whats the best motherboard

The best motherboard is the one that fits your needs, doesn't have many failures / issues, and comes at a competitive price. Getting a $400 MoBo to run 1 GFX card and a non K series processor would not fit that definition. So without know what features, what CPU, how many GFX cards, what features and what it will be used for, it's pretty much impossible to answer your question. What's the best tool ... screwdriver, hammer or wrench ? Kinda depends if ya wanna take out a screw, take out a nail or take out a bolt.

While w/ Z97, we saw a wide range of performance

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/msi_z97_gaming_6_review/10

The ranking is based on setting the board which recorded the highest combined fps in the gaming tests at 100% and ranking the others by fps as a % of the fastest one.

MoBo % of Leader

MSI Z97 Gaming 9 - 100.00%
MSI Z97 Gaming 5 - 99.86%
MSI Z97A Gaming 6 - 98.96%
Asus Z97 TUF Sabranco - 96.13%
Gigabyte Z97X Gaming 5 - 95.00%
Gigabyte Z97X SOC Force - 94.95%
Asus Z97 Maximus VII Hero - 93.67%
Asus Z97 Maximus VII Formula - 93.58%
Asus Z97 Maximus VII Gene - 91.69%
Asus Z97-A - 89.57%
MSI Z97 Mpower MAX AC - 88.20%
MSI Z97S Krait SLI - 71.01%

So here... from a performance standpoint, there was little justification to spend $210 say on a Hero or $325 on a Formula when they were so soundly beat it in the performance arena by the $125 MSI gaming 5 or the $105 Gigabyte Gaming 5.

With Z170, no on really stands out in the performance arena with all boards reporting (so far) within 1 or 2%.

Another criteria with which we can look at is user satisfaction.... one with significant amounts of highly negative reviews might be best avoided. Unfortunately, at this point in time, we sometimes have to rely on numbers which verge on being statistically insignificant whereas the margin of error might be significant. Here's some popular boards:

$300 range
MSI XPower Titanium ($324) - Just weeks ago, this board could be had for $273. Currently newegg's highest ranked board in terms of user satisfaction. 86% of board owners gave it 5 eggs / just 4% 1 egg. Great overclocking, MIL spec componentry, top features an the best looking MoBo I have ever seen. I likes it at $299... loved it at $273, but $324 is a biut too much ... I won't buy again till price drops. OTOH, I'd spend what they're asking before I'd spend $399 on the Asus Formula which is also a very aesthetically attractive board.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6ZP3R87012

$200 range
GIGABYTE G1 Gaming GA-Z170X-Gaming 7 ($200) - Another superb board ... 61% gave it 5 eggs ... 12% 1 egg. The competition here comes from the equally priced MSI board of the dame name (MSI Gaming M7) but it has not been received as well (49% / 16%) and the Asus Hero which has the lowest user satisfaction level by a significant margin with only 40% of board owners giving it 5 eggs and 16% giving it one egg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6ZP3R87012

$150 range
GIGABYTE G1 Gaming GA-Z170X-Gaming 5 ($166) -Great value board, great features .... 46% gave it 5 eggs ... 12% 1 egg.... it managed to edge outs MSI's 45% / 21% for the MSI Gaming M5 ($154). The Asus Z170-A again brings up the rear with a 35% / 16% showing


The above prices were all based upon newegg

Here's PCpartpicker

MSI Z170A XPOWER GAMING TITANIUM EDITION - $274
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-motherboard-z170axpowergamingtitaniumedition

Gigabyte GA-Z170X-Gaming 7 - $200
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/gigabyte-motherboard-gaz170xgaming7

Gigabyte GA-Z170X-Gaming 5 - $140
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/gigabyte-motherboard-gaz170xgaming5

_________________________

+1 on the Hero, love mine, in sig

I still find it hard to invest in a board where just 40% of 173 owners agree with ya ... and more than 1/3 rate it below average.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132565

5 eggs - 40% (70)
4 eggs - 16% (27)
3 eggs - 10% (17)
2 eggs - 18% (32)
1 egg - 16% (27

___________________________

Interesting that NewEgg are now relevant, can remember when you were saying how irrelevant they were but that was when the boards you were saying were so great were getting lower reviews at the Egg. As with any of the motherboards, and as I've said since I came to Toms, you have to actually read the reviews (it also helps if you've worked with the mobo and preferably a number of other mobos of the same chipset). If you read the reviews on any board you'll see that the problems people have are often things that could be easily solved if they knew computers or reached out here or other places for help. This is particularly true of the higher end mobos with more complete/complex BIOSs. I have mine and have built 4 others now with no problems, it's also a favorite of other builders and consultants I network with and none have had troubles with them either. ( .Side note: I am for one glad they finally got rid of their self claimed user proficiency ratings.....) This is similar to how you used to constantly bash Asus based on mobo return rates from that French site and proclaimed it as 'statistical evidence', which of course it isn't, but you stood your ground that it is. Interesting you no longer bring it up since the latest results were published and Asus and ASRock had the lowest return rates. Just pointing out you can't make judgement based on thing you read, at least not without knowing how to read what is all actually there, i.e. reading between the lines).

Yet again, you make a false statement without providing any links documentation expecting it to be taken as fact. I refer to newegg user reviews in most posts where a recommendation is made. Every piece of data is relevant, though interpretation is oft necessary if data sampling is low or individual answers require adjusting initial impressions. There may be rare instances where you have to take data with a "grain of salt" such as when a particular board sweeps reviews and gets overwhelmingly popular among inexperienced users but that does NOT make the data irrelevant.

No more so that up and down the RoG line, the number is satisfied users has dropped with each successive generation.

VII = 50% 5 egg / 3% 2 egg / 32% 1 egg
VIII = 40% 5 egg / 18% 2 egg / 16% 1 egg

Interesting about the french site as what I have always and consistently said is that ... (take a screenie now so you don't misrepresent it again) ... the numbers are so close that there is NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT that any brand overall is better or worse than the other based up **overall** return rates. When MSI or Gigabyte have been at the top, I never said that this proves that they are better, I actually said that it only proves that your allegations of Asus superiority in this respect have no basis in fact.

- ASUS 2,43% (contre 2,86%)
- ASRock 2,61% (contre 2,99%)
- MSI 2,82% (contre 2,65%)
- Gigabyte 2,96% (contre 2,51%)

Click to expand...

For years now, you have been dismissing the french website's results because the countered your claims of Asus superiority. As might be expected given your choice of avatar, after dismissing the results for years, you are now linking the site in your posts .

- ASUS 2,43% (contre 2,86%)
- ASRock 2,61% (contre 2,99%)
- MSI 2,82% (contre 2,65%)
- Gigabyte 2,96% (contre 2,51%)

1. Your position is falalcious because if we are to agree that if Asus is best because 2.42 is lowest over the 6 month reporting period, then your position must also be that Asus was 3rd best in the previous 6 month reporting period.

2. It has been my position .... my consistent position .... that the **overall** numbers are so close as to render any discussion of brand superiority meaningless based upon the data presented. I don't use this source to say that any brand is superior, but to prove that there is no basis for a claim of superiority for and brand based upon **overall** brand RMA rates.

3. What I have consistently said that, where return rates can be used, is with regard to individual model numbers. A hard % can not be used for all componentry but for example when you see 4 TB drives having on average 2 - 4 times the failure rate of 2 TB drives, you may wanna choose two 2TB over one 4TB drive. I look for failure rates of individual models below the following

MoBos - 5% .. so when I saw "-9,65% ASUS Rampage IV Extreme" in 2014, I avoided that one after Owning the II and the III ... cause that's almost twice the rate that I'd consider reasonable.

HDs - 2% ... .. so when I saw "-4,76% WD Black WD4001FAEX, 4,24% WD Black WD3001FAEX, 3,83% WD SE WD3000F9YZ" in 2014, I avoided the larger drives, especially WDs because that's about twice the rate that I consider reasonable

PSUs - 2% ... so when I saw "10,00% Corsair AX1200i 80PLUS Platinum" in 2014, I avoided that one, because that's about 5x the rate that I consider reasonable

Memory - I don't much worry about memory as it's guaranteed for life and the french don't sell American brands so not having them included in the data makes it less valuable to me. And while the spread between lowest RMA rate (Crucial) and the highest (Gskill) might be considered significant, again you have to use the old noggin and recognize that Crucial focuses on a more "generic" market while GSkill provides many high performance lines where RMAs are expected to be a lot higher due to lower yields... so there again, the overall numbers (1.30% vs 0.5%) can not reliably be used for decision making. So while I have no problem choosing GSkill, even tho they top the overall RAM rate list by a wide margin (or Corsair or Kingston for that matter), I certainly would avoid any of these models:

- 13,84% G.Skill SO-DIMM F3-1600C11D-8GSL
- 9,81% G.Skill SO-DIMM F3-1333C9D-8GSL
- 7,21% Corsair XMS3 CMX4GX3M1A1333C9
- 5,90% Kingston HyperX Fury HX316C10FBK2/8
- 4,55% G.Skill SO-DIMM F3-1600C9D-8GRSL
- 3,88% Corsair XMS3 CMX8GX3M2A1600C9

GFX Cards - This is another category where we see widely varying overall return rates but the lack of period to period consistency indicates the lack of reliability in the data. Over the last two periods

- Gainward 1,44% (contre 2,67%) ... (2.06 avg)
- Zotac 1,57% (contre 3,09%) ... (2.33 avg)
- ASUS 2,08% (contre 3,00%) ... (2.54 avg)
- Gigabyte 2,37% (contre 2,98%) ... (2.68 avg)
- MSI 2,48% (contre 2,25%) ... ... (2.36 avg)
- Sapphire 2,71% (contre 4,04%) ... (3.38 avg)

On the surface, we might presume that Sapphire stands out as a little lacking being a full point, on average, higher everybody else (except Asus and Gigabyte) but again... Sapphire's product is AMD cards which, given their aggressive clock in the box might be expected to have more returns. So no, i see no argument being provided here to one brand over another based upon **overall** return rates, but again, I would be avoiding these models:

- 24,75% Gigabyte GV-N78TGHZ-3GD
- 10,45% Sapphire Radeon R9 290 Vapor-X 4G GDDR5 OC

Unlike yourself (as evidenced by your avatar), I don't have a "horse in the race" so to speak .... I base decisions and recommendations "on the numbers" ... whatever I can get my eyes on, ... after using Asus products exclusively for a decade, starting with Z77, the playing field began to get tighter.... there was true competition. With Z87 we saw several models with very high return rates which while making those **models** (not the brand) a poor choice, this is / was no reason in and of itself to avoid the brand in general. However, newegg user reviews showed a marked increase in terrible 1 egg ratings from Z77 to Z87 and w/ Z97 it got much worse.

To make things worse, w/ Z97 Asus got toasted on the performance front. Using newegg's compare feature, picking comparable featured boards had Asus with a $50 - $100 "RoG Tax" as compared with boards with the same or better features / componentry .... and given that componentry, these boards outperformed the Asus boards.

Asus has made a significant comeback with Z170 and erased the performance deficiency. But still:

They still trail the competition significantly in user satisfaction, tho it must be said, few boards this round can be classified as extraordinary.

They still have the the "RoG Tax" where you are paying a substantial part of your cost for "brand loyalty" and the Asus RoG Logo.

I simply can not ignore the fact that 2/3 of **board owners** are nursing a case of buyer's remorse and report a board as "below average" ... certainly not one that costs $220

The Gigabyte Gaming 7 is $20 cheaper and ....

-Supports faster memory
-Has extra SATA Express
-2nd LAN Port
-3 Extra USB

Admittedly Gigabyte's BIOS lags behind everyone else but as far as User Satisfaction ...

Gigabyte Gaming 7 (199 users)
5 eggs - 61% (121)
4 eggs - 15% (29)
3 eggs - 8% (16)
2 eggs - 5% (9)
1 eggs - 12% (24)

MSI Hero (173 users)
5 eggs - 40% (70)
4 eggs - 16% (27)
3 eggs - 10% (17)
2 eggs - 18% (32)
1 egg - 16% (27)

50% more users gave the Gaming 7 a higher 5 egg user satisfaction level
36% more users gave the Gaming 7 an above average(4-5 egg) user satisfaction level
100% more users gave the Asus Hero a below average (1-2 egg) user satisfaction level

So what can one give more weight to ? The experience of 373 people who actually own the boards in question ? Or the brand loyalists who promotes a single brand only regardless of circumstances, user satisfaction, performance and who ignores any positive data for all products as "irrelevant" if the logo on it doesn't match their avatar ?

Simply put every brand makes models a that are winners and some models that are losers. The Asus Sabertooth has consistently been a great board, tho less so this round .. at least so far. The Asus Rampage series had some great models and some real bombs. The MSI Z170 Titanium is an astounding board ... the MSI Z97 Krait was a bomb. A logical argument can not be made that everything with a certain logo on it is great. There is just too much documented evidence to the contrary. Again, simply put, it can't be great if 1/3 of the people who own it , rate it as "Below Average"

If my Avatar offends you, sorry, I like it (just as I like my original ASRock Avatar, and later my GSkill Avatar)much the same as I think you like yours. And if you want to depict me as having a horse in the race, again that's your opinion, everyone has one, but I am quite open about what I favor as far as working with and say it over and over, for mobos I only build on Asus, GB and the Rock...period, when it comes to nVidia cards I favor EVGA and Asus, for AMD GPUs, I lean to GigaByte and Asus, monitors I first look toBenQ and Asus, DRAM GSkill and (even though I often find them. overpriced) Corsair....etc, etc. Here in the forums, I try and approach members the same as I would a client coming to me for consultation, a build, repairs, etc. By that I mean suggesting good quality components and actually helping people resolve problems, which I believe shows in my profile. As far as mobos go, I believe I'm up towards the top in Asus, GB and the Rock, and if they ever get a badge working for MSI, I believe I'll be up there also. I've long pointed out that NewEgg and other re/e-tailers reviews have to be taken with a grain of salt (and have explained why), much the same as I've repeatedly pointed out that one shouldn't take a single review, based on a single component and use that as a basis for it being declared gospel. As far as Hardware.fr return rates, I've also pointed out to you repeatedly, that you are looking at a single re/e-tailer in a single geographic area and that many things can skew those numbers from one seller to another i.e. getting bad batches. When I started my own business after 18 years in systems split between the AF and NPS, in 1998 I was pretty much open to building with components the client wanted, it didn't take long to break away from that, and to look seriously into the quality of the components and the companies that manufactured them. Probably the biggest thing that helps me is I'm working on rigs and having the opprtunity to see different hardware and components pretty much daily, when a rig comes in with a problem or needing an upgrade, for me it's fun, I get to experiment with combinations of components, get to push them and see what they are capable of, try different CPU's, GPUs, DRAM etc - like my Z170 Hero, I've already had 6 CPU coolers on it, numerous sets of DRAM (in fact just got a set of ROG certified DRAM which is interesting ), a number of video cards (up to an including XFire with 290Xs and SLI with 980s, (prob soon with another 980Ti). While obviously I can't work with all the components available (which is why I'm here, both to help and primarily to keep up with hardware), I am hands on with many that come up here, even those I won't build with. This is the approach I take, hands on, because you can read all you want and never actually know a component, those that are used for reviews are often hand picked and sent specifically for review, which is just one of the reasons you seldom see out and out BAD reviews (not to mention a true bad review can get you cut off from future products or advertising revenue. It's also why I can respond to threads as often as I do, prob better than 95% of my responses, both on hardware/component suggestions come straight from my head, rather than searching the internet to provide responses to people, and I try and respond to member responses quickly.

No, your avatar doesn't offend me in any way shape or form ... you love everything about Asus ... believe me, we get it. You love it when they put out a good product, and you love it when they clearly produce a bomb. You still love it and turn a blind eye even when hundreds of people report bad experiences with that model, even when a whopping 10% of the model units are returned and even when a model gets humbled in performance tests by a board costing half as much.

Any factual data is deemed irrelevant if it doesn't praise the Asus logo ... you mentioned GFX cards ...

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/2
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/3
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/4

ASUS has also trimmed the standard 2 x 6-pin PCI-E power connections down to a single 8-pin one, which has an LED to tell you when your cable is correctly connected and working. This design makes cable management easier, but there's a chance it could negatively impact the card's overclocking potential.

this [MSI] card is fed by a 6-pin/8-pin combination rather than the default dual 6-pin set-up. Hopefully this additional power brings about higher stable overclocks.

EVGA sticks with the reference power input design, equipping the GTX 970 SC ACX2 with dual 6-pin power connectors.

Click to expand...

We also find a 6-phase power delivery system for the GPU, a 50 percent upgrade from stock specifications. It also uses ASUS's DIGI+ VRM controller for precise, digital voltages, as well as high quality Super Alloy Power components for buzz-free choke operation, longer capacitor lifespan and MOSFETs with a 30 percent higher voltage threshold than standard. Sadly, the memory has not been granted the same treatment. It is fed by a single phase found at the other side of the PCB, and this one does not use any special components.

The power delivery is the best of any here; it's a 6+2 design. Further, MSI uses its own improved components for both the GPU and the memory power phases. The components are referred to as Military Class 4 since they meet MIL-STD-810G regulations. Specifically, we find Hi-c CAP and Solid CAP type capacitors and Super Ferrite Chokes, which are designed to provide higher stability, lifespan and efficiency.

Examining the EVGA PCB reveals a 4+2 phase power design – four phases near the rear I/O for the GPU, and two in the bottom right corner for the memory. This is a slight upgrade from the 4+1 stock specification but unlike MSI and ASUS, EVGA does not use any specially crafted components.

Click to expand...

The [Asus] MOSFETs of the DIGI+ power phases are cooled by a small heatsink, but the VRM controller and the MOSFETs for the memory power phase are left, like the memory chips, to fend for themselves without direct cooling.

A miniature heatsink takes care of cooling the [MSI] main GPU MOSFETs near the rear I/O, while a metal contact plate equipped with thermal pads is used to cool three of the four front PCB memory chips as well as the remaining power circuitry including the memory MOSFETs and the VR controllers.

The [EVGA] GPU MOSFETs are directly cooled by the main heatsink, which has a thermal strip on to draw heat up into the fin stack. On the other side of the GPU is a metal contact plate that partially cools two of the four memory chips on this side, leaving the other two exposed. It also cools the MOSFETs of the power phases serving the memory, but no thermal pads are used, so heat transfer is likely to be limited.

Click to expand...

It must also be mentioned that in EVGAs design 1 of the 3 heatpipes missed the GPU to which EVGA responded that this was "intentional" ... and then they went ahead and released the SSC model which corrected the defect.

What we see as a result of these design differences and what we see in the reviews of these products, is that one card consistently gets above 1500 Mhz and two do not (Gigabyte also does). The reasons why are in the design ... but none of that matters, because apparently once you put the Asus logo on it, actual design, performance and quality differences become irrelevant.

Can a "sportscaster" wearing a team jersey, hat and waving a "we're no. 1 flag" (aka a "homer") be relied upon provide unbiased interpretation of what's going on on the playing field ? Can a politician of one party be relied upon to provide an unbiased reviews of a political debate between a member of their party and member of the opposite party ? member ? Similarly, anyone using a hardware logo as their avatar obviously has "a horse in the race".

Just as no team stays number 1 forever, no manufacturer hits home runs with every product.... I owned the Rampage II, the Rampage III. There are two ways to go from there:

1. It says "Asus" on it ... it must be great regardless of the astounding 10% RMA rate (4 times average), the extreme high % negative reviews by 100s of board owners, the disappointing test results, so I will buy one.

2. Well despite the fact that my Rampage II and III have served me well, there is a "preponderance of evidence" out there that Asus dropped the ball on this one, I'm not gonna "go there"

Yes, sometimes user reviews have to be taken with a grain of salt. here's one:

I have had nothing but problems with this board it refuses to start on a 750w modular power supply i hope u have a spare 4pin laying around becuase they put an extra 12v rail 4pin power connector for some wierd reason this board is a for sure power hog i get kicked out of bios after 10 seconds. I tried putting a 6pin with 2 pins hanging off the stupid extra 4pin and it worked for a while but now it refuses to start im going to get a 4 pin in the mail if that doesnt work then ill let geeksqaud handle the problem if it doesnt work msi will be hearing from my lawyers

Click to expand...

Dude wants to blame manufacturer because he's trying to plug a GFX card cable into CPU socket ... and he apparently never saw an EPS power cable before.... or read the manual. But the mindset that these "salty" reviews are limited only to Asus is a fiction. A certain number of folks will blame the manufacturer for their own inadequacies but these will be proportionally represented in every manufacturer / model review.

It is certainly true that negative reviews have risen across the board the last few years ... I don't know whether that is attributable to more peeps w/o the necessary knowledge trying to "build their own" or other factors. The noticeable thing here is that Asus's drop has been more precipitous.

When one board getting 86% 5 eggs and 4% 1 egg and another gets 40% / 16% , you simply can't argue that way with "grains of salt"

What hundreds, what 10%.... I mentioned what brands I look to first on numerous components. Who knows why you choose to bring GPUs into this, but when looking for trash you have to dig deep I guess, but it's typical, so based on the reviews you listed the EVGA and Asus 970s (those 2 model you dug out, i didn't mention any particular models, it was a generalization of what manufacturers I look to first, not to imply they are the only ones) were terrible cards, correct? You found it on the internet so it has to be the gospel truth. But let's wait a second as you are harping on and on about NewEgg user reviews - it's interesting that across the board the ratings are very similar

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487076
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121899
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127832

So which is it that is the determining factor? You jump back and forth from reviews you find (that suit your thought process) to numbers that suit your though process, etc

This is what's aggravating, you constantly change subjects, bring things up out of nowhere, throw in irrelevant things, try and compare things that you decide are germane, change context, etc. Maybe I should take a page out of your book and pop links to reviews on the Hero, which is easy enough to do, if you want let me know, I know it won't take me a full day to respond.

And for info purposes, I'm not sure where they got the numbers, though I am sure that if they are false the other mobo companies would be yelling about it and probably taking Asus to court, but take a gander:

http://www.asus.com/microsite/best-100-series-motherboards/

"ONE IN EVERY TWO Z170 AWARD BELONGS TO ASUS

ASUS received 1200+ awards in 2014 alone, and is leading again by winning HALF of all Z170 accolades since its launch! Share the experts’ passion, and put your trust in ASUS — the maker of the world’s best-selling and most award-winning motherboards."

If that that's slipping and going downhill it doesn't say much for the other manufacturers.

ASUS IN MY 100+ builds is by far the leader in satisfaction.

Followed by Gigabyte.