Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Performance difference between ATX and micro ATX

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 25, 2006 12:20:03 PM

Hello,

Can somebody tell me the difference between ATX and micro ATX board in terms of performance.

I heard that because of on-board video the system memory is shared and hence the system is slowed down.
Also the chipset used is NVIDIA 6150 which is quite slow as compared to nforce4 ultra chipset.

I am not a gamer and hence feel that buying an ATX board and adding a PCI-E graphics card may prove expensive.

also which ATX and micro boards would u suggest for shear performance.

Asus A8N-E has bios problems I heard.

and in micro ATX how about MSI K8NGM2-FID

Rgds,
February 25, 2006 4:57:26 PM

Quote:
For normal use, there's little or no performance difference. ATX s939 mobos havs nForce 4 chip, which most people say it's the best one out right now.
Depends what you need. I wouls suggest ATX over micro ATX.


thanks for the answer, can you please let me know which ATX board is good.
i heard that ASUS A8N-E has bios problems.
February 25, 2006 5:21:13 PM

microATX will perform better than an ATX board IF they are exactly identical due to shorter lines thus reducing overall resistivity

ok i'm crapping

microATX/ATX is just the form factor has nothing to do with ur decision except unless u intend to get a really small casing or u intend to do serious overclocking
Related resources
February 25, 2006 7:43:15 PM

Quote:
...I am not a gamer and hence feel that buying an ATX board and adding a PCI-E graphics card may prove expensive.

also which ATX and micro boards would u suggest for shear performance.


Motherboard form factors are unrelated to performance.
The nForce4 chipset is the fastest available, but the difference between it and almost all others is unlikely to be noticed in real world use. Gamers will naturally be choosing it both for top speed and for the best SLI video. It also runs hot and typically has especially noisy fan cooling.
The 6150/430 chipset combination is NOT slow by any means.
The 6150 integrated video is FAR SLOWER than any current gamer's video solution. It is also free and completly quiet for those like me who do not need high 3D frame rates for the most recent gaming engines.

I currently run an Asus A8N-VM CSM 6150/430 mATX board with 2GB ram and an X2 Athlon64. It's faster than I am and multitasks beautifully. If you do not plan to overclock I highly recommend the Asus board. If you want to overclock then I would consider the full ATX Epox nF4 board mentioned above and a videocard that best fits your budget.

Asus A8N-VM CSM $82.00
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131570

EpoX EP-9NPA3Ultra $85.00
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813123258

Also, there's nothing wrong with the ATI Radeon Xpress200 integrated graphics chips. They have been out now for well over a year.
February 25, 2006 8:44:30 PM

I don't know where you guys get your information, but the Nvidia 6100/6150 igp are no slower than the nforce4. In almost everything they perform within 99% of the nforce4.

Also, the 6150/6100's are only slow for those who advidly game. After all, they beat out the fx 5200, and I still see people using those cards. The 6150 igp is pretty much equal to the crappiest version of the 6200 TC. Not too bad for FREE. It is currently the most powerful igp out there.

And what's all this talk about mATX not being for overclockers? I guess some of you haven't read up on the Tforce 6100's?
February 26, 2006 5:26:18 AM

when i said 'not for extreme overclocking' i meant in general

mATX is targetted for SFF systems where space is constrained, hence gigantic uber sized coolers cannot fit, blocked by capacitors or what have yous.

if you're gonna argue with 1 board out of so many mATX out there that allows for overclocking, then i should have probably said something like this :

GENERALLY CANNOT FIT IN GIGANTIC HEAT SINKS.

there.
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2006 3:08:47 AM

Quote:
when i said 'not for extreme overclocking' i meant in general

mATX is targetted for SFF systems where space is constrained, hence gigantic uber sized coolers cannot fit, blocked by capacitors or what have yous.


Here's your dunce cap, go sit in the corner.

Now class, can we tell Mr Sylvez why SFF and Micro ATX have nothing in common?

That's right, Micro ATX has four slots, SFF is based on Flex ATX, with two slots!

Now class, can we tell Mr Sylvez why the same oversized coolers can be used on Micro ATX boards as full ATX boards?

That's right, Micro ATX and Full ATX boards have the same upper portion! Well done class! Mr Sylvez, you can step out of the corner at the end of this class period.
February 27, 2006 1:25:37 PM

ok fine i'll take the dunce cap.

got mixed up with the flex atx.

however generally isnt it the case that microatx isnt suitable for overclocking since its rather packed? if u have a number of PCI slots ur airflow will generally be blocked too much

is the class over? i'll get back to my seat thank you. :D 
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2006 2:50:19 PM

The top of a Micro ATX board with 4 slots is usually as uncluttered as the top of an ATX board with 7 slots. What's removed from the bottom is three slots and often an add-in RAID controller.
February 27, 2006 3:01:03 PM

Quote:
Hello,

Can somebody tell me the difference between ATX and micro ATX board in terms of performance.

I heard that because of on-board video the system memory is shared and hence the system is slowed down.
Also the chipset used is NVIDIA 6150 which is quite slow as compared to nforce4 ultra chipset.

I am not a gamer and hence feel that buying an ATX board and adding a PCI-E graphics card may prove expensive.

also which ATX and micro boards would u suggest for shear performance.

Asus A8N-E has bios problems I heard.

and in micro ATX how about MSI K8NGM2-FID

Rgds,


If you want performance, features and low cost then look at the MSI RS482M4-ILD Micro-ATX Motherboard. This is the board I use with an AMD X2 4400+. The board provides two onboard video (Yes they are shared with the memory). One is DVI and the other is VGA. The nice thing about this is you can share memory up to 256MB. And if two monitors are not enough you can add selected ATI PCIe Video Cards and have up to 4 monitors at the same time. The other nice thing is you can install up to 4GB DDR400 (Dual Channel) memory. It also has 4 SATA, 4 USB 2.0 (rear), two USB 2.0 Pin header onboard, Rear Firewire, 1 pin hear onboard for firewire. This board will handle ANY AMD Socket 939 CPU including FX and X2. Here is the nice thing the board is under $90.00. :wink:
February 28, 2006 2:24:54 AM

ok quick run down of what i am using

Geforce 6100 M7 *$60* (same exact motherboard as the M9) the M9 is for socket 939 and has 2 more memory slots in it... thats the ONLY difference
both ,of course, use the onboard 6100 video

I using some crappy PC 2100 ddr in it 2x256
Sempron 3400+ (overclocked to 2400 from 2000mhz with a .1 volt increase) which, by the way i turned down to 2200mhz - cuz im a big chicken shit - but it was totally stable at 2400 for 2 months

with that configuration it ran Doom3 fluidly (at the lowest settings)

this system runs totally stable - no errors - no BSOD - nothin crashes....

since that configuration, my sister got me a 256mb geforce 6200 video card (non Turbo cache) for my birthday,
and my brother n law gave me 512mb of DDR 333 memory

and this plays Doom3/Quake4 fluidly at 1024x768 high quality, without jitters or stops and such

don't be afraid of getting a micro atx - or worry about the onboard 6100 or 6150 video - they do perform quite well - and those motherboards do have a PCIx16 slot so the option is always there
February 28, 2006 2:35:06 AM

btw thats a Biostar 6100 M7 that i'm using

if you read up on people comments about the motherboard - most of it is CPU compatibility or some such ... i flashed my BIOS right out of the box before i tried installing anything

Biostar allows you to put the BIOS update on a Floppy and Flash directly from the BIOS itself (it simply could not be easier)

im not a biostar fanboy or nothin - im just having alot of luck with this motherboard - it overclocks well - ive put in mixed/a couple different types of memory - with no compatibility issues at all - plus the onboard video is really good

all for $60

and i know you said yur not a gamer, i just posted the info to let you know what the onboard video was capable of - it really is not a slouch
February 28, 2006 3:10:09 AM

I would partially disagree about epox, I've used asus for years and never had an issue, I had a few people order cutoms builds and require epox and had some issues, one I had to rma. I don't think they're at all bad, just asus is more reliable. Granted they may be less overclockable though.

I've had good luck with DFI, they went from total crap years ago to very good.

I have the a8ne deluxe and it's been running for almost 5 months 24/7 without issue. And an a7n8x deluxe that's been going 24/7 for around 3 years.

I've built a bunch of MSI systems and have had generally good experiences, some failures, more than epox, but I've built more with msi than epox.

Edit: all the asus's I've used lately can flash with just the bin file on a cd, very handy.
February 28, 2006 3:11:04 AM

what about the best SLi ATX mobo?

i dont want some pricy X16 SLi mobo i want a good SLi mobo thats ~$100
February 28, 2006 3:18:48 AM

If your not a gamer you really will not see any difference between the two boards for everyday use. The only difference would be graphics primarily in gaming.
February 28, 2006 3:28:41 AM

All in the same price range, you have to decide the bells and whistles, that's more personal preference than "that one's better" just go to newegg, choose amd motherboards and choose 2 16x pci-e channels, then click the compare button and look at them side by side. I'd personally go with the asus, but that's just me.
!