besides features, what do I get in a more expensive mobo with the same chipset?

[swapjim]

The headline says it all.

I'm looking at mobos for Intel CPUs. Lets say that I settle for one brand (for the shake of this example, Asus) and one chipset (again, for the shake of example, H81).

I can see 10 of them right now and I can immediately recognize that the more expensive mobos have more USB 3.0 and 2.0 ports. I can also see that the number of RAM slots change, the size of the mobo also changes (e.g. Tiny ATX), the number of PCIe ports, the ability to overclock, and a few other things.

Other than these obvious things, can I expect the same performance from each one of these mobos?

By performance, I mean the speed I get in programs and games, the speed I get when copying files between internal and external storage units, and... Ok, that's all I can think of right now.

Assume that I will plug in all mobos the same exact CPU, the same amount (and speed) of RAM, the same internal and external HDDs, and I that won't overclock.

 

[RaistlinZ]

Actual performance would be very close, and probably only noticeable in benchmarks.

 

[zir_blazer]

There are things like Motherboard build quality and VRMs that aren't advertised as features themselves but may affect performance, independent from the Chipset. VRMs in cheap Motherboards are usually undersized, and if you're with a high end Processor, they overheat and forces throttling, reducing performance. Check this.

A simple, H81 or B85 Motherboard with good build quality and good enough VRMs could be enough, but you usually need to go up the ladder to get that, regardless of other features.

 

[jkauff]

Higher end motherboards almost always use better components than the "bargain" models. Performance will be about the same, but the better board will run reliably for more years, which means it will have more resale value than the cheaper ones when you're ready for your next upgrade.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Are you playing to overclock? If not. Then don't spend much money on a motherboard. Just get what you need, "layout wise".

Personally, I am fine with the cheapest ASRock boards. No issues, except of course when I get a faulty one. But that's normal. There is warranty. Also, don't get a cheap MSI board if you don't know how to fix a BIOS, they are the worst when it comes to BIOS recovery (sometimes you can brick it during an update). It has happened twice to me, not nice. And to a lot of other people, just google "msi bricked bios". Their dual bios boards are fine, however. Asus/Asrock/Gigabyte are a lot safer in this department. Having said that, I must admit, that the MSI boards usually are the most economical @ stock, so if you are looking to save power, look in that direction.

And lastly, Haswell iGPUs were the last ones to come equipped with native VGA output. Skylake based mobos *might* be more expensive due to an active converter needed for VGA output, if you need that functionality for legacy reasons.

 

[swapjim]

Higher end motherboards almost always use better components than the "bargain" models. Performance will be about the same, but the better board will run reliably for more years, which means it will have more resale value than the cheaper ones when you're ready for your next upgrade.

I keep PCs long enough that resale for the whole machine comes around 100$. The machine I'm typing this is 7 years old. I know that people sell their PCs at 1.5, 2, or 3 years but I have never done that. This is a good point though, if I decide to do so in the future.

There are things like Motherboard build quality and VRMs that aren't advertised as features themselves but may affect performance, independent from the Chipset. VRMs in cheap Motherboards are usually undersized, and if you're with a high end Processor, they overheat and forces throttling, reducing performance. Check this.

A simple, H81 or B85 Motherboard with good build quality and good enough VRMs could be enough, but you usually need to go up the ladder to get that, regardless of other features.

Now, that, I did not know. I was planning to spend 100-130$ for a motherboard. Will that get me out of the zone of "bad VRMs" or "not good enough VRMs"?

 

[legolas_tk]

The more expensive motherboards have more USB, more SATA, and even more PCI slots for more graphics cards (4 PCI 16/8X vs 2 PCI 16/8x). Furthermore, the motherboard have control instead of normal VRM chips. Most expensive ones have OC front panels and wifi and USB 3.1 and best network card included with the motherboards.


Here is a suggestion for a good $100-130 range ASUS MB: http://www.amazon.com/DisplayPort-H...48328471&sr=8-3&keywords=asus+z170+pro+gaming

 

[DigDog]

Gigabyte build quality is top notch; you will always get great power phases and VRMs. and for a very reasonable price.

 

[swapjim]

So, to settle this: A Gigabyte motherboard in the 100-130$ range will get me great phases and VRMs, but Asus motherboards in the same range are also a nice choice. Correct?

I've got to admit that the name Gigabyte makes me anxious due to two things.

My previous VGA was Gigabyte and it simply stopped working at 5 years of age. Although I later read that this was an issue with the GPU (the Nvidia 8800GT if I remember correctly) and all VGAs with that GPU stopped working.

My current motherboard is Gigabyte and it's been acting strange ever since I got it. Inconsistent behavior with reboot and shutdown. And there is one particular program that can make WinXP 32bit throw a BSOD (even on a fresh install of the OS). BIOS updates didn't fixed it. Although it may be my mistake: I didn't pick my RAM from one of the recommended vendors in the manual. I remember that I got this mobo because it advertised that it had better capacitors.

I'm not going to exclude Gigabyte but if Asus is not that far back from Gigabyte in their VRMs and phases, then I would feel a lot more comfortable going with Asus.