News Headlines
- Mon, May 20
- Forzavista trademarked ahead of tomorrow's Xbox event, likely a feature of Forza 5
- Splinter Cell: Blacklist video introduces co-op and Sam Fisher's partner, Isaac Briggs
- Rhode Island set to sell Kingdoms of Amalur assets in order to try and recover part of $130 million debt
- Watch Dogs pre-order incentives detailed, including some locked gameplay content and other perks
- Shadow Warrior announced, reimagining of 3D Realms' classic FPS from the Hard Reset developers
New Articles
Related Articles

A decent showing for WinRAR. It appears that about 560 kilobytes per second is the norm for the 680i chipset. Both of the Intel chipsets are way out infront, suggesting that no one can beat Intel for sheer FSB speed performance.

There is an issue with the NVIDIA 680i chipset, which appears to also plague the latest Intel P935 Bearlake chipset. With our 680i based boards, there is some difficulty in SATA communications, despite trying on multiple occasions and in multiple fashions to install the SATA drivers. For some reason, it appears that these drivers don't want to stick. And it appears to be the same with the new Intel P935 chipset.
It is frustrating, but unavoidable. All it would require though is a major BIOS update (a good hunk of it written by NVIDIA) to help facilitate SATA driver/chipset communications. Oh well, we'll have to live with what we've got.

Pretty good IDE speeds.

Unfortunately, when the Gigabyte P35-DS3R motherboard was being reviewed, no HDTach USB speed tests were preformed due to it not recognizing our USB drive. But, based upon past experience with Intel based chipsets, and for the figures we see with the ASUS P5B-E motherboard running the Intel P965 chipset, we could expect the Gigabyte P35-DS3R to perform about the same. Then again, USB speeds aren't the end all and be all of motherboard performance.

ps; i am aware that it looks like the originator is me because ive been sniffing around for this mobo...i assure you that im not.
http://vip.asus.com/forum/topic.aspx?board_id=1&model=Striker+Extreme&SLanguage=en-us
But honestly, I never encountered any signigiant problems during my testing. Sure, the slow SATA speed results from HDTach bothered me, but that may have been a communications error between HDTach and the SATA controller (no being able to properly register the correct SATA speed when everything was running fine).
Furthermore, I decided not to run the RightMark Audio tests as I received all zeros for the CPU utilization during that test. Yeah, no CPU load when running audio would be nice, but would also be impossible.
As I had concluded in my article, the Asus Striker is a sweet piece of hardware that needs a few good BIOS revisions before it'll start to shine (already great though).
Hmmm, I wonder if some extreme water cooling could get this board past 4GHz? I wouldn't doubt it
I'm curious, the particular board you reviewed; did Asus send it to you, or is it an off-the-shelf retail part?
And yes, Asus did send us this board. They didn't cherry pick it however. No one at Asus tested a batch full of Strikers and sent us the best of the lot. What we got would pretty much be what the average consumer could expect if they went out an bought a Striker of their own.
But as for that issue of some Strikers hitting a 500MHz plus FSB, those review sites actually sent their Striker back to Asus to get a better one that would hit 500MHz plus.
That seems unfair. In relation, we've had memory modules pass through Neoseeeker with the manufacturers claim that said modules will hit some very high timings. When they don't meet these specs, we send them back and get a pair that do meet spec. But we always report on out initial findings, regardless of how good or how bad the performance was.
The average consumer can't send their board back to Asus and request one that'll hit some higher performance standard. All of our testing and results are what the average consumer can expect if they we to purchase the same part (though performance may vary slightly).
Furthermore, some sites will claim an outrageous overclock acheivement regardless of stability. For us, it isn't enought that the board simply POSTs, but it has to run our tests and cannot crash. If it does crash, we count that as unstable and would not claim it as our final figure. Stability is of the utmost importance.
I wasn't implying that you had received a hand-picked board, I was just asking.
I am always skeptical, however, when manufacturers supply reviewers with product.
If you have taken time to visit the Striker Extreme forum, I think you will find that you were fortunate to receive a relatively good mobo.
I hope Asus decides to step up and resolve the many issues with this board.
It's like 'Consumer Reports'. They will go out and buy the products they review and rate. They won't accept a product direct from the factory. A car maker could have a team of mechanics rebuild and blueprint the car from scratch, invalidating the quality of their production products.
But I do agree in that Asus has to clean up the Striker. Most of its ills right now lay within the BIOS. I'll probably check back with subsequent BIOS revisions and see what happens, and keep the article updated as such.
CPU: Core 2 Duo E6850 batch #L723A943
RAM: 2GB Corsair Dominator 10000
Motherboard: Asus Striker Extreme (bios 1303)
Video card: Evga 8800 GTX Super overclocked version
Hard drives: 3 (750GB Western Digital 7500AAKS)
Power Supply: 750W PC Power & Cooling Quad
And a VapoChill LS that is keeping the CPU into the negative tempas. And all I can get is a measly 3.7Ghz
Any professional help would be appreciated
Adam