Talk:Socket 7 Builds
The presented VX Pro and TX Pro facts should be removed since they do not contain valuable information. Even the linked Redhill Guide article mentiones that the VX Pro is slower and that the TX Pro ran quite well even at 75 MHz. Quite a contradiction to whats written here.
TX Pro is btw the SIS5591 chipset and VX Pro+ the Apollo VPX chipset.
I have boards with both chipsets and I don't have anything to complain about these boards. Lower performance compared to i430VX might be the case for the VX Pro+, i did no direct comparison. The comparison should be done against another Apollo VPX board.Enigma (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2013 (EST)
Is that better? :) --RacoonRider (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2013 (EST)
Yes. Still the fact with the high defect rates has no source. Redhill writes that PCChips builds mainboards with lowest quality, but defect rates for VX Pro+ and TX Pro are not given. So it is open, if these boards had high defect rates. At least the boards I have still work, but that doesn't tell statistics. Also defect rate tend to follow the bath tub curve. So if anyone gets such a mainboard and it is still working it is more unlikely to fail soon.
So I would change the argumentation this way, that the boards were manufactured by PC Chips, a company that is known to use lowest quality components. I would not mention defect rates for these boards, as I do not know them and there is no source for defect rates. Enigma (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2013 (EST)
As a matter of fact, there is. http://redhill.net.au/b/b-bad.html
Second, they are made by PC Chips, renowned as the industry's cheapest, lowest-quality manufacturer. Their defective rates are legendary, between 10-15% in an industry where 5% or less is considered good. PC Chips was also the originator of putting "fake" plastic cache chips on motherboards. With these VX Pro boards you really do get what you pay for. ... The price is unbeatable, but price has always been PC Chip's sole selling point. ... Why would you buy a motherboard made by the industry's absolute lowest bidder? --RacoonRider (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2013 (EST)
