Which motherboard for multitasking on 3 monitors & gaming?

[jase888]

Im buying a pc for multi tasking on 3 monitors (using photoshop, dreamweaver, etc) also will do a bit of gaming.

Im a little stuck which motherboard I should get for what i need, il need it to have crossfire aswell as i will get two gpu.

Heres my options:

Intel® Core™i7-2600k Quad Core (3.40GHz, 8MB Cache) + HD Graphics
ASUS® P8P67 PRO (NEW REV 3.0): USB 3.0/SATA 6Gb/s, CrossFireX™ & SLI

or

Intel® Core™i7 Quad Core Processor i7-960 (3.20GHz) 4.8GTs/8MB Cache
ASUS® P6X58D PREMIUM: DDR3, USB 3.0 & SATA 6.0GB/s, 3-Way SLI

or

Intel® Core™i7-2600k Quad Core (3.40GHz, 8MB Cache) + HD Graphics
ASUS® MAXIMUS IV EXTREME (NEW REV 3.0): INTEL P67 ROG MOTHERBOARD

Option 3 is around £90 more do i need it?
I was originally going with option 1 the asus p8p67 pro but have read mixed reviews and want it to be good motherboard capable of running high spec pc.

[stroyal]

Deja-vu all over again.
We will probably have the same answer.

The 2600k is faster.
The 960 uses a more expensive motherboard, and triple channel memory.

They are both 4 core dual thread, so should be the same for multi-tasking, aside from the speed.

I didn't like the bad reviews on the p8p67, but the good reviews were good. You have to take NewEgg reviews with a grain of salt.

Go with a Gigabyte board, if you are not sure of Asus, I switched.

[RicheemxX]

Deja-fu all over again.
We will probably have the same answer.

I know right!!

I'm reading your post over here and it looks to me like you are wasting a ton of money on over buying things you really don't need. 16gb of ram is just overkill for almost anyone. Like I've mentioned before 4gbs is plenty for most people 8gbs would be the tops I'd add.

Unless you are overclocking you don't need the K-series cpu. Save some money and get the standard 2600.

For the money you are dropping on ram and that cpu you'd be better off putting it into hard drive space and running raid or even getting a ssd drive that would boost load times ect.

You also need to get off this idea that just because you are running multiple monitors you need "high specs". The only reason to run higher specs is for better gaming, faster rendering ect. Multiple monitors has no impact on that!!!

[ShyguyXPC]

You also need to get off this idea that just because you are running multiple monitors you need "high specs". The only reason to run higher specs is for better gaming, faster rendering ect. Multiple monitors has no impact on that!!!

To add to Rich's comment, and back it up.

Newegg.com - JATON VIDEO-558PCI-Quad GeForce 8400 GS 4 DVI outputs 512MB x 2 64-bit DDR2 PCI Video Card

LOW LOW LOW LOW ULTRA LOW END Geforce 8400GS, capable of running 4 Displays.

Doesn't take much to run multiple displays, only when gaming on all 4 displays does your needs really increase.


If you are planning on Spanning the Games across all 3 displays at once, then you'll need/want a top end performing card with multiple display capability, but if its to Game on one screen and use the other 2 for various other tasks while gaming, then there won't be that heavy a demand on the GPU and a lower performing GPU would be more than sufficient.

[JPMiller]

Dude, it looks to me like your just not listening to any of the advice here...
The people responding to your threads are all very experienced power users...
We have built tons of machines, used them for all sorts of different software and conditions, and helped probably hundreds of people design their PC's.
Your wasting money in areas that will NOT help with the type of performance your asking about, and not spending in areas that WILL.
The components being suggested are geared toward the type of usage and the way you want to display it.
16 gigs is a waste...
Too high-end of a video card is a waste...
Too high a wattage PSU is a waste...
An overclockable CPU is a waste...
Not getting a fast hard drive, or 2, is a waste..

[RicheemxX]

Here's the thing, and don't take me wrong, I'd love to throw the money at a machine like you are but you say a "bit" of gaming and a lot of multitasking with web apps. Ok so all your apps aren't that heavy unless you are doing something off the hook. I have an old mid grade dual core and I can do heavy ps cs3 renders in a flash. Video renders are longer but I don't do much.

I don't mean me to sound bad but for what you are asking you can spend half the cost and you'd build/buy a machine that would suite all your needs.


Most games don't span three screens the ones that do are ok. But if you are only doing a "bit" of gaming on alll 3 then there is no reason to do dual cards.

[jase888]

haha thanks for responses people just wanted to amke sure before i went and bought it. Its on its way now so cant change it.

Next question though is im looking at investing in some 5.1 surround sound speakers just for around £60 on ebuyer (Creative Inspire T6100 5.1 Speakers - 76W RMS Retail.. | Ebuyer.com)
But it recommends a Sound Blaster X-Fi sound card, were as i haven't got a sound card just intergrated sound from motherboard will the surround sound still work well or should i go and get a sound blaster card is it worth it and is it easy to set-up??

Thanks again

[-FMA]

Those speakers aren't expensive enough to warrant a sound card IMO, but it seems like you're going to go out and spend $200 on one anyway.

[JPMiller]

Sound card is a waste of money unless your a KNOWLEDGEABLE audiophile...
You aren't, and it wont matter.