ASUS P5Q-E vs. ASUS MAXIMUS II

C

ComputerBox34

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 12, 2003
Messages
13,787
I'm looking to upgrade my system because as of right now, my CPU is my major bottleneck. However, I have to upgrade my mobo because my board doesn't support any of the new quad cores. (Specifically, the Q6600) I have no problem doing this because with all of the spare parts I have lying around,I will get a brand new system by just buying a mobo + cpu + case.

Anywho, I'm looking at these boards:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131296 - P5Q-E

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131319 - MAXIMUS

Question: What justifies the $100 difference between these 2 boards? The specs look basically the same and the maximus comes with more cables and other shit which I don't care about. I'm not looking to do any overclocking, so that's not a consideration. Why should I spring for the extra $100?
 
Maximus is for die-hard enthusiast and The P5Q is for people who don't care much about that extra 100MHz?

Maximus 16 phase; P5Q 8 phase
That Supreme sound card..
Looks.. not that the P5Q is ugly or even close.
Not much else?
 
ComputerBox34 said:
I'm not looking to do any overclocking, so that's not a consideration. Why should I spring for the extra $100?
Click to expand...

You shouldn't, this is an enthusiast board with the entusiast in mind. If your not planning on crazy overclocking and having the latest and greatest features then this just isn't be board for you. I don't really understand why you were even considering it if the P5Q-E has the features you need.
 
SupremeFX X-Fi Audio Card is crap..

i have same dilemma :) between p5q-deluxe || A Max 2 Formula || A Maximus Formula.. better oc for q9550? :)
 
It's aimed at the mainstream market for users of all types from gamers to high-end power users. Asus also incorporated several innovative features with this motherboard, including their new EPU with 6 engines for massive energy saving, the Asus Express Gate for quick 5 second boot online, and Drive Xpert for quick easy backup. By using 100% Japanese made solid capacitors and a 8-Phase power design ... it gives users excellent stability and longevity. All these features makes the P5Q-E a very attractive motherboard for the mainstream user. The Asus P5Q-E supports DDR2 ram upto DDR2-1200* (by overclocking), so it's great for users who's already using DDR2 ram on their existing system. And looking at the specifications, the P5Q-E has a lot to offer than most motherboards. Take for example the internal power-on and reset switches, the wealth of connectors on the ATX I/O rear panel and all of the innovative features from Asus. As far as performance is concerned, we're expecting the P5Q-E to compete very well against both the X38 and X48 based mothebroards. Well, I've been told by one of our in-house overclockers that the P5Q-E (even though it's a mainstream board) is very good at overclocking.Asus have done a great job on the P5Q-E. As a mainstream motherboard, it's affordable, yet it delivers the performance found on most high-end motherboards. The P5Q-E is not to be dismissed, the overclocking ability is amazing. It wouldn't surprise me, if the Asus P5Q series start snapping up awards from everyone worldwide. :D

Hope this helps in your desicion to pick a board I dont have any experance with the max II how ever:(
 
ComputerBox34 said:
Question: What justifies the $100 difference between these 2 boards? The specs look basically the same and the maximus comes with more cables and other shit which I don't care about. I'm not looking to do any overclocking, so that's not a consideration. Why should I spring for the extra $100?
Click to expand...

There's no justification. In fact, I recommend you save another $25 and go with the P5Q Pro, which is nearly feature-identical with the P5Q-E.
 
Its like that old saying if you have to ask about the price..Maximus line of boards are for the niche extreme crowd. There is nothing to justify it. Someone already beat me to it.
 
kadozer said:
Its like that old saying if you have to ask about the price..Maximus line of boards are for the niche extreme crowd. There is nothing to justify it. Someone already beat me to it.
Click to expand...
I used to be in the niche extreme crowd and never bought a motherboard under $200. So, by spending $160, I feel like I might be buying a piece of shit. I guess not, especially if it's an ASUS board.

I just don't want the same thing to happen as last time - I buy a $280 board and 6 months later, Intel comes out with a new chip that has 10000000+ cores and I need a new chipset to support it. That's my only regret with this board.
 
If you are going quadcore, than dont waste your time on the Maximus II Formula. Both boards are very good overclockers however it is a known fact that dual cores can sustain a much higher FSB than quad cores. Enthuiast boards (M2F for IP45, Rampage Extreme for x48) are made with the thought of extreme overclocking and efficiency and thus higher FSB. However it is very difficult, if not impossible to push a quad core to a FSB of 600 whereas it is possible with a dual core. To make it more clear, if the ASUS P5Q-E can sustain a max FSB of 500 but an Asus Maximus II Formula can sustain a max FSB of 550 (these are all made up numbers, the actual case differs by boards/other system parts), than which board you decide to choose should depend on what kind of cpu you are going to use, in this case a quad core. Generally achieveing a FSB of 500 on a quad is considered to be the upper limit on air cooling (I'm sure with water and liquid nitrogen you may push higher) with sustained use so having a M2F would be a waste as the ASUS P5Q-E provides more than enough overclocking room for a quad.

Honestly the only reason why one would go with an M2F is for looks, thats why I purchased it (that and I got it for $210 on ebay) if you have a quad core. I have a Q6600 and with my M2F can achieve a FSB of 500 however I cannot go much higher and looking back on the purcahse I regret doing so because I did not need the extra overclocking room and hence it was a waste to fork over the money for it.

Now if you were going dual core, the situation is slightly different but I would still argue to go with the ASUS P5Q-E because pushing a dual core past 500 FSB for sustained, daily use, requires extreme forms of cooling to deal with the high voltage/temperatures. More importantly, the benefits are extremely minimal so unless you are loaded or wanting to break an overclocking record, there is no use going for the M2F over the P5Q-E. The most compelling reason to go with the M2F is looks, don't try to fool yourself otherwise, I know I wish I didn't.
 
ComputerBox34 said:
I used to be in the niche extreme crowd and never bought a motherboard under $200. So, by spending $160, I feel like I might be buying a piece of shit. I guess not, especially if it's an ASUS board.

I just don't want the same thing to happen as last time - I buy a $280 board and 6 months later, Intel comes out with a new chip that has 10000000+ cores and I need a new chipset to support it. That's my only regret with this board.
Click to expand...

Haha well Intel is releasing a new chip with IMC on a new socket within a month now and it won't be backwards compatible with anything made for the past forever.
 
Yup, CamaroZ28 is right: Intel is releasing their new Core i7 CPUs in November which will be completely incompatible with current Intel sockets (LGA775 and LGA771) since it uses socket LGA1366. So no matter how much you spend on a motherboard today, it doesn't have that much of an upgrade path left.
 
CamaroZ28 said:
Haha well Intel is releasing a new chip with IMC on a new socket within a month now and it won't be backwards compatible with anything made for the past forever.
Click to expand...
This is why I love [H]

:D

I'll just wait for the new super cores and then feel better about dropping $250 on a new board with a brand new socket. (My board was one of the first LGA775's, so I guess it makes sense that I'll get one of the first LGA1366's)

Thanks guys.
 
ComputerBox34 said:
This is why I love [H]

:D

I'll just wait for the new super cores and then feel better about dropping $250 on a new board with a brand new socket. (My board was one of the first LGA775's, so I guess it makes sense that I'll get one of the first LGA1366's)

Thanks guys.
Click to expand...

Just to make sure you are totally aware. They will be releasing only 3 processors initially and only one chipset (X58) so for just a CPU and motherboard if you get the cheapest Processor and the depeneding on motherboard it could cost $500-$700. This doesn't include the DDR3 memory which must be run in triple channel for best performance.
 
You still get more than acceptable performance running dual channel on nehalem. Running tri-channel doesn't yield a significant real-world gain, iirc (can't find the review where they tested this). Also, Lynnfield (LGA1160, out Q2 or Q3 2009) will be dual-channel.

---- edit ----

From http://www.maximumpc.com/article/fe...first_nehalem_system_dont_tell_intel?page=0,1 :
To find out, we convinced one of our hardware contacts (who’ll remain unnamed) to let us into its lab so we could finally get our hands on the new chip. There, we were provided with the desktop version of Nehalem – called Bloomfield – and an Intel D58XSO “Smackover” board.

[...]

This board has 4 DIMM slots on three channels. Slots 3 and 4 share a channel. We tested memory benchmarks on single, dual, and triple channel configurations with Corsair DDR3 1333 memory.

[...]

The best performance bump was going from single to dual-channel but going from dual to triple didn’t seem to pay the same dividends. Remember, the caveat here is that more performance is likely to come as BIOS and board makers tweak for the new chip and RAM vendors tweak their SPDs. Our test, in fact, was with the DDR3 at 1333 speeds. At higher speeds of 1600, 1800 or higher, the tri-channel may pay off.
Click to expand...
 
samsonJS said:
You still get more than acceptable performance running dual channel on nehalem. Running tri-channel doesn't yield a significant real-world gain, iirc (can't find the review where they tested this). Also, Lynnfield (LGA1160, out Q2 or Q3 2009) will be dual-channel.
Click to expand...

I know Lynnfield will be out later, but I have a feeling OP is trying to upgrade ASAP.
 
The Lynnfield comment was in passing. My main point is that while tri-channel offers the best performance dual-channel still offers great performance. Dual channel might still make sense at first if cost is a factor. Just my opinion on the matter. Nehalem will be expensive at first but if you're prudent about some things it shouldn't be that bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top