If you want use a dedicated GPU, get the P67 that gives you the possibility of overclock your CPU.
If you want a budget right with GPU integrated, get the H67.
Can you respond to a slightly different scenario? I have a dual head (2 x dvi) XFX 4770 card that I want to use for extended desktop.
Given that I've already have the card and don't overclock, is there any energy savings / power consumption difference between the H67 and the P67 in terms of the cpu idle & load management (Core i2400 in my build)?
I was under the impression the P67 was a bit "greener".
Thanks for taking time to respond!
PS I realize that the 4770 card probably uses more power than if I had relied solely on the integrated gpu in the sandy bridge.
The P67 gives you the possibility to overclock the CPU while the H67 gives you the possibility to overclock the onboard GPU, if whe keep that in mind, in theory the H67 should use less power since don't use dedicated GPU BUT dedicated GPUs also comes with energy saving options, so, in that way both, P67 and H67 should be the same, the difference will be the GPU.
On silentpcreview.com I found this comparison between and Intel H67 mobo and P67 mobos by Intel and Gigabyte.
At idle, using a Core i5-2500K processor at stock settings the H67 shows a clear power efficiency advantage (red bar). [/b]
The silentpcreview article goes on to say,
The P67 chipset seems to use more power than H67 as well. Compared to the DH67BL, the DP67BG used approximately 5W more when idle and playing video, though the tables turned on load with the P67 board posting a 3W advantage.
I'm not interested in overclocking and I'll be using a dedicated GPU (GTX 460) would a P67 simply be a waste of cash over a H67?
if you have GPU, you'd better P67 since H67 have built-in video onboard, so will not be needed. H67 is more to HTPC build, but if you don't overclock, you can take H67 also. Just remember that you can't overclock using H67 (in BIOS there won't be multiplier setting).