Difference between mobo grades

[pjdd]

Please explain the difference in performance that can be expected
between budget, mid-range and high-end motherboards.

I have a fair grasp of factors like features (CPUs supported, expansion
slots, bus speeds, integrated functions, etc), layout, stability,
overclockability, reliability..... What I would like to know is whether
there usually are significant differences in performance between -

1. Mobos from the same manufacturer using the same basic chipset.
2. Mobos using different chipsets.
3. Mobos from different manufacturers using the same chipset and having
comparable features.

By performance I mean things like frame rates in gaming, video encoding
times, and so on.

 

[Ian East]

Please explain the difference in performance that can be expected
between budget, mid-range and high-end motherboards.

I have a fair grasp of factors like features (CPUs supported, expansion
slots, bus speeds, integrated functions, etc), layout, stability,
overclockability, reliability..... What I would like to know is whether
there usually are significant differences in performance between -

1. Mobos from the same manufacturer using the same basic chipset.
2. Mobos using different chipsets.
3. Mobos from different manufacturers using the same chipset and having
comparable features.

By performance I mean things like frame rates in gaming, video encoding
times, and so on.

Assuming CPU and Memory speed/types are the same:

1. Generally pretty much the same. The different trims usually have
different features enabled, fit different form factors, or have
different integrated devices (like video, ethernet, etc...).

2. This can be significant.

3. Generally, performance differences between different mobo
manufacturers using the same basic design are relatively small (like
within 5%). Sometimes mobo manufactures will overclock their busses
to gain an edge in the benchmarks. I wouldn't necessarily go for
what's the fastest, but what's been stable and reliable.

 

[kony]

Please explain the difference in performance that can be expected
between budget, mid-range and high-end motherboards.

I have a fair grasp of factors like features (CPUs supported, expansion
slots, bus speeds, integrated functions, etc), layout, stability,
overclockability, reliability..... What I would like to know is whether
there usually are significant differences in performance between -

1. Mobos from the same manufacturer using the same basic chipset.

No, and in fact, sometimes the better boards actually run
slower with the default settings because they did more
testing and found more optimal "safe" values. This means
there could be more liklihood of instability with the
lower-end boards, BUT if you could, and would, set each
board with the each same chipset registers and timings, it
should perform equally. That's not always possible, but
generally speaking, the performance differences are slight
enough to be of no concern relative to any other factors in
making a decision.

2. Mobos using different chipsets.

Yes, almost always a different chipset will have particular
strengths and weaknesses. It's common to find web reviews
previewing the chipsets when they first debut and comparing
them, as well as running head to head benchmarks between the
popular alternative chipsets. Google for your respective
choice chipsets.

3. Mobos from different manufacturers using the same chipset and having
comparable features.

see #1

By performance I mean things like frame rates in gaming, video encoding
times, and so on.

In summary, minor differences are possible but if a few
percent matters that much, don't worry about it- just buy
the next faster CPU or video card as compared to these kinds
of upgrades, differences between boards running (same CPU
and video card) are relatively minor more often than not.

Now having written the above, I try to avoid SIS most, Via
2nd most, unless it's a budget box and the price is lower...
any savings can be weighed against memory, HDD, CPU, video,
etc- other benefits. Ultimately it's about setting the
budget and seeing what's available for it. I'd rather a SIS
chipset on a major name-brand board than an Intel or nForce
on a generic board though... board quality and bios (bug
patches) are often overlooked but worthwhile in the long
run, IMO.

 

[pjdd]

No, and in fact, sometimes the better boards actually run
slower with the default settings because they did more
testing and found more optimal "safe" values. This means
there could be more liklihood of instability with the
lower-end boards, BUT if you could, and would, set each
board with the each same chipset registers and timings, it
should perform equally. That's not always possible, but
generally speaking, the performance differences are slight
enough to be of no concern relative to any other factors in
making a decision.


Yes, almost always a different chipset will have particular
strengths and weaknesses. It's common to find web reviews
previewing the chipsets when they first debut and comparing
them, as well as running head to head benchmarks between the
popular alternative chipsets. Google for your respective
choice chipsets.


see #1


In summary, minor differences are possible but if a few
percent matters that much, don't worry about it- just buy
the next faster CPU or video card as compared to these kinds
of upgrades, differences between boards running (same CPU
and video card) are relatively minor more often than not.

Now having written the above, I try to avoid SIS most, Via
2nd most, unless it's a budget box and the price is lower...
any savings can be weighed against memory, HDD, CPU, video,
etc- other benefits. Ultimately it's about setting the
budget and seeing what's available for it. I'd rather a SIS
chipset on a major name-brand board than an Intel or nForce
on a generic board though... board quality and bios (bug
patches) are often overlooked but worthwhile in the long
run, IMO.

Thanks for the replies. Assembling computers is not my primary business
but I've been doing 5-10 of them a month for the past few years. Most
of my clients/customers are first-time owners, have little or no
knowledge of computers and rely on me to work out the best
configuration for them. They usually have a very limited (but not
rigidly fixed) budget and the machine is to be used by all members of
the family. Besides non-demanding uses like word processing and playing
mp3's, gaming is important to at least one member but they usually
cannot afford a good graphics card. Most of them are vague about the
role played by the graphics sub-system. They generally keep the same
machine without a major overhaul for at least 2-3 years and it should
not become too obsolete too soon.

A very conflicting set of parameters. So I have to carefully consider
my choice of everything that goes towards making up the whole system
including monitor, keyboard, speakers, mouse, and I have to send for
everything from a distant city. So far practically all my customers are
very happy with the results.

 

[Captin]

Please explain the difference in performance that can be expected
between budget, mid-range and high-end motherboards.

I have a fair grasp of factors like features (CPUs supported,
expansion
slots, bus speeds, integrated functions, etc), layout, stability,
overclockability, reliability..... What I would like to know is
whether
there usually are significant differences in performance between -

1. Mobos from the same manufacturer using the same basic chipset.
2. Mobos using different chipsets.
3. Mobos from different manufacturers using the same chipset and
having
comparable features.

By performance I mean things like frame rates in gaming, video
encoding
times, and so on.

I see no sense in buying the Deluxe version of a board from a
manufacturer if the basic version has all the features I require and
these days entry level boards have more and more features anyway.
I also compare the features different manufacturers offer using the
same chipset.I have no problem with a Gigabyte board if it’s 30%
cheaper than an Asus , has the same chipset and as many if not more
features.

 

[Captin]

Please explain the difference in performance that can be
expected
between budget, mid-range and high-end motherboards.

I have a fair grasp of factors like features (CPUs supported,
expansion
slots, bus speeds, integrated functions, etc), layout,
stability,
overclockability, reliability..... What I would like to know
is whether
there usually are significant differences in performance
between -

1. Mobos from the same manufacturer using the same basic
chipset.
2. Mobos using different chipsets.
3. Mobos from different manufacturers using the same chipset
and having
comparable features.

By performance I mean things like frame rates in gaming, video
encoding
times, and so on.

My preference if building a Pentium 4 is to pay a few extra dollars if
I have to and use a board with an Intel chipset.
I have a feeling I will be going with NVIDIA chipsets for the next
AMD 64
systems. The VIA based boards seem to take some sorting out.

I am actually kicking myself because I was a NVIDIA man through and
through with the Socket A’s and there was no reason for me to go to
VIA except it was just for a change!
I never count Gigabyte boards out of the equation

 

[Captin]

Please explain the difference in performance that can be
expected
between budget, mid-range and high-end motherboards.

I have a fair grasp of factors like features (CPUs supported,
expansion
slots, bus speeds, integrated functions, etc), layout,
stability,
overclockability, reliability..... What I would like to know
is whether
there usually are significant differences in performance
between -

1. Mobos from the same manufacturer using the same basic
chipset.
2. Mobos using different chipsets.
3. Mobos from different manufacturers using the same chipset
and having
comparable features.

By performance I mean things like frame rates in gaming, video
encoding
times, and so on.

My preference if building a Pentium 4 is to pay a few extra dollars if
I have to and use a board with an Intel chipset.
I have a feeling I will be going with NVIDIA chipsets for the next
AMD 64
systems. The VIA based boards seem to take some sorting out.

I am actually kicking myself because I was a NVIDIA man through and
through with the Socket A’s and there was no reason for me to go to
VIA except it was just for a change!
I never count Gigabyte boards out of the equation