mjmjpfaff

Distinguished
what is the dirfference btween those 2 phases because im lookin at the p67 extreme4 and p8p67 pro and the pro has more phases. that really seams to be the only big difference between the 2. also is it worth it (having more phases).
 
Theoretically, the more phases the power system has, the smoother the power delivery will be (less peaks and less valleys). With overclocking, that is important. However, like most theoretical computer performance, the actual real-life situations just don't measure up.

My ASRock P67 Pro3 with 8+2 phases got my 2500K to its multiplier wall of 48x just fine. ASRock is a good budget overclocker company, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them to family and friends ... or strangers on the internet.
 
I answered a thread about phases a few days ago, but can't find it.

The short answer is in the P67 4+1 can OC to 5GHz, so the real question is 'Why 12+2, 8+2, 24, 16+2, etc'. The answer is longevity in relation to efficiency. Imagine the strain of running 4+1 at nearly 80%+ 7/24/365 verses 8+2 at 40% or 16+2 at 20%, etc. However, in addition to Phases are Channels. Example the GA-P67A-UD7 has as I recall has 24 Phases divided into 6 Channels with the +2 {or more}, the Channels are like gears for added but ready power.

Don't get me wrong, 24 Phases is 'crazy' for even running nitrogen.

Next efficiency, the "Sandy Bridge" (32 nm) lithography {smaller = less resistance = less wasted energy / heat} don't require as much power as the "Bloomfield" (45 nm). Meaning a "Bloomfield" OC where 16+2 or more was a good idea, 8+2 "Sandy Bridge" is fine and a 12+2 will simply have a lesser issue of burning-out the MOBO. The +2 is for the Memory/DIMM. Phases are also spilt for the CPU, VTT bus, etc.