If there's one thing I hate more than spending money on something I don't need, it's ending up wasting time instead of money because I was a cheapskate. Because I don't plan on overclocking this system with an i7-4790K, I was going to go with the MSI H97 motherboard. But I wanted to know if, along with the added features, I could expect greater longevity if I went with one of the more expensive boards. Because I don't want this to devolve into brand wars, let's keep the other brand recommendations out.
My logic (which might be flawed), runs somewhere along the lines of:
If I theoretically had two CPUs, an i3-4150 and an i7-4770, doing the same workload 24/7 (a workload that the i3 is very capable of handling, and the i7 would be considered overpowered for), I could expect the i7 to last a few years longer than the i3. Would using a motherboard designed to handle overclocking, even though I won't be overclocking, result in greater longevity for my system?
My logic (which might be flawed), runs somewhere along the lines of:
If I theoretically had two CPUs, an i3-4150 and an i7-4770, doing the same workload 24/7 (a workload that the i3 is very capable of handling, and the i7 would be considered overpowered for), I could expect the i7 to last a few years longer than the i3. Would using a motherboard designed to handle overclocking, even though I won't be overclocking, result in greater longevity for my system?