Take the 2-minute tour ×
Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'll try to be brief. I'm currently looking at x79 motherboards for using with a i7-3820. I was initially inclined for getting an Asus, but then I started reading about more detailed specifications on the Intel motherboard dx79si that made me think otherwise. Intel mentions a lot about their capabilities of sharing cached memory and the efficiency of their motherboard with solid state hard drives. Well, I'm aware that Asus motherboards are also built on the x79 from Intel, but Asus doesn't mention as much memory sharing capabilities. On top of that, every product from Intel (Including the CPU and the SSH) is described as having amazing memory sharing capabilities. The thing is: I'm not looking for an absurdly high-end product, despite of the fact that I'm getting a Quad-channel motherboard. I'm looking for something that will work today, and that can be sold tomorrow (Because it will be upgrade-able). I'm not overclocking, and the frequency for my RAM will be at 1600. But I do intend to get a Solid State memory and I do want a 7.1 Audio card (Which the motherboard I just mentioned has). I'm not getting more than one Video Card (I'm getting a pretty decent one though). If you think about it, the products managing my memory can all be from Intel. So I'm wondering: If you are not overclocking, getting insane cooling or two absurdly expensive video cards, is it possible that having an Intel combo of components will increase performance? Or the memory sharing capabilities from the Asus x79 are just the same as the Intel x79 since they share the same "skeleton"?

P.s.:
-Note that I'm not simply asking if computer hardware from the same brand works better together, I'm talking specifically about the fact that the new Intel products are mentioning the memory sharing capabilities in all their products much more than others.
-When I said upgrade-able I didn't mean for gamers; so I won't be needing a whole bunch of slots, and I don't care about a "cool" BIOS graphic design.

Thanks for your attention

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Dave M, Shinrai, Nifle, Mokubai, studiohack Feb 16 '12 at 22:47

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

    
Shopping type questions will usually be voted closed or closed by a moderator. –  Dave M Feb 16 '12 at 18:29
    
This is not a shopping "type" question. Like many questions, this one raised while researching about something else. I only mentioned what that other thing was for anecdotal reasons (Relevant ones). There were no questions on price, cost-value or any factor directly related to "shopping". My question was centered on compatibility/design. My knowledge on hardware is fairly limited to general aspects. I'm interested to learn about the lower level implications of the case I presented. I'm not so worried that the post was closed, but I don't acknowledge the reason given... –  OverAchiever May 1 '12 at 19:39

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

No, using only Intel hardware will not give you a performance boost and not any additional memory sharing capabilities. Forget it, it is just marketing.

This is also valid for any other products, for example an ASUS GPU doesn't work better with an ASUS motherboard than with an EVGA one.

I would prefer ASUS in anyway as the reselling value of a ASUS board is higher than of an Intel board, as nobody wants to have an Intel board.

share|improve this answer
    
Could the anonymous downvoter please explain his or her concern? –  bamboon Feb 16 '12 at 18:22
    
as support for this from anecdote: new hardware specs are a performance ceiling rarely attained and rarely needed. The OP has specifically excluded scenarios where one might find some meaningful difference. An SSD drive for the OS might actually net a bigger performance increase over an expensive motherboard, since it is the number one bottleneck on most computers. –  horatio Feb 16 '12 at 19:02
    
@horatio while it is probably right what you say, it has nothing to do with the question. –  bamboon Feb 16 '12 at 19:04
    
specs and listed capabilities of the hardware has nothing to do with the question? –  horatio Feb 16 '12 at 19:06
1  
No, I was pointing out that the OP's waffling about the decision is based upon unobservable differences. –  horatio Feb 16 '12 at 19:13

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.