ASRock 775dual-vsta and intel quad core QX6700

[azzerico11]

this motherboard support new intel QX 6700 quad core? for cpu list support on asrock site ,yes ,after bios P.2.10 QX6700 kentsfield is supported,but it is correct? whe are differences beethewen PT880pro/ultra installed on 775dual-vsta and PT880 ultra installed on 4CoreDual-VSTA?

[bluetooth]

Yes. that is correct. Both boards can support Kentsfield. The only difference is the north bridge used. The 4CoreDual-VSTA will use the PT880Ultra chipset which officially supports 1066 processors. The PT880Pro actually only supporst 800MHz officially but can be o/c to support 1066.

If it comes to Kentsfield, it would be better to run with the official spec PT880Ultra chip.

That is what i understand from ASRock.

[Framer]

Hello, Did you (or anyone) ever try a quad core on the NON quad core 775dual-vsta?
Before i buy a quad core CPU i would appreciate to hear from others.
Thanks a lot.

[Framer]

OK i took a chance on it.
After having flashed the latest available BIOS, i just swapped my E6400 Core Duo with a Q6600 and here it goes.

In order to check the safety margin i tried some overclocking and could get it to run @ 2500Mhz.

Note that, as indicated on Asrock web site * this Mobo drives Quad Cores at a slightly reduced speed (5%). Actually it runs at 2306Mhz by default.
Other than this it works nicely.

However the quad core by itself doesn't make a big difference vs dual core in everyday's usage. On video editing with Pinnacle Studio it just compresses my video somewhat faster. I wouldn't recommand a dual to quad core upgrade unless you are prepared to pay for a small performance increase.

[cmar]

Yes I gave up trying to get my quad to run at specification on this board (4 Core Dual VSTA) it really shouldn't be advertised as supporting quads as it will not run them at specification. I found even at the Asrock "quad speed" the board wasn't particularly stable, and the VIA USB2 support to be pretty patchy too.

I gave up and swapped mine out for a Foxconn P965 board, based on the proven Intel 965 chipset, which is, faster, more stable, has more features, is better designed and made, has no issues with Gen 2.0 video cards, and is actually CHEAPER.

I'm just sorry I didn't go this way from the beginning.

[bluetooth]

cmar, you mean your kentsfield processor qx6700 can't even BOOT? or is it with wierd issues. tell us more.

[cmar]

Yes I was using a Q6600 on an Asrock 4Core Dual VSTA.
I already had a PCIE video card and it was mostly for the two IDE ports and the ability to use DDR 400 which I bought the board. However I found out after buying that it simply would not run my Q6600 at 266 FSB.

Even when the BIOS was set to AUOT it reads 266 but it actually runs at 253, you have to set the board in overclock mode to attempt to make the board run at 266.
However in my case any attempt to actually run at 266 was plagued by BSOD, lockups at boot up, or shortly after. In attempt to fix this firstly I updated the BIOS, bought DDR2 ram, a new PSU, and tried every possible combination of BIOS settings.
This same processor works perfectly on the 965 board.
I thought that the VIA Ultra chips were supposed to be Intel certified to run at 266.

By this time I could (and should) have bought a better board and a PCI IDE card to stick my extra drives on.

I searched the forums and found lots of other quad users with exactly the same problem, shortly after Asrock changed their CPU compatibility list to say that the board will slightly underclock quad core processors.

I am prepared to accept that if I had simply used a C2DUO then some of these problems may not have arisen, but that is not the case.
I didn't pay for a 2.4 Gig processor to run it at 2.2. If a M/B can't run a processor at specification, then it shouldn't be sold as supporting it.

I also experienced the nVidia 3D corruption issues which many other users experienced, and reported in VIA Arena, and several NV forums, this is actually quite easy to fix however, and I posted the fix here previously.
However many users in those forums RMA'd perfectly good videocards because of this glitch.
Not to mention the new problems with the VIA chipset and PCIE 2.0 NV cards.

Also I had lots of problems with USB 2.0 devices, randomly not being recognised, running slow, or locking up (these same devices work perfectly with the Foxconn board) apparently another VIA chipset issue.

This was my third Asrock board, the previous two being stable, problem free, AMD boards, with SiS and ULI chipsets.

I fear after this experience, it may be my last for a while.

[Tuvoc]

Yes, my AsRock 939 Dual SATA2 has worked flawlessly as a basis for my AMD box for 2 years now, but when I built two Intel Quad Core boxes there were plenty of good value boards available from the likes of ASUS and Gigabyte, so I gave AsRock a miss. It is unlikely I'll be back either. The 939Dual SATA2 served the purpose of originally taking an AGP card which was later replaced by a PCI-E card, and on top of that is a very good board. But apart from specialties like that which were unique to AsRock, I'm not sure why I'd choose an AsRock board over a similarly priced board from say ASUS or Gigabyte