| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 104673 | 2009-11-04 19:31:00 | Well we knew that anyway......cheap boards. | pctek (84) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 827151 | 2009-11-04 19:31:00 | We understand that cheaper boards use lower-capacity voltage regulators, but lower capacity simply adds to the need for such protection. Any motherboard too cheaply made to include over-current protection shouldn’t even have manual voltage control, but should instead be marketed towards the non-overclocking whitebox market. ASRock proved itself by using nothing more than a BIOS update to enable the over-current protection already included in P55 Pro. MSI’s P55-CD53, we can’t find a reason why any level of enthusiast would choose it over the less-expensive, better-featured, and better-overclocking ASRock P55 Pro. By now, we’re sure many readers are asking “weren’t there three failing boards in the original comparison?” Unfortunately, ECS was unable to provide a solution to our overclocking and power woes.................. if only the board had survived. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 827152 | 2009-11-05 00:03:00 | :lol: ECS. So is ASRock making a good name for itself? My last ASRock motherboard was an old 478 and it was pretty useless for overclocking. |
qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 827153 | 2009-11-05 00:17:00 | The other PC here is an Asrock P4 2.4, running Vista on 1 GB. Even tho there are no drivers for it, Vista's LAN and sound drivers work fine. | Speedy Gonzales (78) | ||
| 827154 | 2009-11-05 00:54:00 | Original article here www.tomshardware.com | PaulD (232) | ||
| 1 | |||||