Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > CPUs, Motherboards And Memory

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-06-02, 02:27 PM   #1
Cotita
Nvidia God
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 341
Default The worst part of the KT400...

The name.

Had it been kt333A, plus, ultra, super duper or whatever there would be as many problems as now.

Instead of branding it as "unofficially" DDR400 compatible it should have said it supports 333mhz tbreds. That along with 8xagp and ATA133 makes a better impession than a faulty DDR400 mobo.

At least at launch KT400 mobos with DDR400 memory are no faster, or even slower than the KT266A with "el cheapo" PC2100 memory
__________________
Sometimes I hate being right everytime.
Cotita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-02, 06:01 PM   #2
TheOneKEA
Fifteen-K Saiyan Bastard
 
TheOneKEA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Somewhere in England, waiting for ROTK and drooling over the A64 3000+
Posts: 417
Send a message via ICQ to TheOneKEA Send a message via AIM to TheOneKEA Send a message via Yahoo to TheOneKEA
Default Methinks the DDR400 will be here soon

I don't think VIA intends to let that lapse. The only reason it HASN'T been fixed yet IMO is because 85-90% of VIA's talent, people, and attention is focused on Barton, Hammer, and Opteron. PSN, I think VIA intends to fix DDR400 for the KT400 in the same fashion they added the 133MHz FSB to the KT133: release an A version; KT400A.
__________________
/me \/\/@|\|t5 $$$$$ F0r @|\| u65r 3|33t G@/\/\1|\|G r1G

SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/
Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Mozilla Firefox 0.8

Registered Linux User #289618
TheOneKEA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-02, 02:59 AM   #3
CainSyris
This is MY boomstick!
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 179
Default

Of course, everyone forgets the original name for Kt400:

KT333A.



It was VIA who tried to shake off that whole A syndrome with this launch, but this card did not get to that point. I remember that every time I look at a review for this card. I think that you should consider what comes out after as the real KT400.

Just like the real KT266 was the KT266A and this is the real KT333, the KT333A.

Or something like that.
CainSyris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-02, 07:32 PM   #4
TheOneKEA
Fifteen-K Saiyan Bastard
 
TheOneKEA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Somewhere in England, waiting for ROTK and drooling over the A64 3000+
Posts: 417
Send a message via ICQ to TheOneKEA Send a message via AIM to TheOneKEA Send a message via Yahoo to TheOneKEA
Default

Not quite. KT133A and KT266A chipsets only added proper FSB speeds, IIRC. The KT400, despite the whole DDR400 fiasco, is different enough to warrant a full new name. Hence, KT400.

I have a theory: VIA is not bothering to fix its DDR400 controller for two reasons: A) they want to put DDR2 into the KT400 or B) they have something else to release which DOES fix the DDR400 problems, or otherwise.

Comments? This is just a theory.....
__________________
/me \/\/@|\|t5 $$$$$ F0r @|\| u65r 3|33t G@/\/\1|\|G r1G

SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/
Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Mozilla Firefox 0.8

Registered Linux User #289618
TheOneKEA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-02, 07:44 PM   #5
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

does anyone have access to benchmark data that shows a KT400 using DDR333 against a KT333 using DDR33? i've only seen a KT400 using CL2.5 DDR400, and quite predictably, the KT333 defeated it.

edit: ok, i found a review and the KT400 with DDR333 is just as fast as the KT333
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-02, 02:07 AM   #6
Switch
Registered User
 
Switch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 149
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by TheOneKEA
Not quite. KT133A and KT266A chipsets only added proper FSB speeds, IIRC. The KT400, despite the whole DDR400 fiasco, is different enough to warrant a full new name. Hence, KT400.

I have a theory: VIA is not bothering to fix its DDR400 controller for two reasons: A) they want to put DDR2 into the KT400 or B) they have something else to release which DOES fix the DDR400 problems, or otherwise.

Comments? This is just a theory.....
The KT266A didn't have any FSB changes. Just a tweaked memory controller. Fixed a USB problem when using a FSB of over 143 too.
Switch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-02, 08:17 AM   #7
TheOneKEA
Fifteen-K Saiyan Bastard
 
TheOneKEA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Somewhere in England, waiting for ROTK and drooling over the A64 3000+
Posts: 417
Send a message via ICQ to TheOneKEA Send a message via AIM to TheOneKEA Send a message via Yahoo to TheOneKEA
Unhappy Oh

Oh - I thought it did. Whoops.
__________________
/me \/\/@|\|t5 $$$$$ F0r @|\| u65r 3|33t G@/\/\1|\|G r1G

SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/
Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Mozilla Firefox 0.8

Registered Linux User #289618
TheOneKEA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-02, 12:46 PM   #8
Switch
Registered User
 
Switch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 149
Default Re: Oh

Quote:
Originally posted by TheOneKEA
Oh - I thought it did. Whoops.
Over all though, the KT266 was a very unimpressive chipset. The KT400 resembles it in many ways. I remember the days when the KT266 had just been released, in many applications it didn't beat the mature KT133A. Looks a lot like today's KT400 not being able to surpass the KT333. In the end though the KT266 did end up beating the KT133A in all applications. Of course, shortly after tha the KT266A was released and it was the fastest thing available. Lets just hope that VIA will do the same with KT400, either fix it or very shortly replace it. Being Via, they're probably going to put most of their efforts into replacing it.

The only reason why I'd even concider buying a KT400 based board is if it had that 1/6 PCI divider, allowing me to run an Athlon XP at 400MHz FSB.
Switch is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-02, 01:22 PM   #9
TheOneKEA
Fifteen-K Saiyan Bastard
 
TheOneKEA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Somewhere in England, waiting for ROTK and drooling over the A64 3000+
Posts: 417
Send a message via ICQ to TheOneKEA Send a message via AIM to TheOneKEA Send a message via Yahoo to TheOneKEA
Talking Oyah

Oyah - serious wonderfullness factor there. Yee-hah

200x15=3000

Try that and see what happens.
__________________
/me \/\/@|\|t5 $$$$$ F0r @|\| u65r 3|33t G@/\/\1|\|G r1G

SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/
Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Mozilla Firefox 0.8

Registered Linux User #289618
TheOneKEA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-02, 07:38 PM   #10
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

more importantly, AMD's Irongate and Alladin's chipset both outperformed VIA's original KT266 by a good margin.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-02, 07:16 AM   #11
TheOneKEA
Fifteen-K Saiyan Bastard
 
TheOneKEA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Somewhere in England, waiting for ROTK and drooling over the A64 3000+
Posts: 417
Send a message via ICQ to TheOneKEA Send a message via AIM to TheOneKEA Send a message via Yahoo to TheOneKEA
Default

I've never seen an AMD chipset in operation; how's its performance and its feature list compare to nVidia and VIA?
__________________
/me \/\/@|\|t5 $$$$$ F0r @|\| u65r 3|33t G@/\/\1|\|G r1G

SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/
Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Mozilla Firefox 0.8

Registered Linux User #289618
TheOneKEA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-02, 10:29 AM   #12
SnakeEyes
Registered User
 
SnakeEyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Zurich, IL
Posts: 502
Send a message via ICQ to SnakeEyes
Thumbs up

I had an Asus A7M266 hybrid chipset motherboard (AMD / VIA), and I can actually say that for everything except memory bandwidth, it was on par (or better, in the case of PCI bandwidth) than my KT333 motherboard is right now. But I'm using an XP2100+ overclocked in the new motherboard, which is where my biggest issue with the A7M was- Asus decided to pull both the onboard dipswitch and the bios capability for adjusting the fsb, otherwise I'd probably still be using that motherboard instead of this MSI, despite the memory bandwidth improvement. The PCI issues with the Via chipset don't seem to be causing instability at all, but it does severely cripple my IBM 2x60GB 7200RPM RAID0 array's performance, especially compared to the same drives/controller working on the Asus. It's actually a noticable difference in performance too.

I'll most likely end up going with the nForce2 for my next upgrade, probably paired with a Barton and 512MB PC2700CAS2 ram (unless I can afford some brand name 512MB CAS2 PC3200..) and either an R9700Pro or the nV30. (All this speculation / comparison is making me impatient for next spring, when I'll be able to do my upgrade, even though I've already got a fairly kickbutt system compared to lots of people )
__________________
Snake-Eyes
SnakeEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Brief History Of The Battle Arena, Part Two News Archived News Items 0 10-26-12 11:40 AM
Hard Choices: Gaming Laptops, Part Two News Archived News Items 0 09-14-12 06:10 PM
Indies On Steam Greenlight, Part 2: Possible Futures News Archived News Items 0 09-06-12 10:30 AM
Civilization V: The Celtic Chronicle, part 3 (520 A.D. to 1450 A.D.) News Gaming Headlines 0 07-12-12 06:10 AM
10 (or so) of the worst passwords exposed by the LinkedIn hack News Archived News Items 0 06-06-12 07:20 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2014, nV News.