Which of these 2 motherboards is better for what im building?

[Tac]

an MSI motherboard

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130275

or the Asus:

ASUS M4A785TD-V EVO AM3 AMD 785G HDMI ATX AMD Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131398


what will go onto the motherboard is:

ASUS ENGT240/DI/1GD3/A GeForce GT 240 1GB 128-bit DDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card

OCZ Special Ops Edition 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Low Voltage Desktop Memory Model OCZ3SOE1600LV4GK

AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Deneb 3.2GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor

[AirFlyer]

I would say the ASUS board but I've never cared for having an integrated GPU on the mobo. if I knew I was going to be putting a dedicated GPU right into the computer.

[Tac]

I tend to like having a backup vid card in case the main vid card fries itself.. at least i can use the pc to order the replacement card 

as to the asus... why do you say it is better?

[BaldEagl]

The MSI board looks like the better option for a number of reasons:

- It uses a newer chipset
- It supports higher overclocked memory speeds
- It supports more SATA drives
- It supports more RAID options
- It supports more USB ports including at least a couple of USB 3.0 ports for future compatability.
- You're not paying for onboard video that you won't use

The only upside that I can see for the ASUS board is that it supports eSATA and firewire.

All together, even though you may not use some of these things, the MSI board seems to offer more flexibility.

That said, I've never used an MSI or an ASUS board so I don't know how flexible the BIOS are for each.

[Dragon]

I like the MSI.


I don't mind the high end ASUS boards, but have had nothing but problems with the mid range ones.  Maybe it was just me, but 3 years ago I used an asus board with AMD processor for a customer build and was ready to throw it out the window before too long.  Memory issues, drive detection issues and a crappy BIOS just drove me nuts.

my .02

[Ghastly]

You're not paying for onboard video that you won't use

You will pay - over and over and over - in frustration with a motherboard that has onboard video - it's a potential source of aggravation and uncertainty every time you have any kind of an issue that might be a clash between the onboard video and the video card you add in.  Disabling an onboard resource never really removes it from the mix, even if it has a BIOS option to disable it. 

Especially video.

<S>

[TequilaChaser]

You will pay - over and over and over - in frustration with a motherboard that has onboard video - it's a potential source of aggravation and uncertainty every time you have any kind of an issue that might be a clash between the onboard video and the video card you add in.  Disabling an onboard resource never really removes it from the mix, even if it has a BIOS option to disable it. 

Especially video.

<S>

agree with this, especially if you go with the posted ASUS MB and are going to use a dedicated Nvidia Video Card...

this ASUS MB has ATI onboard video and is designed for Ati dedicated cards in my opinion....

if I was going to build using AMD, I would want to also use ATI video, especially if the North Bridge & South bridge of the MB is "ATI Driven" ....... it will just work better..... also, not knocking that OCZ ram, but Corsair seems to work better for me when using ASUS & AMD porducts.....

again another personal opinion.......  do your research...... then double check everything before you make the order

good luck

[Delirium]

I haven't built many machines, but I would avoid onboard video for the reasons many posted already.

[Spikes]

I'd go with the MSI.
I've heard a few bad things here and there about the EVO's.

Also I have onboard video and have no problems with my ATI cards (GA-EP45-UD3P mobo)

[ebfd11]

I have the MSI p45 platinum MB and I have had nothing but good things to say about it. Easy install and easy maintainence if anything happens to it.

On my next build I am gonna use the MSI board again.

[Ghastly]

I'd go with the MSI.

Also I have onboard video and have no problems with my ATI cards (GA-EP45-UD3P mobo)

Many people get away with it.  The problem is that you can't count on that being the case, so why take the risk?

<S>

[Getback]

You will pay - over and over and over - in frustration with a motherboard that has onboard video - it's a potential source of aggravation and uncertainty every time you have any kind of an issue that might be a clash between the onboard video and the video card you add in.  Disabling an onboard resource never really removes it from the mix, even if it has a BIOS option to disable it. 

Especially video.

<S>

I agree with this. Further I don't believe that low end Asus is nearly as good as low end MSI. I have an MSI and it has performed well. It was a mid-range board. I think it cost around 150 bucks.

[Tac]

Thanks ill go with the MSI. The newer chipset and usb 3.0 does sell it better. im just an asus fanboy 


Last question...


is there a noticeable difference in gaming to choose a 6gb speed hard disk over the regular 3gb speed hard disks?

i play AH2, EVE and WW2OL

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Thanks ill go with the MSI. The newer chipset and usb 3.0 does sell it better. im just an asus fanboy 


Last question...


is there a noticeable difference in gaming to choose a 6gb speed hard disk over the regular 3gb speed hard disks?

i play AH2, EVE and WW2OL

Hi!

The myths spelled here about motherboards 'built for ati' etc. are myths and hold no real world value. In reality the motherboard doesn't care at all which brand pci-e device is plugged in it. They all follow the same specs. Some people's bad experiences are coincidental and misinterpreted. I have had several ati/amd chipset motherboards that ran fine with nvidia and vice versa.

As what goes for 6gb vs 3gb you will not notice any difference because regular hdd's can not push out data fast enough even for 3g. They don't come even close. In the case of SSDs it's a bit different. They actually come close to saturating the sata bus (best of them).

But with regular hdds, they're just so slow that it makes no difference if you run them at sata II or sata III. They won't probably be bottlenecked even with sata I for that matter.

[gyrene81]

Ripley has never heard of the problems of running Nvidia Nforce chipsets with ATI video cards obviously. Since the AMD/ATI merger the chipsets are going to be a bit more compatible intentionally, they want to sell their products as "better than the competition". Where you have to be careful is the component manufacturer. A perfect example is video cards, compare the specs for the exact same graphics chipset between multiple manufacturers.

I've personally never been a fan of Asus components. There have been too many cases of documented incompatibilities over the years. MSI has tended to be more predictable where the lower end stuff is short life junk and the top stuff works flawlessly. That MSI board you're looking at looks pretty good. But I wouldn't go for that video card, it's only 128bit interface with a core clock of only 550Mhz. You would be much better off buying an ATI 4850 or 4870 series video card for a little more money.



The one thing Ripley is right about is that you're not going to see a lot of performance difference between the 6Gb and 3Gb SATA drives.