4-phase versus 8-phase for average uses of a desktop PC?

[mikeymikec]

I've been using 8-phase boards for desktop PC builds for the last few years (most of the time coincidentally, my reasons being simply due to other motherboard features). The vast majority of the builds are for plain users, for example a staple build involved either a Pentium G620 or Core i3-3225 with integrated graphics, a single fixed storage device and DVD drive.

As I understand it, more phases means more balanced power distribution, which means an increased probability of a nice smooth supply of power to the processor. This is most useful for more demanding situations like overclocking or a generally power-hungry processor.

I aim for my desktop PC builds to last as long as the computer is needed, which for the average uses of a computer, in my experience it tends to be 8-10 years of use.

So, 4 phases or 8 phases? I'm looking exclusively at Intel (let's not make this into an Intel vs. AMD discussion), and I've tentatively picked out a board, the ASUS H87M-PRO (for Ivy Bridge I used the ASUS P8Z77-M PRO). I've checked the chipset capabilities and general board features, I'm fine with those. My main concern at the moment is the phase count, the H87M-PRO has 4, the P8Z77-M PRO has 8. There are lower-range boards than the H87M-PRO but that one has a heatsink on the phases which makes me feel a little more comfortable about it.

One theory that I can think of for more phases that in theory aren't needed straight away is that if a small number of VRMs/phases experience issues, then an 8-phase system has more to take the load. I don't know whether this is a correct assumption.

 

[DownTheSky]

If you're staying with intel and not planing to overclock 4 phase is enough.

 

[lehtv]

I don't see the need for H87 chipset for basic uses, you could just as well go with H81 or B85.

 

[nenforcer]

As I understand it, more phases means more balanced power distribution, which means an increased probability of a nice smooth supply of power to the processor. This is most useful for more demanding situations like overclocking or a generally power-hungry processor.

One theory that I can think of for more phases that in theory aren't needed straight away is that if a small number of VRMs/phases experience issues, then an 8-phase system has more to take the load. I don't know whether this is a correct assumption.

I think this also directly corresponds to the potential longevity of the board as well. The more phases and more balanced power distribution means a more even wearing / degradation of the connections running throughout the PCB.

If you are planning on keeping this machine in use for 8-10 years then you definitely want a higher phase board in the hopes that it will last that long.

 

[Joepublic2]

You can't really just add up phases and reach a conclusion to a motherboard's power delivery capabilities, or look at the size of the heatsink on the power circuitry and get any kind of information. Without knowing the individual components and circuit design for all you know the board needs big heatsinks on the regulators because they used cheap ones that are inefficient and create tons of heat during operation. Sadly most motherboard reviews don't go into details about this kind of thing and it is true that as a rule of thumb for PC motherboards more phases/components are better, although that 4 phase board will be fine if you're not overclocking/overvolting the processor.