Albatron

Albatron didn’t have a lot to show off at Computex this year. They are doing very well with their current line of 865PE and nForce2 motherboards.

Pictured above is Albatron’s nForce3 motherboard. Right now, Albatron isn’t too enthusiastic about Athlon 64, which is quite a change of tone from other motherboard makers who believe Athlon 64 can do quite well with more quantity. Albatron cited memory issues and compatibility as problems for Athlon 64. However, we haven’t run into any real issues with Athlon 64 motherboards at this point in time; so far Athlon 64 motherboards have proven to be extremely mature. Anyway, Albatron believes that nForce3 is the way to go for Athlon 64 if it does take off soon.

One other interesting tidbit of information we learned from Albatron is that they are skipping VIA’s PT880 dual channel DDR400 Pentium 4 chipset in favor of VIA’s PT890, which is slated for November. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with PT880 though, Albatron just doesn’t need to interrupt their current product cycle with a PT880, especially since they’re going to introduce an 875P motherboard to displace their 865PE-based PX865PE Pro II next month.

Index Biostar
Comments Locked

21 Comments

View All Comments

  • Anonymous User - Saturday, September 27, 2003 - link


    #9 My point is: Where are the Benchmarks?

    The only place where I can compare the Itanium2's is SPEC.org (www.spec.org)

    SPEC int 2000
    (http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cint2000.html)
    Itanium 2 1500Mhz, 6Mb L3 cache 12Gb RAM
    base 1322 peak 1322
    (http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q3/cpu2...

    Itanium 2 1400Mhz, 4Mb L3 cache 8Gb RAM
    base 926 peak 926
    (http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q3/cpu2...

    I know that clock speed is not the same but is the closest i can get. The clock speed of 1400Mhz itanium2 is 93% of the 1500 itanium2. It has less cache. SPEC result of 1400 itanium2 is 70%
    of 1500Mhz itanium2. I wonder how a 1400Mhz, 1,5Mb L3 cache itanium2 would do in SPEC.

    The article talks about "cheap itaniums", and by cheap they mean $744 for 1.0Ghz and $1,172 for 1.4Ghz.

    For about the same price you could buy an Athlon FX-51.
    Before you talk about the 1400 itanium2 had less RAM look at these SPEC results, with 1Gb RAM

    Athlon FX-51 2200Mhz, 1Gb RAM
    base 1376 peak 1447
    (http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q3/cpu2...
  • Andrew Ku - Saturday, September 27, 2003 - link

    #7 Typo, we fixed it. Thanks for being patient.
  • Anonymous User - Saturday, September 27, 2003 - link

    #8, it's not a difficult concept to comprehend. If you really think that the extra 4.5MB of L3 are going to make a huge difference in widely used 64-bit applications, you have a lot to learn about modern MPUs.
  • Anonymous User - Saturday, September 27, 2003 - link

    'quote' "I2’s 32-bit performance is no where near as fast as Opteron series processors, but depending on the 64-bit application, I2 is much faster, and could be much faster in the future when more applications are developed specifically for IA-64." '/quote'

    This is nonsense. Where are the performance numbers of an Itanium running at 1.0Ghz and 1.4Ghz with only 1.5Mb L3 cache? the only numbers I'am aware of are the 1.5Ghz with 6Mb L3 cache and they should not be the same.
  • Anonymous User - Saturday, September 27, 2003 - link

    umm...what happened to Computex Day #4? it went from day 1, 2,3,5 ?

    didnt anything happen of the 4th day??
  • Anonymous User - Friday, September 26, 2003 - link

    I'm also looking forward to the XGI cards... Wasn't there a blurb on AT a few days ago about how the Volari 8 offered 6000+ 3dMarks?
    Of course, I'm not one of those extreme money-wasters who'd sink $500 on a single component (maybe the CPU, and the RAM), so I'd be looking more at the performance of their mid-range card (the V5?). Considering nVidia's weak overall performance in DX9, XGI only really has to compete with the 9500/9600 from ATI in the mid-range, and if its high end can compete with ATI's high end pretty easily (using beta drivers, no less), I don't see why the V5 couldn't penetrate the market and become a contender in the mid-range market. Here's hoping it doesn't turn into a Phantom or any of the other many attempts to break into graphics cards and failing miserably...
  • Xelloss - Friday, September 26, 2003 - link

    A desktop Itanium2 would be pretty damn useless at this point anyhow. Yeah, you could run linux on it, but I'd imagine you'd have some trouble compiling a lot of software for it. I don't think Itanium is currently a high priority target architecture for desktop software.

    You could probably run apache, etc., but then why buy a desktop machine?
  • AgaBooga - Friday, September 26, 2003 - link

    Yeah, don't expect Itanium 2 for desktop anytime soon.
  • Anonymous User - Friday, September 26, 2003 - link

    Until they replace some of those Xeons with the I2 line, I doubt you'll be seeing it at all in desktops.
  • jliechty - Friday, September 26, 2003 - link

    Well, now we have some half-reasonably-priced Itanium 2s. The big question is if the "Average Joe" will ever be able to purchase one from Newegg.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now