5 ms·

I have an intel board in my current daily desktop PC, it's socket LGA1150 also, but previous generation, Ivy Bridge. Of all the desktop motherboards I've had (a

I have an intel board in my current daily desktop PC, it's socket LGA1150 also, but previous generation, Ivy Bridge. Of all the desktop motherboards I've had (and I've gone through a lot) it's the most stable I've ever used.

iforgotpassword 7y ago
Are you overclocking or doing other fancy things? Last time I had an issue with a board was core 2 duo times. PCIe would magically cripple itself to 1x for all slots as soon as I overclocked the CPU. There was a workaround for that on the gigabyte forums. But that's about every problem I ever had.
- zamalek 7y ago
  I used to own an Intel Ivy. It simply wouldn't boot at all with the smallest possible OC (yes, I had a 'K) and would automatically revert. Never had stability problems though.
- drcross 7y ago
  Overclocking desktops in 2019 is only extremely rarely a productive use of your time.
  - rasz 7y ago
    Overclocking desktop in 2019 is a 10 minute affair to gain a permanent >20% performance.
    - rhinoceraptor 7y ago
      I think it's a little less clear of a performance benefit in 2019, now that every CPU will dynamically overclock itself within thermal limits.
      - leetcrew 7y ago
        Intel parts only dynamically OC to their max turbo presets. you can often go quite a bit further if you don't care about idle power use. I was able to OC my 9700k to run 5 GHz on all cores and tighten up the AVX offset to -1 (I think it's -3 stock). can I notice the difference outside of benchmarks? probably not, but the performance increase per core is comparable to stepping up to a stock 9700k from a 9600k (ignoring core count). if you would pay $100 to have a 9700k instead of a 9600k (which I did), why not overclock it too? it took me about 20 minutes of actual work and 12 hours of waiting for stress tests to fail.
    - unicornfinder 7y ago
      Honestly I don't think so. I tried overclocking my i7-4790k back in the day and it took an absurd amount of time and I never really got a meaningful improvement that I could honestly say was stable. I hear the i9-9900k is a good overclocker but with AMD being the best option now and their chips being well, let's be honest, not the best overclockers in the world I don't really see the point.
    - mschaef 7y ago
      I think you're saying the same thing. A one-time 20% bump isn't worth that much these days to the vast majority of people. (Even if it is only 10 minutes... which I tend to think might be an underestimate, given the testing, etc. you'd have to do to make sure it's all stable. 10 minutes to an overclocked boot, fine. 10 minutes to an overclocked configuration that can run a workload without problems for eight hours a day for several years... that seems like more of a challenge). .)
      - rhinoceraptor 7y ago
        That's all true (I personally don't OC either), but you should still run stability checks when you first get your computer. This Coding Horror post is great: https://blog.codinghorror.com/is-your-computer-stable/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/is-your-computer-stable/
        optimiz3 7y ago
        IMO the use of Linux for out of the box stability testing is poor unless you're absolutely certain the hardware config works perfectly under Linux without any specific tinkering.
        rhinoceraptor 7y ago
        Pretty much any PC will boot linux nowadays, maybe you need wifi or graphics drivers, but that post only uses Linux to test the CPU and disk.
    - jandrese 7y ago
      Turns out that I'd rather have longer life and lower power draw over 20% performance most of the time.
    - gruez 7y ago
      Which current gen CPUs can you get >20% performance increase on by overclocking? Assuming that baseline performance is stock settings with turbo enabled (usually default) as well as MCE/PBO (default on some motherboards).
  - GaryNumanVevo 7y ago
    It's well worth it, especially when it's on a triple radiator water cooling loop
GoToRO 7y ago
I had to upgrade and couldn't find an Intel board. Choose from what was available, not cheap, and suddenly my PC has a personality (in a bad way).
blt 7y ago
Same. I built a modest core i3 machine in like 2012 for my dad. That computer has had zero problems and runs Windows 7 with uptimes comparable to Linux servers. I never really thought about it until now, but the Intel motherboard might be the reason.
- tjoff 7y ago
  Not really, that is the norm for most decent brands. Bad PSUs are probably a bigger factor.
EvanAnderson 7y ago
I worked for a small company who built white-box PCs in the late 90's thru the early 2000's. The Intel desktop boards were far and away more reliable than any other manufacturer's boards. The Intel boards weren't flashy or as feature-filled, and they did have some "duds" (particulat board models with various "erratum", the whole 820 chipset SDRAM controller debocle), but their manufacturing consistency was excellent. I don't believe I ever encountered a DOA board coming out of the box, which I can't say for ASUS or Gigabyte. Edit: Power supply quality helps a lot, too, as others have said. I can't remember the brand of power supplies we used, but that definitely mattered.
- tracker1 7y ago
  They've also been faster at removing older tech, and getting newer stuff integrated when they were building/designing them. I remember getting one of the first Intel boards without a floppy controller (or parallel/serial headers). Of course bit me in the ass trying to get Windows Server on the thing since the extra device drivers for HDD controller was via floppy. Power supply issues have bitten me in the past probably more than anything else in terms of issues.

iforgotpassword 7y ago

Are you overclocking or doing other fancy things? Last time I had an issue with a board was core 2 duo times. PCIe would magically cripple itself to 1x for all slots as soon as I overclocked the CPU. There was a workaround for that on the gigabyte forums. But that's about every problem I ever had.

zamalek 7y ago
I used to own an Intel Ivy. It simply wouldn't boot at all with the smallest possible OC (yes, I had a 'K) and would automatically revert. Never had stability problems though.
drcross 7y ago
Overclocking desktops in 2019 is only extremely rarely a productive use of your time.
- rasz 7y ago
  Overclocking desktop in 2019 is a 10 minute affair to gain a permanent >20% performance.
  - rhinoceraptor 7y ago
    I think it's a little less clear of a performance benefit in 2019, now that every CPU will dynamically overclock itself within thermal limits.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      Intel parts only dynamically OC to their max turbo presets. you can often go quite a bit further if you don't care about idle power use. I was able to OC my 9700k to run 5 GHz on all cores and tighten up the AVX offset to -1 (I think it's -3 stock). can I notice the difference outside of benchmarks? probably not, but the performance increase per core is comparable to stepping up to a stock 9700k from a 9600k (ignoring core count). if you would pay $100 to have a 9700k instead of a 9600k (which I did), why not overclock it too? it took me about 20 minutes of actual work and 12 hours of waiting for stress tests to fail.
  - unicornfinder 7y ago
    Honestly I don't think so. I tried overclocking my i7-4790k back in the day and it took an absurd amount of time and I never really got a meaningful improvement that I could honestly say was stable. I hear the i9-9900k is a good overclocker but with AMD being the best option now and their chips being well, let's be honest, not the best overclockers in the world I don't really see the point.
  - mschaef 7y ago
    I think you're saying the same thing. A one-time 20% bump isn't worth that much these days to the vast majority of people. (Even if it is only 10 minutes... which I tend to think might be an underestimate, given the testing, etc. you'd have to do to make sure it's all stable. 10 minutes to an overclocked boot, fine. 10 minutes to an overclocked configuration that can run a workload without problems for eight hours a day for several years... that seems like more of a challenge). .)
    - rhinoceraptor 7y ago
      That's all true (I personally don't OC either), but you should still run stability checks when you first get your computer. This Coding Horror post is great: https://blog.codinghorror.com/is-your-computer-stable/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/is-your-computer-stable/
      - optimiz3 7y ago
        IMO the use of Linux for out of the box stability testing is poor unless you're absolutely certain the hardware config works perfectly under Linux without any specific tinkering.
        rhinoceraptor 7y ago
        Pretty much any PC will boot linux nowadays, maybe you need wifi or graphics drivers, but that post only uses Linux to test the CPU and disk.
  - jandrese 7y ago
    Turns out that I'd rather have longer life and lower power draw over 20% performance most of the time.
  - gruez 7y ago
    Which current gen CPUs can you get >20% performance increase on by overclocking? Assuming that baseline performance is stock settings with turbo enabled (usually default) as well as MCE/PBO (default on some motherboards).
- GaryNumanVevo 7y ago
  It's well worth it, especially when it's on a triple radiator water cooling loop

GoToRO 7y ago

I had to upgrade and couldn't find an Intel board. Choose from what was available, not cheap, and suddenly my PC has a personality (in a bad way).

blt 7y ago

Same. I built a modest core i3 machine in like 2012 for my dad. That computer has had zero problems and runs Windows 7 with uptimes comparable to Linux servers. I never really thought about it until now, but the Intel motherboard might be the reason.

tjoff 7y ago
Not really, that is the norm for most decent brands. Bad PSUs are probably a bigger factor.

EvanAnderson 7y ago

I worked for a small company who built white-box PCs in the late 90's thru the early 2000's. The Intel desktop boards were far and away more reliable than any other manufacturer's boards. The Intel boards weren't flashy or as feature-filled, and they did have some "duds" (particulat board models with various "erratum", the whole 820 chipset SDRAM controller debocle), but their manufacturing consistency was excellent. I don't believe I ever encountered a DOA board coming out of the box, which I can't say for ASUS or Gigabyte. Edit: Power supply quality helps a lot, too, as others have said. I can't remember the brand of power supplies we used, but that definitely mattered.

tracker1 7y ago
They've also been faster at removing older tech, and getting newer stuff integrated when they were building/designing them. I remember getting one of the first Intel boards without a floppy controller (or parallel/serial headers). Of course bit me in the ass trying to get Windows Server on the thing since the extra device drivers for HDD controller was via floppy. Power supply issues have bitten me in the past probably more than anything else in terms of issues.