• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Motherboard recommendations

S

Stephan28

Senior member
I'm going to building a computer for my son and I am looking for a good stable budget motherboard for AMD 939, & onboard video (for the time being)

Here are some I found. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated


Choice 1

Choice 2

Choice 3

Thanks again!
 
Most full featured would be Asus, with "faster" IGP, double the SATA ports, Firewire and DVI all for $10 more. It also has a decent layout. It lacks decent overclocking and space for large coolers on CPU and potentially lacks space for heatpipe coolers on video card.

Asrock has nothing to recommend it over the Biostar.

Biostar has great overclocking, better layout than Asrock (though not quite as good as Asus) and has a bit more space around the CPU for large coolers, plus more space between the CPU and video card.

The "faster" IGP doesn't mean much for the Asus because either will be slow compared to any decent PCI-E card, but the Asus does have four SATA ports (versus two on other boards), Firewire and DVI. If you absolutely require any of these, then get the Asus. If you don't, then get the Biostar because even if you don't overclock, the board is cheaper and has potentially better capacitors.
 
Originally posted by: Zap
Most full featured would be Asus, with "faster" IGP, double the SATA ports, Firewire and DVI all for $10 more. It also has a decent layout. It lacks decent overclocking and space for large coolers on CPU and potentially lacks space for heatpipe coolers on video card.

Asrock has nothing to recommend it over the Biostar.

Biostar has great overclocking, better layout than Asrock (though not quite as good as Asus) and has a bit more space around the CPU for large coolers, plus more space between the CPU and video card.

The "faster" IGP doesn't mean much for the Asus because either will be slow compared to any decent PCI-E card, but the Asus does have four SATA ports (versus two on other boards), Firewire and DVI. If you absolutely require any of these, then get the Asus. If you don't, then get the Biostar because even if you don't overclock, the board is cheaper and has potentially better capacitors.
Click to expand...

Nice reply. Thanks for taking the time to write that. I'm really driving myself nuts right now trying to decide what board to get. I keep going back and forth....onboard video or not. I've decided on the 939 due to it's future upgradeability. The video issue is what is killing me.

 
That looks like the Asus board, but with potentially better overclocking (though not as good as Biostar). The thing with your video decision is that with any of these Geforce chipset boards you can try out onboard video and if it isn't enough you have that upgrade path to PCI-E (I hear the 7600GS is a good choice for just over $100).

Again, it comes down to... are you going to use DVI/Firewire or more than two SATA HDDs? Balance that with price/overclockability. Which is important to you? Speaking strictly for myself, I'd go with the Biostar (in fact, I have purchased a number of them). The MSI would probably be my personal second choice.

BTW, here's my mATX LAN party gaming rig using the Biostar board.
 
Originally posted by: Zap
That looks like the Asus board, but with potentially better overclocking (though not as good as Biostar). The thing with your video decision is that with any of these Geforce chipset boards you can try out onboard video and if it isn't enough you have that upgrade path to PCI-E (I hear the 7600GS is a good choice for just over $100).

Again, it comes down to... are you going to use DVI/Firewire or more than two SATA HDDs? Balance that with price/overclockability. Which is important to you? Speaking strictly for myself, I'd go with the Biostar (in fact, I have purchased a number of them). The MSI would probably be my personal second choice.

BTW, here's my mATX LAN party gaming rig using the Biostar board.
Click to expand...

So what do you think the performance increase is with the 6150 chipset vs the 6100?
 
6150=475 MHz 6100=425 MHz there's no real diffrence with speed the diffrence comes with HD vs SD and the Video Scaling 5x5 vs 2x2. do you need highdef can you get by with standard video? thats what you need to look at.

Just my thoughts.
 
Originally posted by: SDPlissken
6150=475 MHz 6100=425 MHz there's no real diffrence with speed
Click to expand...

AFAIK they are exactly the same except for the MHz, which isn't a huge difference. It's not like one is 300MHz and the other 500MHz like comparing a 6600 to a 6600GT.
 
I guess I shouldn't have wasted my time, and instead should have gone...

QFT

Does that work better for ya? 😉
 
Zap hey i'm not nit picking or anything, pardon me if i steped on your toes on this subject. i will backout of it, and let you and the OP work out board recomemendations.
 
Nah, no matter. You contributed and that's great. Didn't you see my winky? Basically I was agreeing with you to help emphasize the point you were making.
 
My friend,

Pick the MSI board. It will last forever. I goes extremely fast on stock speeds. If you buy an Athlon you do not have the need to overclock.
It is most stable, has great drivers but don't expect much performance from the Intergrated Graphics Processor

Have a nice experience with your new PC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top