    18.6 GB Seagate 7200rpm HD
    XP Home Ed

    Yada yada yada, you get the idea. This system is currently being made from my vendor of choice, now for the beef....

    Leadtek A250 GeForce 4 DDR Titanium 4600 128MB TH Retail
    Vs the
    ASUS V8460-ULTRA GeForce 4 TI4600 128MB TV+DVI.

    I currently have an G2 GTS V7700 but since I've saved up my cash like a good little boy I'm keen to go the whole hog. So can you help me reach a verdict? I'm a game nut if that helps, and should I get the Kingmax or go for this squiffy new Corsair DDR RAM thats plastered everywhere? Help!

    Cheers!
    :cheers:

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    4,825

    Default

    Traditionally, Leadtek uses better (ie. faster) memory than Asus. If you're the type that just figures that the way it is now is fine, then get the cheaper board. But if you're like most here and plan on some overclocking of that monster, then you'll be doing yourself a favor by getting the Leadtek.
    Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill
    My Toys

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    I have used Asus v8200 GeForce 3 and have now upgraded to Asus v84600Ti GeForce 4. I never overclock my hardware and have never had any problems with Asus. Even with Windows XP. I would use Asus for quallity over overclockabillity everytime.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    I would sugest keeping the GF2 for a while. The only game you will need anything better will be DOOM3 (when it comes out in December) and byt then there might be a GF5...

    The only expception to that rule is if you have a 19" monitor or bigger and you want to play a handful of games in 1600 X 1200 or higher, because until Doom3, you won't need anything better for 1024 X 768...

    But then again if you do go get the GF4, you will be paying the R+D costs for the GF5, which will let me get a GF4 next October for 60$... :D So go right ahead !! :)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    Go for the Corsair Memory

    I suggest the XMS2700 512mg 333mhz cas2 DDR Ram from Corsair.

    That's what I put in my new system and this thing is lightning fast. Plus the Corsair memory has a nifty little heatspreader/heatsink.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    4,825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Verne_01
    Go for the Corsair Memory

    I suggest the XMS2700 512mg 333mhz cas2 DDR Ram from Corsair.

    That's what I put in my new system and this thing is lightning fast. Plus the Corsair memory has a nifty little heatspreader/heatsink.
    :?: :confused: :confused: :?:
    Huh?
    Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill
    My Toys

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Thanks for the replies! I've just built my new computer (those Lan Li cases are so swanky it hurts!) and I opted for the Kingmax RAM (due to price drop). Pity, the Corsair would of looked good against my fireman red MB.
    As for the ASUS/Leadtek debarcle well, my GF2-GTS takes care of most of my gaming needs (for now) until Morrowind comes out(must...get...pixel...shader), then I'll see what's happening with the market and make the buy, ASUS is still looking good though. Thanks again for all the feedback.
    Now I have to figure out why XP states my 1.67Ghz is a 1.25Ghz.
    The fun of creation.....


    Cheers!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    215

    Default

    You've only set the FSB at 100 insted of 133

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    You've only set the FSB at 100 insted of 133
    yep, change it to 133 in the bios :laugh:
    <Insert Witty Comment Here.>

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    3

    Default

    I changed the FSB to 133 in Bios, the result is the blue screen of death. So I went to the MSI forums to find out that a sh*tload of other people had the same problem. Their 2000+XP's would show up as 1.25Ghz, so you change the FSB, update BIOS, throw computer against wall, just to get the "sorry, I am your OS and I hate you" screen.

    Great.:(

    So I changed my Bios to the latest Version (3.5) but I can only run the ***** stable at 100fsb. I've tried the High end user defaults with the RAM latencey set to 2.5. The only thing I can bring it down to is my PSU, but its 300w and P4 compliant. Looks like I have to wait for the 420w to arrive.
    It makes me Dark that I pay all this $$$ for a computer that wants to run at 2/3 capacity.

    Thanks for your concern, I hope that I fix this curse.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •