First, does anyone have one yet? If so, with what cpu, and has FS performance improved from what you had before?I've seen several of the 865 and 875 series MB's for sale, but nearly all have onboard Audio--a feature I'd rather not have. Is there a way to disable it at least, so no conflicts happen with add-on audio and the onboard? The same question goes for the onboard LAN ports?Right now, I'm considering matching up a 2.4 MHZ P4 with one of the 865 or 875 MB's. My budget, including RAM, is around $400-450.... I plan on a purchase sometime in July/August...Regards,John

>I've seen several of the 865 and 875 series MB's for sale, but>nearly all have onboard Audio--a feature I'd rather not have. >Is there a way to disable it at least, so no conflicts happen>with add-on audio and the onboard? The same question goes for>the onboard LAN ports?Every system I have seen with onboard audio/ethernet has an option in the BIOS to disable those features.>Right now, I'm considering matching up a 2.4 MHZ P4 with one>of the 865 or 875 MB's. My budget, including RAM, is around>$400-450.... I plan on a purchase sometime in July/August...By then you should be able to afford a bit faster puter with that same amount of cash:)

dont make the same stupid mistake that i did, BUY AMD!!! and ATi. ATi all the way, intel...sucks. i dont care if i get flamed for that, but they do, wait for a barton XP3200+ and the Nforce2 v2 chipset, it will OWN!and to answer your original question, 800FSB doesnt give you more than a 3-5% increase in real-world benchmarks

>flamed for that, but they do, wait for a barton XP3200+ and>the Nforce2 v2 chipset, it will OWN!I don't think so. The latest benchmarks show that this 3200 label is well overrated. It should be 2800 perhaps. Considering the prive of this chip - it is too expensive for what it offers.Read long articel on Toms Hardware about this chip. It is time for AMD to give us Athlon 64 if they want to stay in the competition.

sorry, i guess i havent been reading articles as much as i usually do. woops.

>dont make the same stupid mistake that i did, BUY AMD!!! and>ATi. ATi all the way, intel...sucks. i dont care if i get>flamed for that, but they do, wait for a barton XP3200+ and>the Nforce2 v2 chipset, it will OWN!and to answer your>original question, 800FSB doesnt give you more than a 3-5%>increase in real-world benchmarksYour supposedly pulling 18221 3DMarks w your machine and your complaining that Intel sucks?? You think you'll pull that w the 3200 Barton huh?? Your pushing a 700 Mhz overclock w your "Sucky" Intel and your still complaining.What about the new KT400A From Via for you AMD Junkies?? Benchmarks within 1-2% of the Nforce2. This is straight from Toms Site......"The Athlon XP 3200+ has laid claim to the title of "Fastest Desktop CPU." But in reality, though, it is something entirely different: the mighty value champ has degraded into a pusillanimous paper tiger. Although, our testing engineers only found fault with the aggressive model-numbering system. The benchmark tests, on the other hand, leave no room for doubt: XP 2800+ would have been a more realistic label for the processor, which wouldn't have been a problem for anyone, if AMD still wants to go toe-to-toe with Intel's P4. But the 3200 label is much too aggressive - especially since Intel will be introducing an increased FSB clock for its lower-clocked P4 CPUs." As far as your performance figures for the 800Mhz FSB P4 your correct to a point. Depending on who does the testing you will see a 3-10% difference or performance increase. This is mainly due to the fact that you can run a 533 FSB P4 at 200 Mhz FSB. Bottom Line, AMD needs no help. Yes they are over optimistic about the performance ratings of their CPU's but they have to be. What would most consumer want to purchase..A P4 at 3 Ghz or an AMD at 3200+..So much of it is marketing. You have to remember that AMD is doing the numbers it is at a much lower FSB and Core clock Speed. For this they deserve credit. They will have to due something though. The Prescott is on it's way as well as some 3.4 and Higher P4's...This is great for us though.....Bobby

To BritishAirways.....I've owned Intel cpu's for years--my first was a 386SX. I watched when FS2002 was released, and it seemed a large number of problems were on AMD equipped systems. May be coincidence, may be the MB chipset, but for whatever reason, I saw a lot of issues. My Intel chips have been reliable, and that's what counts for me--not which chip is a few points faster than the other. I guess you could say Intel has built up a loyalty in me, and if I had started with AMD's and had the same success, I'd be singing a different tune. And last, I manage 2000 workstations with Intel chips. I've never had a cpu failure in three years, and they run 24x7....Also, I noticed you have an Intel chip... I'm curious why you say "don't make the same mistake?" If it's related to overclocking, don't worry about answering, as I don't overclock my chips. But I'm curious why someone would say that who has an Intel chip?