ASROCK versus ASUS

Piotr Makley <pmakley.DeleteThis@mail.com> wrote:

 >Asrock and Asus motherboards are both made by Asustek. So what is
 >the main difference between them?

 >I am told that Asrock is a cheaper range so is one range positoned
 >to be cheap and the other to be more expensive but with more
 >features? Or do both ranges aim at broadly the same market but one
 >is built better than the other?

Only worked with one ASRock board I can recall and don't know how much
it cost but I thought the Asus P4BGV-MX I fitted into a machine
recently, one of the cheapest integrated S478 boards around (less than
£40 delivered), was a better board. Don't know if that's
representative of the range in general.

--
 >iv< Paul >iv<<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ASROCK versus ASUS 

"Paul Hopwood" <paul.TakeThisOut@hopwood.org.uk> wrote in message
news:7k3170ppam6r5tgk5r3jrsgvds3llctd67@4ax.com...
 > Piotr Makley <pmakley.TakeThisOut@mail.com> wrote:
 >
  > >Asrock and Asus motherboards are both made by Asustek. So what is
  > >the main difference between them?
 >
  > >I am told that Asrock is a cheaper range so is one range positoned
  > >to be cheap and the other to be more expensive but with more
  > >features? Or do both ranges aim at broadly the same market but one
  > >is built better than the other?
 >
 > Only worked with one ASRock board I can recall and don't know how much
 > it cost but I thought the Asus P4BGV-MX I fitted into a machine
 > recently, one of the cheapest integrated S478 boards around (less than
 > £40 delivered), was a better board. Don't know if that's
 > representative of the range in general.
 >
 > --
  > >iv< Paul >iv<

Nothing but good things to say for Asus P3 and P4 boards but I found the few
Socket A boards to be very problematic.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.648 / Virus Database: 415 - Release Date: 31/03/2004<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ASROCK versus ASUS 

<SNIP>
" I am told that Asrock is a cheaper range "

I have to agree with that. In a number of years of building The Asrock is
the only boards I Have ever had a failure on (and I have used some crap).
Not a catastrophic failure I may add, rear usb ports died. However I bought
it thinking it was a quality item. I forget the model, was one of these
maplin bundles that at the time seemed like a great deal.
 >> Stay informed about: ASROCK versus ASUS 

"Piotr Makley" <pmakley.TakeThisOut@mail.com> wrote in message
news:94C1DFDD4495D31E75@130.133.1.4...
 > Asrock and Asus motherboards are both made by Asustek. So what is
 > the main difference between them?
 >
 > I am told that Asrock is a cheaper range so is one range positoned
 > to be cheap and the other to be more expensive but with more
 > features? Or do both ranges aim at broadly the same market but one
 > is built better than the other?
 >

I've seen somewhere that Asrock was a Chinese daughter company of Astek
intended to allow Asus to compete with companies like Elite eo in the
motherboard entry market. So recently I decided to purchase my first Asrock
P4VT8, where the box mentioned plenty of nice features, all at a very nice
price.
When installing however, I discovered a lot of "anomalies". Some examples:
- the board has 2 SATA connectors, but drivers have to be loaded from
diskettes at initial setup in order to recognize SATA drives;
- when shutting down the computer, power is still delivered to on-board USB
connectors, resulting in USB devices (6 in 1 card readers, for ex)with leds
always on;
- the board crashes randomly (up to 3 - 4 times a day);
- the temp and voltage reports of the board are wrong: cpu temp is mostly at
72°C (although feeling cold), -12 V is reported -0.17 V, and so on.
- there is no dual channel DDR available (but I must say dual-channel is not
mentioned on the box);
- installation of windows 2000 worked normally, but install of Win XP was
totally impossible (Win setup freezes early, at "press F6 to load additional
disk drivers").
This could have been an isolated single bad experience, but I did some
search on the net and encountered a lot of idenditical or similar
experiences.
I always loved Asus and installed many of those boards for P3 and P4 without
any problem. My first trial with Asrock was a total failure and I even
couldn' t get valuable support. I soon replaced the P4VT8 by an Asus P4P800
(price difference is not that big), and all problems above disappeared.
This was my first and last Asrock !!!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ASROCK versus ASUS 

"Piotr Makley" <pmakley.TakeThisOut@mail.com> wrote in message
news:94C1DFDD4495D31E75@130.133.1.4...
 > Asrock and Asus motherboards are both made by Asustek. So what is
 > the main difference between them?
 >
 > I am told that Asrock is a cheaper range so is one range positoned
 > to be cheap and the other to be more expensive but with more
 > features? Or do both ranges aim at broadly the same market but one
 > is built better than the other?
 >
 > Any info welcome.

I have used quite a number of ASRock boards for socket "A" builds.
(Haven't built too many P4 based systems recently and where I have these
have needed a top of the range mobo with all the accessories)

K7S8X for several months, FSB up to 333MHz and more recently the K7S8XE
which does 400MHz FSB.
Also the K7VM2 where a uATX board is needed with o/b VGA.

All models are basic in that they have minimum bells and whistles.
The Phoenix bios offers little scope for overclockers.
Don't expect a manual which tells you how to build a computer and set every
bios setting.

There is however a cool video on the driver cd of some attractive Asian
female telling you how to build your PC, not too informative for the
experienced builder, but fun to watch. She struggles with her English
pronunciations a bit.

That said, all the ASRock boards I've used have behaved very well and have
performed flawlessly.
Rather like their sales literature ........ Solid as a rock ......ASRock

Compared to PChips, Elite or ECS and Syntax etc. these boards come at a
budget price without the budget bugs.

AAAA+ recommended.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ASROCK versus ASUS 

Piotr Makley wrote:
 > Asrock and Asus motherboards are both made by Asustek. So what is
 > the main difference between them?
 >
 > I am told that Asrock is a cheaper range so is one range positoned
 > to be cheap and the other to be more expensive but with more
 > features? Or do both ranges aim at broadly the same market but one
 > is built better than the other?
 >
 > Any info welcome.

Asrock *is* the budget range, they usually have less choice of options and
slightly less expensive components (From what I gather). It is Asustek's
attempt at getting a slice of the budget/OEM market without compromising the
name of their Asus range.

Seiko did something similar years back, with a difference. They bought out
the 'Pulsar' brand of watches which are internally identical to the Seiko
range but sell for about 40% less. (A great buy BTW, I have a 10-year old
Pulsar that I wear in the shower, swimming-pool etc. and it's running
perfectly). Seiko found themselves in a situation where they could produce
their product for a lot less than they were charging for it but didn't want
their name associated with lower-priced product, they have a good reputation
and people will pay a premium for a watch with "Seiko" on it. So they
invented the Pulsar brand. (This was circa 1980) Wise people in the know who
weren't overly image-conscious bought Pulsar and saved approximately 40% and
got the exact same ultra-reliable watch. They're made in the same factory,
they just go to a different 'finishing line' where they are fitted into
either a Seiko or a Pulsar case.

It's not quite the same with Asus /Asrock, they use different
components/features on their Asrock range but the example holds true. Not
wanting to diminish the name of their premium range in the eye of the
consumer.
--
~misfit~<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ASROCK versus ASUS 

"~misfit~" <misfit61nz.TakeThisOut@yahoomung.co.nz> wrote:

 > Wise people in the know who
 > weren't overly image-conscious bought Pulsar and saved
 > approximately 40% and got the exact same ultra-reliable watch.
 > They're made in the same factory, they just go to a different
 > 'finishing line' where they are fitted into either a Seiko or
 > a Pulsar case.

But what about quality control? Is that different?


 > It's not quite the same with Asus /Asrock, they use different
 > components/features on their Asrock range but the example
 > holds true. Not wanting to diminish the name of their premium
 > range in the eye of the consumer.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ASROCK versus ASUS 

"ElJerid" <s.vanderhaeghen.nospam.RemoveThis@pandora.be> wrote in message
news:9z8cc.60886$b64.4057179@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
 >
 > "Piotr Makley" <pmakley.RemoveThis@mail.com> wrote in message
 > news:94C1DFDD4495D31E75@130.133.1.4...
  > > Asrock and Asus motherboards are both made by Asustek. So what is
  > > the main difference between them?
  > >
  > > I am told that Asrock is a cheaper range so is one range positoned
  > > to be cheap and the other to be more expensive but with more
  > > features? Or do both ranges aim at broadly the same market but
one
  > > is built better than the other?
  > >
 >
 > I've seen somewhere that Asrock was a Chinese daughter company of
Astek
 > intended to allow Asus to compete with companies like Elite eo in
the
 > motherboard entry market. So recently I decided to purchase my first
Asrock
 > P4VT8, where the box mentioned plenty of nice features, all at a
very nice
 > price.
 > When installing however, I discovered a lot of "anomalies". Some
examples:
 > - the board has 2 SATA connectors, but drivers have to be loaded
from
 > diskettes at initial setup in order to recognize SATA drives;

Isn't this a condition of Windows rather than the motherboard? AFAIK,
Windows XP, and obviously older versions, requires drivers to be
loaded prior to installing.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ASROCK versus ASUS 

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr DeleteThis @optonline.net> wrote in message
news:LXacc.7071$7r2.633282@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
 >
 > "ElJerid" <s.vanderhaeghen.nospam DeleteThis @pandora.be> wrote in message
 > news:9z8cc.60886$b64.4057179@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
  > >
  > > "Piotr Makley" <pmakley DeleteThis @mail.com> wrote in message
  > > news:94C1DFDD4495D31E75@130.133.1.4...
   > > > Asrock and Asus motherboards are both made by Asustek. So what is
   > > > the main difference between them?
   > > >
   > > > I am told that Asrock is a cheaper range so is one range positoned
   > > > to be cheap and the other to be more expensive but with more
   > > > features? Or do both ranges aim at broadly the same market but
 > one
   > > > is built better than the other?
   > > >
  > >
  > > I've seen somewhere that Asrock was a Chinese daughter company of
 > Astek
  > > intended to allow Asus to compete with companies like Elite eo in
 > the
  > > motherboard entry market. So recently I decided to purchase my first
 > Asrock
  > > P4VT8, where the box mentioned plenty of nice features, all at a
 > very nice
  > > price.
  > > When installing however, I discovered a lot of "anomalies". Some
 > examples:
  > > - the board has 2 SATA connectors, but drivers have to be loaded
 > from
  > > diskettes at initial setup in order to recognize SATA drives;
 >
 > Isn't this a condition of Windows rather than the motherboard? AFAIK,
 > Windows XP, and obviously older versions, requires drivers to be
 > loaded prior to installing.
 >
 >
I know this, but the installation freezes just befor the stage where it's
normally asked to hit F6 and insert the floppy with the drivers. Windows
2000 however installs without problems (except later crashes), and the Win
XP CD was checked on 2 other computers with Asus mobos and installed
correctly. Only the Asrock freezes at install.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ASROCK versus ASUS 

Piotr Makley wrote:
 > "~misfit~" <misfit61nz.DeleteThis@yahoomung.co.nz> wrote:
 >
  >> Wise people in the know who
  >> weren't overly image-conscious bought Pulsar and saved
  >> approximately 40% and got the exact same ultra-reliable watch.
  >> They're made in the same factory, they just go to a different
  >> 'finishing line' where they are fitted into either a Seiko or
  >> a Pulsar case.
 >
 > But what about quality control? Is that different?

No, not at all. I happened to be in a jewellers shop when a Seiko/Pulsar rep
was there, just as they bought out the Pulsar brand. He was explaining it to
the shop owner. The internals come off the same production-line, go through
the same QT, and are then diverted to either the Seiko or Pulsar 'finishing'
line (for fitting into cases), depending on demand.

As I said, my Pulsar hasn't given me a moments trouble in the 10 years I've
had it. I told a guy who owned a Seiko (that he paid heaps more for) about
it and he didn't believe me until I showed him that they have the same
'double
wave' logo on the back (both watches are 100m water resist).
--
~misfit~<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ASROCK versus ASUS 

Wow, haven't talked about pulsar watches in some time. I have a
Pulsar time computer. The last of the LED era. Red and emerald green
readout, huge and pretty darn ugly ;^) but works like a
charm. I have another that I haven't thought about for some time, it
was a graduation present from my folks (circa 1976), you got me
hunting for it now.


"~misfit~" <misfit61nz.TakeThisOut@yahoomung.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hc2cc.5489$d%6.96259@news.xtra.co.nz...
 > Piotr Makley wrote:
  > > "~misfit~" <misfit61nz.TakeThisOut@yahoomung.co.nz> wrote:
  > >
   > >> Wise people in the know who
   > >> weren't overly image-conscious bought Pulsar and saved
   > >> approximately 40% and got the exact same ultra-reliable watch.
   > >> They're made in the same factory, they just go to a different
   > >> 'finishing line' where they are fitted into either a Seiko or
   > >> a Pulsar case.
  > >
  > > But what about quality control? Is that different?
 >
 > No, not at all. I happened to be in a jewellers shop when a
Seiko/Pulsar rep
 > was there, just as they bought out the Pulsar brand. He was
explaining it to
 > the shop owner. The internals come off the same production-line, go
through
 > the same QT, and are then diverted to either the Seiko or Pulsar
'finishing'
 > line (for fitting into cases), depending on demand.
 >
 > As I said, my Pulsar hasn't given me a moments trouble in the 10
years I've
 > had it. I told a guy who owned a Seiko (that he paid heaps more for)
about
 > it and he didn't believe me until I showed him that they have the
same
 > 'double
 > wave' logo on the back (both watches are 100m water resist).
 > --
 > ~misfit~
 >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ASROCK versus ASUS 

"~misfit~" <misfit61nz RemoveThis @yahoomung.co.nz> wrote:

   >>> Wise people in the know who
   >>> weren't overly image-conscious bought Pulsar and saved
   >>> approximately 40% and got the exact same ultra-reliable
   >>> watch. They're made in the same factory, they just go to a
   >>> different 'finishing line' where they are fitted into either
   >>> a Seiko or a Pulsar case.

  >>
  >> But what about quality control? Is that different?
  >>

 > No, not at all. I happened to be in a jewellers shop when a
 > Seiko/Pulsar rep was there, just as they bought out the Pulsar
 > brand. He was explaining it to the shop owner. The internals
 > come off the same production-line, go through the same QT, and
 > are then diverted to either the Seiko or Pulsar 'finishing'
 > line (for fitting into cases), depending on demand.

Maybe the diverting is done based on the better versus worse
performing units? In other words they are all to spec but the very
best go one way and the poorer one go another way?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ASROCK versus ASUS 

JAD wrote:
 >
 > Wow, haven't talked about pulsar watches in some time. I have a
 > Pulsar time computer. The last of the LED era. Red and emerald
 > green readout, huge and pretty darn ugly ;^) but works like a
 > charm. I have another that I haven't thought about for some time,
 > it was a graduation present from my folks (circa 1976), you got
 > me hunting for it now.

I have an Intel offering from the same period. It was a prize for
my first version of floating point for the 8080, submitted to the
user group. Nowadays I spend no more than $10 US for an LCD
display calendar/stop watch combo, which lasts about 5 years.

--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ASROCK versus ASUS