Z68 vs P67 Discrete Graphics Performance?

[BlueKnight1]

I know the Z68 motherboards aren't generally available but I am hoping for some insight based on people's experience with H67.

I am upgrading my PC by replacing everything except the displays, keyboard, mouse and hard disk drives. I have all of the components except CPU (arrives in two days) and motherboard. The computer will be used for mostly gaming and the occasional video compression task.

I have been trying to patiently wait for the Z68 chipset to arrive (soon I expect) so I can use QuickSync, overclock the CPU and potentially SLI/Crossfire but I recently read a post on another forum suggesting users interested in gaming choose P67 motherboards vs Z68 because on Z68 boards the Processor Graphics will share PCI Express bandwidth with the discrete graphics cards, thus incurring a penalty in gaming performance.

Is this true? If it is, I would hope that it would show now in H67 motherboards. In other words, given identical systems except motherboard chipset, which would have faster gaming performance? H67, P67 or Z68?

I'll be wanting to take advantage of QuickSync if possible so I can either plug in my second display to the Processor Graphics or use Virtu software if provided. Is QuickSync even worth it? Should I just get a P67 motherboard?

My google skills are coming up sort answering these questions, so I hope someone here provide an answer or point me in the right direction.

Thanks in advance!

 

[PreferLinux]

No. It is not true, because the integrated graphics does not use PCIe. It is connected via the ring-bus.

 

[BlueKnight1]

Thanks for your reply. I will stop worrying about it then and wait for Z68.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

From what I understand of it, there's no need to wait for QuickSync, AFAIK Radeon and GeForce cards will be able to do something similar at least with alternative programs, and GeForce cards especially will be better for any of the many video related apps involving CUDA

since Z68 is basically H67+P67 you're also likely going to be paying more for it for little reason if you're going to be using discrete graphics.

really the only thing I can think of to be excited about with Z68 is SSD caching, and that's only if you can't afford an SSD setup with enough capacity to store all your main apps, although depending performance it could be really hit or miss

 

[PreferLinux]

From what I understand of it, there's no need to wait for QuickSync, AFAIK Radeon and GeForce cards will be able to do something similar at least with alternative programs, and GeForce cards especially will be better for any of the many video related apps involving CUDA

since Z68 is basically H67+P67 you're also likely going to be paying more for it for little reason if you're going to be using discrete graphics.

really the only thing I can think of to be excited about with Z68 is SSD caching, and that's only if you can't afford an SSD setup with enough capacity to store all your main apps, although depending performance it could be really hit or miss

1. Did you read the reviews? Far, far slower, and lower quality at the same time. They may have something new, but I don't know of it.
2. Where I am, the few Gigabyte ones listed are about the same price.

 

[infoiltrator]

Z68 chips list $7 each over P67 or H67 (in lots of 1000) .
That should not add more than $10 to a board.
Reviews due May 11. Will run SSD like other chips as well as cache option.