Which board is the better overclocker?

This one

or

This one

Or are they pretty much about the same?

The Biostar has a better chipset for overclocking, but Asus boards are normally better quality.

the biostar hands down, not really much competition there, chip sets with integrated graphics even when disabled dont clock as far, and that particular biostar board happens to be pretty solid.

Tho I love my Asus boards, I'm gonna have to agree with TheQuadFather on this

Ok, thanks...I didnt want to setup my water-cooling loop on the wrong board...you saved me a lot of time!

TheQuadFather said:

chip sets with integrated graphics even when disabled don't clock as far

Click to expand...

Well now, I have a Gigabyte 890GX and a Gigabyte 890FX. One with graphics and one without, almost identical. I spent many hours ocing both boards with the same cpus, same gpus, same memory. I mean swapping out the components and only changing the mb, back and forth, same case, same psu. So, I actually got as high a clocks with the 890GX graphics enabled as I did with different gpus on that mb, but also got basically the same clocks on the 890FX with no onboard graphics. The 890GX is IMHO the better of the 2 mobos for ocing. Much more friendly bios recovery.

Here is 2 ss of cpuz with both mb's and the 890GX has 2 more sticks ram in it for this run. Both using the same cpu and ram and gpus, hsf, psu, etc. They have both been to 4400MHz.

well maybe in the GX chipsets an exception can be made, because its based on the same structure and specs of the 890FX, but in things such as 880G and 785G etc they really dont clock well at all, i struggle to get 785G past 250fsb.

also on a unrelated point, same speed etc on everything, but on the 890GX chipset the cpu saps 1.42v but on the 890FX its only 1.36v? do they have different power designs?

TheQuadFather said:

well maybe in the GX chipsets an exception can be made, because its based on the same structure and specs of the 890FX, but in things such as 880G and 785G etc they really dont clock well at all, i struggle to get 785G past 250fsb.

also on a unrelated point, same speed etc on everything, but on the 890GX chipset the cpu saps 1.42v but on the 890FX its only 1.36v? do they have different power designs?

Click to expand...

No, it was before I realized I could get those clocks without such high voltage. Funny thing is, the graph of clocks and voltages on these gigabyte 890's with the 1055t is that of an ascending sawtooth; higher clocks don't always mean higher voltage, at least for the cpu. I do see higher voltages on the mb nb,ht ram, etc. I mean I might have to raise the cpu voltage at 4.0Ghz but may be able to use lower voltage at 4.1Ghz. Higher voltage doesn't always mean higher clocks. The Phenom IIs seem to have a wall at 3800Mhz anyway, above that is anybodies guess.

yeah ive found that 3.8 wall aswell, they go a bit funny for there onwards.