ASUS releases the Z8NA-D6C

23 Comments

View All Comments

• YGDRASSIL - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link

  >>This means you can use this machine as a File Server,
  >>Web Server, Citrix/Terminal Server, Low end CAD Station
  >>and even a content creation / Video Editing machine.
  And paired with a GTX295 even some gaming ;-))
  

• fri2219 - Monday, May 11, 2009 - link

  That layout is an abortion. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.
  
  ASUS really ought to stick to selling junk to spoiled children who think Quadro cards are worthless because of their Crysis FPS benchmarks.

• tshen83 - Monday, May 11, 2009 - link

  This is a workstation board. Plus, to run the memory controller at full speed 1333Mhz, you can only use 1 DIMM per channel anyway. 1DIMM per channel also helps overclocking and reduces the memory circuitry complexity and cost(6 DIMM per socket designs require the motherboard to handle 24 ranks of memory for a 6x quad rank configuration) 3DIMM design only gives 12 ranks, which is enough for most people. You can't tell me that 24GB of ram(6x 4GB) isn't enough for workstation load?
  
  It is overall a superb design for the price.
  
  BTW, the kind of spoiled children who think Quadro cards are worthless because of their Crysis FPS benchmarks are the ones who are happily typing on a Phenom II computer. SARCASM.
  

• jiggpig - Monday, May 11, 2009 - link

  I assume that overclocking is not supported on this board. Twin xeons at 4ghz would be a beautiful thing.

• tshen83 - Monday, May 11, 2009 - link

  Thanks for reciting what I have been saying all along, at least it is smarter than pumping AMD's phenom junk.

• nubie - Monday, May 11, 2009 - link

  Do you honestly believe that we would be able to build a 8-core workstation for under $1,000 if it wasn't for AMD's competitive products?
  
  I for one find it hard to believe.
  
  AMD Phenom II is a fine product. Easily competitive with Core2.
  
  Complain all you like that it isn't competitive clock for clock, and it isn't competitive with i7.
  
  Facts remain that AMD isn't "junk", merely of perceived lesser quality or value.
  
  If I wanted to build an 8-core workstation I would without a doubt pick Intel.
  
  If I needed 2-4 cores AMD would be at the fore-front of my choices. At least until i5 comes along. I usually spend from $250-500 on a build or upgrade, so I am waiting on an RMA to build an e5200 system that will run a little faster than 3.3 ghz. But this build would be around $150-200 ($60 chip, $40 mobo). If I had the extra $100 I would probably have built a Phenom II x3.
  
  Intel doesn't have a lot of compelling products in that price range, they need to get the old 775 stocks sold and release i5 so that there is a reason to go back to them.

• tshen83 - Monday, May 11, 2009 - link

  There is always a pretty word and an ugly word for the same thing.
  
  Junk is the ugly word. "merely of perceived lesser quality or value" are pretty marketing words. Both mean that Phenoms are shitty, now that is the reality.
  
  At every price level, I can name a system from Intel that will handly beat any AMD offering
  
  Athlon X2 @65W? Get Atom 330.(this little dual core 1.6Ghz HT enabled chip is only 8W and costs only 80 dollars with the motherboard) Or Get E5200, E5300.
  
  Phenom x3 at 95W? Priced 100-130. Get The Q8200 from Microcenter. Get an extra core for free
  
  Phenom X4 at $180-$200. Have mac and cheese for dinner and get the i7 920 for $230 from microcenter.
  
  Pro people should be looking at Asus Z8NA-D6C with Dual E5504s or Dual E5520s. E5504s will kick the crap out of any Shanghai, while the E5520s will kick the crap out of Istanbuls when they release it.

• nubie - Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - link

  Atom 330 is not my first choice. Athlon x2 is available in 35w (but that doesn't stop me from undervolting and using less).
  
  Atom 330 is not a powerhouse chip. If you had said Conroe-L core @ 1.2Ghz I probably would have agreed. Although I have just built 2 systems on a Turion 64 ML-30 ($5 apiece on eBay, so I picked up 2). I am pretty sure it can whup an Atom 330, but it might be a close race against a Intel D201GLY2 Conroe-L.
  
  Then of course there is the GeodeNX, which was $125 for a Jetway embedded board back when Via ITX boards were still $300. It is a full on Athlon that can use 14watts.
  
  If you had bothered to read my post you would have seen I did buy an e5200.
  
  I am not sure I get your point. Something is "shitty" because other things kick shit out of it? While they cost more?
  
  I am sorry it comes down to petty name-calling. There is no reason to complain about a fair market value from a competing product line.
  
  I always try to choose the best processor for the job, whether that is AMD or Intel.
  
  I build PC's for many purposes, quiet, ITX mini PC's, Servers, Firewalls, Media extenders, browsing, emulation.
  
  Some just for the bare minimum with single functionality and price in mind.
  
  "Pro people" shouldn't need to be told what they are looking for, they know already. And the products you banished wouldn't exist if there wasn't a market for them. They fulfill somebody's idea of the right price and features for a certain task. (even if you personally don't have the same needs as them it doesn't make their choices or opinions any less valid.)
  
  If you want to talk about wrong, look at people choosing P4 D 3.4ghz processors over a Conroe-L 2.0ghz Celeron 440, even though the 440 can do 3.4ghz, and spank the P4 D even at stock clocks. All while using half the energy.
  
  Or people still on A64 Black editions 90nm process, by choice.
  
  Also some platforms and form factors are available only on certain processors, and for uses where the fastest or most efficient (by piddly 3-10 watt differences) processor isn't even important.

• whatthehey - Monday, May 11, 2009 - link

  You're so full of shit it's pathetic. "Junk" and "perceived lesser quality" are not synonyms, unless you're a tool that buys into perceptions. In testing, the X2 7850 trades blows with the E5300 and is the http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">clear winner in gaming. Don't even get me started on Atom. That's a slow piece of crap processor that's only fit for use in MIDs and netbooks - neither of which I would ever want to use. Welcome back to performance circa 1999, all thanks to the "wonderful" Atom.
  
  Microcenter prices.... you mean http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.p...">like these?? Gee, I don't see Q8200 or Core i7 available there. Perhaps local stores have the chips in stock at lower prices, but that only works for the minority that have access to a store. WTF are you, a Microcenter employee? This is about the fifth time I've seen you fanboying for them! It's all Intel, all the time for tshen83 - and even better is Intel and Microcenter rolled into one!
  
  Intel's 775 platform is aging now and not worth buying into unless you get a great deal. (Actually, AM2/AM2+ is in the same boat.) The problem is, socket 1366 is way too expensive for all but the most diehard users. $230 for the Core i7 920 would be a great price, true, but then it's more like http://www.google.com/products?q=core+i7+920&o...">$280 for the retail CPU, and then you need to factor in higher motherboard and slightly higher RAM costs. (OEM CPUs for $265 will end up costing more once you add in a heatsink.)
  
  DDR2-800 goes for $23 per 2GB DIMM, whereas DDR3 starts at $32 for 2GB DDR3-1333. If you use AM3, then it's a wash, but DDR3 isn't significantly "better" than DDR2; it's just newer and a little faster. It makes more of a difference on laptops where the lower voltage is helpful. Power consumption on desktops isn't a big concern, unless it's more than a 50W difference. 50W running 24/7 for a whole year will cost you about $40, in case you're wondering, so if you only run your PC in the day like most people you're at $20 per year. If $20 a year is important to you, you shouldn't be looking at a new PC right now.
  
  Motherboards for AM2+start at $80 for decent models, or $125 for AM3. Your precious Core i7 starts at a whopping $180, and if you skip the Foxconn and ECS stuff and go for a nicer brand like MSI, Gigabyte or ASUS you're looking at $200 or more. Core 2 stuff is competitive with AMD, though, with a lot of good P45 boards for $100-$150. Then again, you could get an SLI and CF compatible board with Core i7, and that's worth something... but with 4870X2 and GTX 295 it's not a big deal.
  
  FWIW, I don't even run any Phenom systems right now (just sold my last one a couple weeks ago). I also don't run any Core i7 stuff, because it's too expensive. I'm running overclocked Core 2 Quad and Duo CPUs, except for an old socket 939 system with a single core CPU. My kid doesn't know the difference, though. The only time I ever notice a difference between Core 2 Duo or Quad is in video encoding or 3D rendering, neither of which I do that much. Pimping i7 as something people "need" when most can't even tax a dual-core Athlon X2 is retarded. That's "reality", and the only "shitty reality" is your posts, which reek of guerrilla marketing techniques.

• tshen83 - Monday, May 11, 2009 - link

  Just so that you know, I am not afraid to swing back at you. You are like Johan"My Head is in AMD's Ass" whatever his last Dela Gas dude's minime.
  
  Nobody in the professional world gives a shit about gaming performance where it is GPU bound. Just because I mention Microcenter doesn't mean I work for them. Gary Key has mentioned a lot of newegg deals, does that mean he works for newegg?
  
  BTW, I don't work for Intel if your sorry ass brain hasn't figured out yet, so stop bitching and accusing me of any retarded marketing. Core i7 is only too expensive for fucking poor ass fuckers like you. Some people can actually afford to spend 30 dollars more on a CPU.
  
  In the end, you buy the shit you want and I will buy the stuff I want. Technically I don't really give a shit what you AMD idiots do. In the end you just pay more for your power bills for a slower CPU, which is not my problem.
  
  So go fuck yourself and go back to your Arab hole.