I would have had a much harder time diagnosing my system had I had the UD5. The LEDs' on the CH IV make things so much simpler IMHO.
I was having issues getting my new system past Post. It kept having issues up to VGA. Bouncing between that and DRAM indicators and my 3rd slot dropped out. When I built my system I didn't make sure to tighten(thought I did and had a n00b moment
) every standoff and had an extra under it. It woulda taken me forever to figure it out if I didn't have the LEDs' to let me know where I was in POST process.
I ended up figuring it out once I remounted a brand new Board that I RMA'ed for. Had I been paying attention I would have figured it out w/o spending money for shipping.
On top of that I really like how easy this Board overclocks. Already got a stable 3.8 Ghz with a single button. Only reason MaximumPC gave UD5 a KA award was cause the extra PCI-e slot. Which is fine but impossibly myopic considering how many more features the CH IV has. The only reason they didn't give the KA award to CH IV was because Asus dropped IDE from the Board. Both scored 9s' and as you say both are good boards but even rookie builders (which I'm not
) have a good chance to have a really nice system and not fail in their OCs'.
Also if you don't have a lot of peripherals you can run 4 single slot GPUs' in XFire or SLI if you have the nVidia hack done. I'm sure the only reason that Asus had standard PCI on the board at all was for people that still have soundcards and peripherals dependent on them. As well as a IDE adapter should one wish to still run IDE. This was one of the issues that MPC took issue with. Basically asking why get rid of IDE and still having that form on the Board. Viola! asked and answered.
Originally Posted by ChrisB17
I had both boards. I loved the UD5. It was one of the best boards I have ever owned. The CH was ok. I liked the UD5 tho.