Gigabyte overtakes Asustek as largest motherboard vendor

[DanceswithUnix]

I'm sure Scan could contribute, but returns is far too complex a subject to just boil down to a simple number and publishing returns figures would be opening a complete bag of worms probably for no real benefit to anyone.

Reliability is usually pretty good on computer parts. Even my old OCZ SSD which is probably well into the "Infamous" category for reliability works fine. Far more important is how a company deals with problems when they arise.

Last time I tried to use the Asus support it was a pretty bad experience. Thankfully I have found it rare that I had to use it. Their boards have been either dead on arrival or just work, BIOS updates tend to be quite frequent. I have a few Gigabyte boards, they make for a noisy computer with over aggressive fans, and I don't like the BIOS. The Gigabyte range of choice is just better though, looking for an ITX socket FM2+ board recently I couldn't find an Asus one so it basically came down to MSI vs Gigabyte.

[excalibur2]

I'm sure Scan could contribute, but returns is far too complex a subject to just boil down to a simple number and publishing returns figures would be opening a complete bag of worms probably for no real benefit to anyone.

Reliability is usually pretty good on computer parts. Even my old OCZ SSD which is probably well into the "Infamous" category for reliability works fine. Far more important is how a company deals with problems when they arise.

Last time I tried to use the Asus support it was a pretty bad experience. Thankfully I have found it rare that I had to use it. Their boards have been either dead on arrival or just work, BIOS updates tend to be quite frequent. I have a few Gigabyte boards, they make for a noisy computer with over aggressive fans, and I don't like the BIOS. The Gigabyte range of choice is just better though, looking for an ITX socket FM2+ board recently I couldn't find an Asus one so it basically came down to MSI vs Gigabyte.

Well without info about any product, then the public are left in the dark to what is value for money or poor quality from some manufacturers etc, you know what I mean e.g. which magazine reports for a rough guide.......but as motherboards are so reliable now you would be unlucky to get a faulty board and probably stats would be of no value (but still interesting reading though).

Just to add to the site stats:- I will not buy Corsair Vengeance matched pair ram again as mine was faulty and only found out when I had problems when upgrading to win 7 64bits, anyway had to send it to Holland and they replaced it free.

[shaithis]

There was a time I would always buy Asus, then a time I would only buy Gigabyte.......these days I prefer Asrock but will take an Asus or Gigabyte in some circumstances.

I really have found both Asus and Gigabytes UEFI BIOSes to be a bit problematic at times.

[Kevsta]

Interestingly my first proper motherboard was a Gigabyte GA-430HX2, incredibly they still have the info and BIOS on their website:

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/pro...px?pid=1556#sp

[spl]

I'm sure Scan could contribute, but returns is far too complex a subject to just boil down to a simple number and publishing returns figures would be opening a complete bag of worms probably for no real benefit to anyone.

It's of significant benefit to Gigabyte in this case! Personally I'd like to see far more stats on this.

Far more important is how a company deals with problems when they arise.

Not to me it isn't. I only buy a new computer every few years and if I upgrade a graphics card, I sell the old one to offset against the cost. So I have no spares. If I have to RMA a part, my computer is out of action until the replacement arrives (I have no integrated graphics either). Not to mention shipping costs and hassle. I'd far prefer the components just work without problems and don't need to be returned.

[Brewster0101]

Mine puts out a lot of coil whine .

I had this on my last two Gigabyte boards - moved to Asus , but I've used MSI/ASUS/GIGABYTE over the last 25 years and too be fair I don't think I've every had a board die on me.

I've moved back to ASUS for builds, primarily due to their awesome fan profiles.
.

Fan profiles really are good on my current Asus board , would like to try a sabratooth board with their over the top fan profiles

[spl]

I had this on my last two Gigabyte boards - moved to Asus , but I've used MSI/ASUS/GIGABYTE over the last 25 years and too be fair I don't think I've every had a board die on me.

Yeah people did warn me about it but I decided it wasn't a total deal-breaker. It is a little annoying (especially when it's idling) but I can live with it. It's an X58 board (X99's granddad) and those were all pretty expensive, but this Gigabyte was almost reasonable so I went for it :-)

I've also never had an MSI, ASUS or Gigabyte product die on me. Three Sapphires have done though, and all within six months after their warranties expired! Also an XFX, but that thing made so much noise it was actually a relief that I had to replace it.

[DanceswithUnix]

It's of significant benefit to Gigabyte in this case! Personally I'd like to see far more stats on this.

Then people start trying to game the stats rather than produce good products. Like we have schools who try to kick out any kids who are difficult to teach and avoid teaching a large range of subjects to game their rank in the league tables rather than actually trying to give the kids the best education they can.

Not to me it isn't. I only buy a new computer every few years and if I upgrade a graphics card, I sell the old one to offset against the cost. So I have no spares. If I have to RMA a part, my computer is out of action until the replacement arrives (I have no integrated graphics either). Not to mention shipping costs and hassle. I'd far prefer the components just work without problems and don't need to be returned.

OK, so company A has a 2% return rate and company B has a 3% returns rate. I believe those are fairly typical figures, and low enough that noise in the measurement of those figures is significant. Better to think of it as 98% and 97% chance of an easy life where it all just works.

But company B has an 3 day turn around time in the same country whereas company B requires shipping the device 1000 miles at your own expense where they won't bother looking at it for a fortnight, then claim they are out of equivalent stock leaving you out of action for a month. So neither company is likely to have a part fail on you, but one is a nightmare if it does.

Then there is a problem of transient design faults. Bumpgate, Deathstar, Intel with their SATA port problems. They are rare enough to be newsworthy when they happen, but would dominate any returns figures if they happen in ways that are hard to analyse.

I was once without a graphics card for 3 months because I returned it 11 months into the warranty and they didn't make them any more. Do I avoid those companies any more? No, quite the contrary, because I was compensated with a newer and much faster graphics card which I'm sure they didn't legally have to but converted me from annoyed to loyal customer.

Life isn't simple, trying to reduce it down into a simple percentage chart really doesn't work.

[excalibur2]

Good points for us but if you deal in large quantities even 1% can make a difference...I would think Dell choose the most reliable motherboard, and I'm not sure how the system works for the big sellers like Scan, ebuyer etc as surely they would prefer motherboards that are more reliable than have the bother of them being replaced by the manufacturer and this in turn surely would put pressure of the manufacturer to improve quality control and then would in turn lead to the manufacturer to put pressure on the supplier of parts to tighten up their quality control if necessary.
So stats can be useful in showing how well the motherboard makers are doing although as you say for us individuals "Better to think of it as 98% and 97% chance of an easy life where it all just works."

[DanceswithUnix]

I would think Dell choose the most reliable motherboard

More likely they will choose the most profitable motherboard, which isn't necessarily the same. Using the most reliable parts could cost more, halving the profit per sale with no way of finding twice the sales to make up for it.

Having said that, quality/reliability is how ASUS got off the ground. You could buy a 486 motherboard with "write back cache" (for those that remember such shenanigans) made presumable out of cardboard and cheese for how long it was going to last, or you could pay more and get an ASUS board which was rock solid and came with an integrated SCSI controller. I had the 486-PVI-SP3 with a SiS chipset, it was crazy fast for a 486 (in those days motherboards did make a difference to speed) and ran for years. They started the Asrock brand so they could compete with the cheap motherboard companies without sacrificing quality. I think even now, if you buy one of the more expensive Asus boards you are getting a good one. If you are going below about £60, then I don't know if it matters who you buy from.

[excalibur2]

More likely they will choose the most profitable motherboard, which isn't necessarily the same. Using the most reliable parts could cost more, halving the profit per sale with no way of finding twice the sales to make up for it.

Well OK the most profitable and reliable ..but if you were in charge of buying for a small\medium size org, who would you buy from if e.g. Dell didn't sell reliable computers.

[spl]

Then people start trying to game the stats rather than produce good products. Like we have schools who try to kick out any kids who are difficult to teach and avoid teaching a large range of subjects to game their rank in the league tables rather than actually trying to give the kids the best education they can.

Your school analogy is a bit of a stretch. I don't even know where to begin on the differences. That's beside the point though. Want to explain to me how on earth a manufacturer can 'game the stats'? To my mind, all they can do is produce products that are less likely to fail. Win win.

As for the rest, I'm not convinced. 3% fail rate versus 2% means one board is 50% more likely to fail than the other is. To me that's significant and I will absolutely give it consideration.

I'm not sure what you're referring to by 'deathstar' (I've heard IBM Hitachi Deskstar hard disks referred to as that?) but why would 'bumpgate' make any one manufacturer look any better or worse than the rest? It affected all GeForce manufacturers equally. Similarly, why would one SSD manufacturer come off better or worse than the rest as a result of Intel's chipset issues? Really not clear what your argument is here.