P55 On A Budget: Five Core i5/i7 Motherboards For $100-$150

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]notty22[/nom]With this failure rate, buy a Dell for 799, 20 inch monitor 4 gig of DDr3, and a OS, a 1 year warranty. The failure rate with the mild testing done here is ridiculous.[/citation]

You're saying, buy a machine that cannot be overclocked to solve an issue that occurs when overclocking? You could have made that type of answer easier by saying "no matter what you buy, don't overclock"
 
I must say, thank you for the article. (And, I will be waiting for the update in ~ 2 weeks.) My wife's and my machines are both Core 2 Duo e6750's on Nvidia 680i lt MBs. Despite good aftermarket cpu coolers, moderate overclocking (2.66 to 3.0), and quality power supplies (Enermax Liberty's), both boards have had to be knocked back down to default settings in the past 3 months. In short, even those of us who were "lucky enough" to purchase 680i lt instead of other 680s or 7xx series Nvidia motherboards are starting to have the same issues with motherboard life expectancy. (Which, of course, means new Windows installations too, but that is another story regarding oem licensing terms.)

In short, I have been pricing a new i5 750 with a "mainstream" lga 1156 mb for Christmas rebuilds. (To include higher wattage psus, 500 to ~750, for eventual video card upgrades.)

As another poster stated, this article shows the need to wait a bit before thinking about even moderate OC'ing on the new interface.

Thank you...
 
Great article, but a few things...

Last I checked ASRock is still a subsidiary of ASUS (it's not Asus) so calling them competitors is a little misleading.

The results from the overclocking are easy enough to understand just by looking at the boards, specifically the power regulator, or lack there-of to support those voltages. That's where ECS, MSI, and ASRock have always saved cost, while leaving in the bells and whistles that look good to the average user.



 
Im upset that the MSI only has on PCie2.0 slot. We dont even get to SLI or Crossfire. What a waste to upgrade from a c2d or qc. Might as well get one with Scalability.

I also wonder why SLI/Crossfire connectors don't come standard by now. Especially with these motherboards. It would really help as a sales motivator if they supplied SLI connectors thus the mass market/consumers can at least be aware that they can link their GPUs in the future to upgrade instead of having to buy bew cards or worse, motherboards. SLI/Xfire connectors should be a standard accessory.
 
I thought there were going to be higher quality P55 boards coming out?

I guess these are for new pc builders or people who had p4's and older Athlons. It would make little sense for even people who had C2D or Quad cores to upgrade to systems that barely give us minimal improvement when compared to the true next gen systems waiting to be released.

Im not evengoing to consider this for my next build and Ill just skip a generation and wait for gen 2 corei7 1366 chips or even the hexacore chips. For sure Blu-ray, SSds, and DDR3 will be cheap by then and it will defenitly be worth spending for because this PC would last 2-4years and still be at the middle range by the end of its life cycle. I guess it makes sense for ppl that have p4's to get these i5's and i7's then. There is a trend or in-between cycle that represents the TRUE generational (or paradigm) shift, and the period in the middle which is like Nvidias GPUs and their 8000, mid gen 9000s, and their newer GTX200s. The Gtx 300s will be just an upgrade in my opinion while i think that the true change will be when the 400Gtx's come out.
 
(Response to liquidsnake718's generational shift comment)

For some users, such as myself, this shift must occur quicker than for others. (Further, as far as I am concerned, the jump will have occurred when these mainstream boards are stable and the "slightly better quality" have been released.) This is due to the following:

1. Cpu: Core 2 Duo e4xxx & e6xxx changed to Core 2 Duo e5xxx, e7xxx, & e8xxx. Further, quad cores were released. And, even further, now the core i7 & then i5. (In short, we have changed die sizes.)

2. For those of us with 6xx Nvidia chipset MBs for SLI capability, since Nvidia was the leader in graphics quality with their 8xxx era cards, we don't have a choice in upgrading. In short, our MBs are failing. (Time for a change to Intel boards and ATI graphics, especially with Nvidia's annoucement yesterday of their technological focus being not on 3D gaming.)

3. Ram has shifted from DDR2 to DDR3.

4. HD quality, power usage, and capacity greatly improving. (In my case, Seagate 320 GB 7.2k 7200.11 drives to WD ~1 TB Black drives.)

5. Video cards... no reason to get into specifics.

6. Rampant increase in power supply requirements for running SLI / Crossfire video cards. (The 500w PSUs I put in my systems were good for the initial graphic builds of 2 SLI'ed 8600 gts's during the 8800 gt's reign.)

I've always seen the pc market as having 5 tiers instead of the typical 3. (Lowest to highest in price)

1. Barebones systems for internet / office usage only.
2. Home Theatre / budget gaming pcs. (Yes, the Home Theatre ups costs, but the core components of the 2 systems are virtually identical.)
3. Mainstream gaming pcs. (Where I build my systems.)
4. Enthusiast gaming systems. (Still air cooled, but using the best or second best of most components.)
5. "Must have the best of everything."

As a frequently mentioned article on this site's forums analyzed, building a new mainstream system every few years (with minimal parts being transferred) and upgrading ram and video card once during the system's life has the best "cost to performance" ratio.

In that regard, once the lga 1156 boards and i5 750 have shown a reputation for quality (instead of just "being new and the best cost/performance"), they will be the perfect upgrade.

Prior to the i5, the higher end AMD Phenom 2's filled the role. But now, AMD has even more catch-up to do.
 
[citation][nom]zipzoomflyhigh[/nom]Well Maximum PC recommends MSI as the best of the best for s1366 and s775. I've used many MSI products without issues so I think its best to see what kind of response we get from them.[/citation]

Remember that MSI also makes better-featured boards, and that the next model up has six, rather than four, main power phases (CPU Core). If you're really interested in buying an MSI board before they formulate a response on this one, you might look at their higher models.
 
[citation][nom]liquidsnake718[/nom]Im upset that the MSI only has on PCie2.0 slot. We dont even get to SLI or Crossfire. What a waste to upgrade from a c2d or qc. Might as well get one with Scalability. I also wonder why SLI/Crossfire connectors don't come standard by now. Especially with these motherboards. It would really help as a sales motivator if they supplied SLI connectors thus the mass market/consumers can at least be aware that they can link their GPUs in the future to upgrade instead of having to buy bew cards or worse, motherboards. SLI/Xfire connectors should be a standard accessory.[/citation]

I'd say it's fair to assume that in order to keep costs low in this particular price range, a manufacturer would rationalize that the target buyer likely would use just one graphics card. People running a CFX/SLI setup, or desiring one, would likely opt for a more feature rich board in the first place.
 
Crashman said:
Intel made the memory controllers on Asus and Gigabyte P45/X48 motherboards. If it fails after two hours, there's a chance you're using inferior-quality memory.
Click to expand...

Yet the same ram works fine with i7 + AMD systems. Never knew that intel made the controllers, that still doesn't take away the fact there is something seriously wrong with those boards.

Note: (less than 2hrs)

First, the problem happens with various different brands of ram not just one brand. 2nd, If those boards don't work with the lowest common denominator the cheapest/most generic/most widely used ram on the market they obviously shouldn't have past quality assurance. (not that the ram tested with was the most common ram in all cases, like I said board failed with various brands & quality of ram, in every case the common element was the model number of the board)

3rd I think you have the wrong assumption that I am like most guys on Toms and buy 1 system and that I made an assumption on my experience. I did not buy a P5Q3.
 
I am disgusted by this review...

Good on you for looking into real life over clocking stability. However I found a huge discrepancy in your article.

You conclude that the boards from Asus and Gigabytes boards are better for over clocking.

However what you didn’t mention is that you chose:

The CHEAPEST boards from MSI, Asrock and ECS. All of these have less power phases than their next models up and they don’t have passive cooling.

Yet for Asus and Gigabyte you chose the SECOND CHEAPEST boards. Both come with more power phases AND feature passive cooling!

Your article is heavily favouring Asus and Gigabyte...

Very disappointed

Philip
 
[citation][nom]mau1wurf1977[/nom]what you didn’t mention is that you chose:The CHEAPEST boards from MSI, Asrock and ECS.[/citation]

I'm very dissapointed in you Philip, as it appears that you jumped to conclusions without even reading the article. I'm going to say one thing that invalidates everything you just said: Tom's Hardware didn't pick those boards, ASRock, ECS, and MSI chose these particular models to represent their brands.

So, let's make a list of how you're wrong:

1.) Every manufacturer was asked to pick one board between $100 and $150, each manufacturer picked its favorite for this lineup, so the mismatch would be their fault, but
2.) These are all "budget enthusiast"/"budget overclocking" boards, even the cheapest one, and
3.) No board should ever be able to fry itself under normal operating conditions. Because these were overclocking boards, overclocking is a normal operating condition for these boards.
4.) Companies are expected to fully and completely test their products before putting them on the market. Any company that treats its customers as guinnea pigs won't have customers for very long.
5.) Fried voltage regulators are a quality issue, not a price issue. The lowest-capacity voltage regulator should shut off when overloaded just as a higher-capacity design would.

Of course I expect none of those numbered points matters to you, as it appears your feelings were hurt. But it wasn't Tom's Hardware who hurt your feelings, it was the motherboard manufacturers themselves. They're the ones you should be writing to, but I expect you already knew that.

Your post is heavily favouring the culprits in this fiasco...

Very disappointed

Crashman.
 
I want Tomshardware to also test the Asus P7P55D-LE and GA-P55-UD3. They also have lesser power phases and no passive cooling.

The only conclusion Tomshardware should have drawn from this is that if you want to overclock make sure you pick a model with more power phases and passive cooling.

Overclocking and running your cpu at 1.4V is not normal operation.

These aren't budget enthusiast boards. These are the CHEAPEST POSSIBLE P55 boards offered by these manufacturers...

 
[citation][nom]mau1wurf1977[/nom]I want Tomshardware to also test the Asus P7P55D-LE and GA-P55-UD3. They also have lesser power phases and no passive cooling.The only conclusion Tomshardware should have drawn from this is that if you want to overclock make sure you pick a model with more power phases and passive cooling.Overclocking and running your cpu at 1.4V is not normal operation.These aren't budget enthusiast boards. These are the CHEAPEST POSSIBLE P55 boards offered by these manufacturers...[/citation]

...AND THEY'RE THE BOARDS THESE MANUFACTURERS REQUESTED TOM'S TO USE. See how your logic fails? The point was to get the "best overclocking board for the money", followed by the "best features for the money", followed by the "best standard-speed performance for the money", in that order. And all the manufacturers knew that was the point. They all knew that was the order of importance. And, they all knew exactly how the boards would be tested.

So who's fault is it when a company knows how a board will be tested, and submits the board, without even verifying that the board can pass this test? I thought it was the manufacturer's fault, but it turns out it's the customer's fault. Well, one customer in particular anyway. You go on and on about how it's not fair for a company to submit its cheaper board when the only reason they sent their cheapest board...

The ONLY reason they sent their cheapest board...

THE ONLY REASON THEY SENT THEIR CHEAPEST BOARDS......

Was because they were HOPING the boards would survive. They were RISKING that the boards would survive. They were GAMBLING that the boards would survive.

The ECS P55H-A is the ONLY board in the roundup to offer PCIe path splitting for dual graphics cards. The ONLY ONE. That's a big feature. So, if the P55H-A had survived, who do you think would have won?

It was their bet, it was their gamble, and though it often pays off it didn't this time. And the only reason they would take a gamble with the deck so heavily stacked against them is that they didn't properly test their own products before sending them.

I fail to see how any of this can be blamed on anyone except the manufacturers, but I'll join in your nonsense and blame you instead.
 
[citation][nom]mau1wurf1977[/nom]...These aren't budget enthusiast boards. These are the CHEAPEST POSSIBLE P55 boards offered by these manufacturers...[/citation]

OH, I just got it. This is reverse psychology right? What you're really saying is that the three manufacturers who's board's failed should have been left out from the beginning. Tom's should have told these companies "sorry, your board is too cheaply-made to compete" and then refused to test them. I get that, but you're still wrong.

It wouldn't have been fair to tell ASRock, ECS, and MSI that they wouldn't be allowed to participate. Tom's doesn't play favorites like that.
 
Real shame about the three boards that were fried. Especially the ECS, because I was considering it for a build, and figured they had their act together. Hopefully they'll remedy these issues quickly, especially since the Black Edition is supposed to appeal to overclockers; I wonder if any P55H-A customers were 'burned' like the Tom's reviewers were.
 
what number the bios revision with over-current protection for Asrock P55 Pro?
 
intel boards have always had too little or too many phases, i cant believe how many 3 phase g41 boards i've seen. amd doesn't seem to have this problem, as most micro-atx mobos have 4+1 phases, and many atx boards have 10 phases. maybe its because of amd's old 9950(140W) that blew oh so many 780g boards that manufacturers are over designing for amd now. a lot of amd boards have an 8-pin cpu connector too, something i dont remember seeing often on intel designs until x58.
 
Why on earth would somoene interested in overclocking that required upping the voltages consider one of these boards in the first place? Maybe I missed the point here, but most OC'ers who are interested in maximum potential are going to purchase higher end boards... not a 'budget' board. This article is a true example of tabloid reporting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom