How would you compare the two? Which would be better if all the other settings were provided the same?
2007-02-16 10:21:17 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Computers & Internet ➔ Hardware ➔ Other - Hardware
They are both overpriced to begin with. The only reason to is if you are planning to run SLI with the Striker or Crossfire with the Intel, else you can get just as good a board for cheaper. Of the two, the Striker is a little better, mostly from the fact that ASUS just makes better boards and the it has a better chipset. If you want some more advice on motherboards, email or instant message me and I will help you find something good that fits your needs.
2007-02-16 12:24:55 · answer #1 · answered by mysticman44 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have the BX2, and I really dislike the layout of the slots. The lack of PCIX-1 slots is stupid at best. Three PCI-X16's? Nuts. I had to lose some hardware to compensate for the loss of a pci slot as well. The board itself rocks. It will likely need a BIOS update out of the box, they update it monthly it seems.
2007-02-16 10:37:32 · answer #2 · answered by Chris B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why do no longer you only bypass away it as much as the folk construction it? that's what you're paying them for. i'd positioned a minimum of 1066 ram in. That board helps as much as 1333 and you're only putting 800 in? nicely, in case you intend on clocking you ought to then use a diverse "ratio" and have the flexibility to bump the ram up lots. to boot there would be a distinction working ram thats over 30% swifter(1066)
2016-11-23 13:52:08 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋