Are "Gamer" boards worth it?

[JimmiG]

Typically, motherboard manufacturers put out a variety of boards at different prices. However they're still based on the same chipset. The biggest difference seems to be the number and the speed of the PCI-E slots as well as the number and size of the heatsinks (you can determine the price of a mobo just by looking at how many heatsinks it has).

If you're only going to run one video card, and you're not obsessed with filling your case with as many pieces of metal with fins on them as possible, is there any reason to buy e.g. the Asus RoG, ASRock Fatal1ty etc. rather than a "standard" motherboard at half the price? Options for overclocking and changing the voltages seem to be available in all except the absolute low-end products.

 

[djsb]

The one value-add that tends to be present in "gamer" and premium mainstream boards is a debug LED for reading POST codes. I usually find that worth paying extra for, though in recent years that feature has been trickling down into the regular mainstream boards too. Other than that, it mostly comes down beefier power delivery, which I don't think is often necessary.

 

[BrightCandle]

Actually I think the non standard boards are mostly about good overclocking. They often come with higher quality VRMs, capacitors and more power phases which in theory at least make the voltage more consistent and allow higher overclocks. The bios of these boards contains hundreds of potential tweaking points, individual voltages and current amounts for just about everything individually.

I would argue the increased size of the heatsinks is based on that overclocking headroom. They are trying to provide not only the quality components to support a decent overclock but the thermal dissipation to ensure everything works as its meant to.

They also typically come with a better sound chip. If you don't have a sound card then getting something that isn't a basic realtek is a bonus, although as far as I know none of them come with dolby headphone as the addon cards are always Soundblaster and hence CMSS for surround on headphones instead of Dolby headphones.

Some of them also come with PCI-E splitter chipsets that put more real lanes to the slots so that the cards can talk to each other faster. It doesn't mean the CPU can talk to it quicker, it actually increases latency, but for SLI/XFIRE it can make a difference.

So while the normal boards often include overclocking settings they often don't actually overclock as well as the higher end boards which are designed for it. I have only seen a few sites that have done same manufacturer different board comparisons that allow this sort of comparison but in all the ones I have seen there is typically 200Mhz on the CPU separating top to bottom, and of course the review sites don't go to the extremes necessary to show a RoG product off fully in its overclocking capabilities.

 

[Cerb]

If you're going to be overclocking, yes, but diminishing returns kick in quick. Between $100-150, there are tons of boards with neat features and good power sections. Boards like Asus' Fatality series (however they spell it) are mostly marketing. A P8Z77-V is going to OC just as well, and the Lk variant will get you about as far as most IB CPUs can go before you need water or delidding, even if the Pro technically does have slightly more efficient VRMs.

If you don't overclock, or only overclock mildly, there won't be any differences, though such boards sometimes have good value-adds, like the occasional mSATA, mini-PCIe, extra USB controller(s) not taking up slots (useful for MiniITX and MicroATX), etc..

 

[JimmiG]

So while the normal boards often include overclocking settings they often don't actually overclock as well as the higher end boards which are designed for it. I have only seen a few sites that have done same manufacturer different board comparisons that allow this sort of comparison but in all the ones I have seen there is typically 200Mhz on the CPU separating top to bottom, and of course the review sites don't go to the extremes necessary to show a RoG product off fully in its overclocking capabilities.

How extreme to you need to go to benefit from the better VRM's etc, though? Ivy Bridge is down to 77W at stock - not many years ago, even mainstream CPUs were at 110+W, and high-end ones could be as high as 140W before even taking overclocking into consideration. It seems modern CPUs aren't pushing the power delivery circuits nearly as hard.

If you're going for a 24/7 stable overclock and you're planning on keeping the CPU for several years (no extreme voltages), are you really going to bump into the limits of the cheaper boards?

The reason I ask is because I'm looking at mobos for my new Haswell build. For me, something like the ASRock Z87 Extreme3 looks to be more than enough, as long as it will allow a decent overclock. To be honest I think some of the "gamer" boards with "armor", water proofing etc. look ridiculous and gimmicky. The money saved could be put towards a better CPU (i7 instead of i5) or a faster video card...

 

[fffblackmage]

^I think you're pretty much right on there. For most people, "gamer" mobos aren't necessary. I find there are plenty of excellent choices for mobos at around $125 that have more than adequate VRMs for moderate overclocking.

 

[Rezist]

How do you know which have good or bad vrm's?

 

[dma0991]

Labeling it as a gamer board is more of it being marketing speak rather than actual benefit to game performance improvement. Just like the "Military" boards used in the past, having it being labeled with a "Military" class endurance has no real benefit whatsoever as no keyboard warrior would be brave enough to lug it around a war zone.

Real quality needs no branding such as "Gamer" or "Military" to actually be good. But of course, its marketing and unless you attach these real quality to something relatable, you're not able to convince the majority of mainstream consumers who buys what looks good(rather than what the spec sheet says) and speaks the loudest(advertising).

How do you know which have good or bad vrm's?

By the size of the heatsink. Manufacturers wouldn't sell you a bad VRM. Even the cheapest ones are good if it works within its specifications. Expensive ones(ASRock Z77 Extreme4 and beyond) are only better/more stable if overclocked.

If everything is left at factory stock, there isn't much difference except features. My Core i7 2600 and a low end ASRock H61M/U3S3 may seem like an odd pair compared to my Core i5 3570K + MSI Z77A-GD65 but at stock, they work pretty much the same.

 

[magomago]

my assumption would be that the critical components that are typically more prone to failure have higher MTBFs (both when run at stock, as well as when pushed towards the extremes of, but not exceeding, the tolerances)

but marketing has a way to overplay everything lol...

 

[Red Squirrel]

I find "gamer" boards are usually the only boards that have a half decent amount of slots. So if you want to put an extra nic or two video cards etc you pretty much need to go that route.

lot of boards will have physical slots but are shared, or not actually the speed that is meant for that size slot etc... have to read all the fine print. In fact even with "gamer" boards you have to watch. I've seen some boards say "SLI Ready" and it only has one real pcie 16x slot. LOL The other slot that is the same size will be shared with something else, or not actually be 16x.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

How extreme to you need to go to benefit from the better VRM's etc, though? Ivy Bridge is down to 77W at stock - not many years ago, even mainstream CPUs were at 110+W, and high-end ones could be as high as 140W before even taking overclocking into consideration. It seems modern CPUs aren't pushing the power delivery circuits nearly as hard.

That's my beef with newer motherboards. They could put in power circuitry that was robust enough to clock power-hungry Nehalems to respectable levels on entry-level X58 boards. Kinda seems like we're paying more for less now.

 

[pcunite]

If you're only going to run one video card, and you're not obsessed with filling your case with as many pieces of metal with fins on them as possible, is there any reason to buy e.g. the Asus RoG, ASRock Fatal1ty etc. rather than a "standard" motherboard at half the price?

I think so. I bought an Asus 5 Gene mATX board ($200) because it came with the very best capacitors, Debug LED, and heat pipe on the VRM's. I want this baby to last 10 years. And get this ... I use the onBoard video!

 

[HeXen]

I think so. I bought an Asus 5 Gene mATX board ($200) because it came with the very best capacitors, Debug LED, and heat pipe on the VRM's. I want this baby to last 10 years. And get this ... I use the onBoard video!

I got the same board. Though I suspect having it in 10 years from now will suck with hardware and OS's in that time period. There's no guarantee that DIY PC hardware will even be profitable enough to be like it is now in a decade, but I gave up on expecting high end mobo's to last very long anyhow, I have been through quite a few.

 

[Concillian]

For anyone OCing on air, the difference between a low $100s general purpose board and a $200 specialized board is somewhere around 100 MHz, maybe 200 MHz if you're lucky.

What you're paying for is convenience and extra ports. Unless you're on real water or going to pretty extreme cooling methods, you don't really need any of the "overclocking features".

Heck I took a $85 Asrock Z75 Pro3 board to 4.5 GHz on a 3570k on air. Is it really worth it for me to spend another $100 to get 100 or 200 MHz? I don't really think so.

If you're chasing that last 100 MHz at any cost, sure, maybe. If you're after those convenience features, extra ports and aesthetics it very well could be considered "worth it". But for the average OCer using a midrange to high end air cooler using a single video card, one SSD, and maybe a sound card? Not so much, not worth it.

The motherboard MFRs have discovered "if you build it (and market it right,) they will come." The "phase wars" are in full swing. More is better right? No, not really, but you sure can market the hell out of you have more phases. Dude, this board has an 8-pin header, it must be better than this one with a 4-pin... uh.. no, not really, but you can check off that 8 pin header box when comparing to a board that actually does have better components.

 

[rolli59]

They are called the wrong name since clock for clock on the same CPU they will give the same gaming experience as cheaper boards with the same chipset. Come to squeeze out that last 0.1-2GHz of overclock they make a difference and hence should be called overclocking boards.(really difficult to do that though because of warranty issues).

 

[Cerb]

How extreme to you need to go to benefit from the better VRM's etc, though? Ivy Bridge is down to 77W at stock - not many years ago, even mainstream CPUs were at 110+W, and high-end ones could be as high as 140W before even taking overclocking into consideration.

And, from what I've seen of people pulling out the Killawatts, IBs seem to be around 110-130W when OCed to the mid 4.x range.

I wouldn't get something like the MSIs with known-crap MOSFETs (those heatsinks are there for a reason), but beyond that, I'm not it really matters, and with the efficient VRMs that you'd want for heavy OCing anyway, the heatsinks end up being for show. Even those boards (including some ASRocks, too) will get you into 4.3+ w/ IB just fine, though (it's more a question of a long-term component health, IMV).

It's mainly for the users who want to get out every last drop they can, and will go with water cooling (and no, I don't mean an H100), delidding, and significant overvolting, to get there...or who don't, but fall the marketing to those people .

 

[blastingcap]

The short answer is "no." The money you save by not going overboard with these fancy, barely-any-better models can be used on other components or saved for your next build.

 

[skipsneeky2]

I used to only buy the premium asus boards,especially the pro and a couple times the ROG boards and never had issues and the last time i was truly happy with a board was with the p45 maximus 2 formula,the best board i have ever owned.

 

[Cerb]

The last time I had a problem with a board, it had an nVidia chipset.

Actually, that accounts for 4 out of the last 5 times, not counting lightning or reclose surges frying boards. <Insert fuse & transistor joke here> Random bad luck strikes, occasionally (example: a board that needs a BIOS flash to POST with a CPU that it officially supports, but the required BIOS isn't that new...MSI H61 board, FYI), but usually, a minimum of research can prevent issues.

Lately, I've been a fan of Asus' low-end to midrange boards. They just work, they aren't going overboard with the penny-pinching, there are 4-pin fan headers in good spots, and the layouts are great for cable management (connectors around board edges, FI, and they offer several cheap boards w/ right-angle SATAs). GB second, since they often offer boards w/ 4 RAM slots for similar money, and are also good boards.

 

[TridenT]

Are they worth it? Nope.

However, I'm not going to be overclocking this time either. I'm speaking from experience as someone who has bought $220-$300 motherboards before. I bought a $180 one once. It performed just as well, if not better, than the $300 one.

Guess what I'm doing for Haswell? Buying the cheapest motherboard and getting a 4770/4670/4570 (No K). OCing isn't worth it these days. You OC to 4.5Ghz from 3.5Ghz and get maybe a 10-20% gain in performance while having to pay a 30%+ price premium to get there. (Non stock cooling, a $100 more expensive mobo than your typical $65-$80 one to make sure you can do it properly, way more stability problems (You know, more than 0. I've burned through over 5 kits of ram in one rig from just OCing a bit... and it was enthusiast ram), HUGE power draw in comparison to stock.. etc), Back in the Conroe days when you could get a stable 80-100% OC on air, that was when it was worth it. I think I used a $180 mobo for that one. I've used $300 ones... they're really not worth it. It's better to spend that money on a better video card or a SSD unless you have a Titan and a SSD or something... then buy another titan or another SSD.

If you have everything (I mean everything...) then getting that 'gamer' motherboard might be worth it.

I'd stick below the $200 price range if I was going to OC this time around. Also, wait a few days before buying. Prices are jacked right now.

 

[JimmiG]

Well, Z87 motherboards have become available for ordering and pricing is available, it looks like the one that fits my needs the best is the Gigabyte GA-Z87X-D3H. The Heatsink-To-Price ratio looks excellent It just looks more well-built than the Asrock, although it's hard to judge from the images. I've also read about Asrock boards being so bendy that the heatsink doesn't make proper contact with the CPU so maybe it's worth it to at least pay ~$20 more than the absolute low-end....

The ASUS Z87-Pro and above lack PCI-slots, which means the Z87-A is the only option there.

I'll definitely be overclocking, since I run FSX which loves single-threaded performance and clock speed, but does not care about the GPU. I'm hoping to break 30 FPS with overclocking, up from 8-9 FPS with my current system.

 

[Galatian]

In my opinion it really depends on what features you need. I use a MBP for my daily work at university, so when I was building my gaming rig I was picking components solely for this purpose. My motherboard doesn't need WLAN, Bluetooth, Thunderbolt, excessive SATA III and USB 3 ports. I was going for the i5-3570K, but since I tried to stay "sane" on energy consumption vs. performance increase I opted for a mild 4,5 GHz overclock using offset values, so that I can have all energy saving features turned on. I also only needed a single graphic card as I don't play many Shooters.

I picked the ASUS P8Z77V-LK motherboard, because it was cheap, had all the feature I did want and on top of it (as a recent review on xbitlabs has shown) fairly low energy consumption.

If I were to pick a new board I might even leave the option for SLI/CF out. In fact if I were to choose a new board for Haswell I might even care less for overclocking possibility, as the Haswell K processor are really a letdown and overclocking them quickly brings you to a region of diminishing returns.

Bottom line: if you want the highest performance possible sure go ahead. If you don't and want to stay "sane" you might as well save a lot of money on both the hardware and your energy bill.

 

[OlafSicky]

I say no. Every gamer board i had had some type of problems. The mass produced boards have better bios and are more stable. All the exotic features make exotic boards unstable most of the time because of the bios.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

No, everything is a gimmick anyways

 

[Sheep221]

The enthusiast/gaming mobos are intended for very hardcore overclockers. They do have better components, stronger VRMs and more, but their benefits will only show up when you are doing extreme overclocking, probably with special water/LH cooling and gamers who also game with 4 cards or so. Average gamer playing with single screen and single or 2 cards will not really reach technical limits of mainstream boards. I think the Full ATX sized board, with 2x SIII, 2x USB 3 and 2x PCIe will be enough for any avid gamer today. The VRMs are strong enough and stable to work with 4.5 GHz overclock, but then again in name of gaming, the CPU overlocking does not bring much to the table anymore, it's the GPU performance that's important.

About the diagnostic display, my mobo does not even have 2 PCIe slots but it has the LED

Guess what I'm doing for Haswell? Buying the cheapest motherboard and getting a 4770/4670/4570 (No K). OCing isn't worth it these days. You OC to 4.5Ghz from 3.5Ghz and get maybe a 10-20% gain in performance while having to pay a 30%+ price premium to get there. (Non stock cooling, a $100 more expensive mobo than your typical $65-$80 one to make sure you can do it properly, way more stability problems (You know, more than 0. I've burned through over 5 kits of ram in one rig from just OCing a bit... and it was enthusiast ram), HUGE power draw in comparison to stock.. etc), Back in the Conroe days when you could get a stable 80-100% OC on air, that was when it was worth it. I think I used a $180 mobo for that one.

The 80-100% OC was probably not even possible on Celeron 300 which is historically known best CPU to ever be overclocked, I don't remember how much the performance increase was back then but it was probably 40% performance increase.
Conroes OC'd well but you didn't get 80-100% increase, both in performance and frequency. If yes, than it's base overclock would be 5.4GHz(on air?) and performance wise it would be at the level of i3-2100, which was unreal at the time of their release.