ASRock Shows Off its X99 WS Workstation Motherboard

In addition to the X99M Killer board we covered earlier today, ASRock today also revealed its X99 WS motherboard, which is aimed at workstations, and if you have even one quick glance at it, you will probably agree.

Next to the LGA2011-3 socket we find eight DDR4 memory slots for quad-channel memory that will allow you to install up to 128 GB of memory when using 16 GB DIMMs. Expansion is covered by a mind-boggling six PCI-Express 3.0 x16 slots. There is a Molex power connector beside the top PCI-Express slot to give a little extra power to these slots. 

Storage connectivity is covered by 10 SATA3 (6 GB/s) ports, along with a single Ultra M.2 slot. The Ultra M.2 slot is driven by four PCI-Express 3.0 lanes, which is a departure from the two PCI-Express 2.0 lanes you'll see on most motherboards.

One notable omissions to the spec list is SATA-Express, but as we mentioned in our X99M Killer post, ASRock left it off because the company feels that there aren't yet enough SATA-Express devices on the market yet to justify its inclusion. We're happier with the Ultra M.2 slots, anyway.

The rear I/O panel sports a single PS/2 port, four USB 2.0 ports, an eSATA port, four USB 3.0 ports, dual Intel Gigabit Ethernet, and analog HD audio, and there's also an optical TOSLINK output. The dual Intel-driven Gigabit Ethernet and the exclusive use of PCI-Express x16 slots will be the selling points for the ASRock X99 WS.

No word on pricing yet, though we expect the board to become available around the same time as the Haswell-E CPUs are to debut, which is rumored to be August 29.

Follow Niels Broekhuijsen @NBroekhuijsen. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

Create a new thread in the US News comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
11 comments
    Your comment
  • mapesdhs
    From having worked on a number of WS boards, my immediate observations would be:

    - Primary PCIe slot too high up. Hefty GPU cards can clash with air coolers,
    and even with DIMMs.

    - Bottom slot is right next to all sorts of board-edge items; make the board
    longer! It's a WS board for grud's sake, it's going to be used in bigger cases.

    - Power/reset/debug and I/O panel pins are all on the bottom edge - the whole
    lot will be obscured by a large GPU, can't see debug code on powerup, front
    panel pins are hard to connect, etc. Move the debug and reset/power to the
    top/right of the board, and again, make the board longer so a 2-slot GPU in
    the bottom slot won't block all these bottom-edge items.

    These issues really can become a total pain with WS-type boards, especially in
    quad-GPU setups. The ASUS M4E has its power/reset buttons in the right place,
    but its WS boards suffer from the same bottom-edge issues.

    I don't understand why WS boards are always made to be so short.
    Indeed, I'd regard a real WS board as one which was extra long to allow for
    triple slot spacing with 4 GPUs, PLEX switches for 4-way @ x16, and x1/x4
    slots inbetween the main slots. It would also help a lot if case vendors could
    find a way of allowing one to adjust the vertical position of the mbd so it can
    be put lower down to allow for larger water coolers up top (eg. Aerocool
    XPredator would benefit from this), ie. a repositionable backplate zone. Thus,
    a case with 10 slots at the back could be adjusted to have the mbd 2 slots
    further down, leaving 8 slots (often what is needed for quad-GPU) and more
    room at the top.

    Ian.
    5
  • bambiboom
    Gentlemen?,

    The upcoming ASRock X99 WS, LGA 2011 workstation motherboard employing the X99 chipset is very welcome, especially given the 10 SATA III connections and the new Ultra M.2 port. The C602 chipset as far as I know supports two SATA III ports.

    Also welcome is the row of six PCIe x16 slots which take advantage of the 40 PCIe lanes of Xeon E5 as compared to the 16 lanes of LGA1150 (Xeon E3). I'm quite certain that not all six slots may run at x16 simultaneously, but the flexibility in configuration and card placement is an attractive feature.

    One aspect of the ASRock X99 WS that I question is along the same lines as mentioned by mapesdhs, that of a seeimngly crowded layout. Workstations are increasingly used for long slogs of calculations using every core and CUDA (MATLAB), demanding video editing /processing, and rendering. Running renderings recently on an HP z420, the Quadro 4000 touched 105C and the E5-1620 83C. The new Haswell-E's will be include Xeon E5's of 8, 10, 12, 14 , 16, and 18 cores. The demanding uses and the presence of all those cores add to a lot of potential heat. Even though the voltages for the CPUs and DDR4 are gradually reduced- DDR4 is 1.2V, generous cooling should be a high priority and not necessary to measure and calculate to the the last mm. Those RAM slots would probably be useable only with RAM without heat spreaders. Perhaps DDR4 doesn't need it, but after five years with 83-90C DDR2- I err on the side of caution. As storage becomes less expensive, workstation are also using larger 1+0 RAIDs, demanding larger cases anyway. If I were to use this board, I would use closed loop liquid cooling and a large, airy case, so I would rather see this one as an E-ATX board with some space between the CPU and RAM and in general less crowded.

    Still, if the performance is as good as it might be and the price is reasonable- under $350, it looks to be very good and a new 8-core Xeon E5-1660 v3 at 3.5/ 3.9GHz, a PCIe SSD, 64GB of 1866 DDR4, a Quadro K5000 or Firepro W7000 could make me very happy.

    I'll look forward to Tom's giving this one a test drive, especially with regards to Ultra M.2.

    Cheers,

    BambiBoom

    P.S. It's not terribly important, but I wish Intel would change their Xeon designation system and drop the v2 , v3 when the CPU's are substantially different. For example, when the six-core E5-1660 v2 becomes the eight-core E5-1660 v3 on a completely different die, why not call it simply E5-1680 or similar?
    0
  • mapesdhs
    bambiboom writes:
    > Also welcome is the row of six PCIe x16 slots which take advantage of the 40 PCIe lanes of Xeon E5
    > as compared to the 16 lanes of LGA1150 (Xeon E3). I'm quite certain that not all six slots may run at
    > x16 simultaneously, but the flexibility in configuration and card placement is an attractive feature.

    One would hope they've set it up akin to the X79 Extreme 11, but we shall see.


    > ... Running renderings recently on an HP z420, the Quadro 4000 touched 105C and the E5-1620 83C. ...

    The stock cooler on the Q4K is rubbish. Replace it with something better. I've done this several times;
    using a Gelic Icy Vision II, load temps dropped by 45C. Using a Zalman VF1000, load temps dropped
    by 25C. The former does take up 3 slots, but that's ok if you're not using the affected slots. The Zalman
    cooler uses just 2 slots, but it's harder to find (I got one 2nd hand from an old 4870 card). An added
    benefit: both solutions massively reduce noise levels, especially the Icy Vision II.

    As for the CPU, use water cooling. I've been using Corsair H100i and H110s for all X79 builds,
    works very well, good temps and low noise (I don't use the stock fans though).


    > ... If I were to use this board, I would use closed loop liquid cooling and a large, airy case,
    > so I would rather see this one as an E-ATX board with some space between the CPU and
    > RAM and in general less crowded.

    So far I've been using Cooler Master HAF 932 cases and one Aerocool XPredator, but they
    both have limitations. My next build will be with a Nanoxia Deep Silence (NDS) 6. It's huge,
    so plenty of space inside, but I will have to modify it to have wheels for easier movement.
    bambiboom, have a look at the specs, and check some reviews.
    specs, and check some reviews. Note that although it's a
    bit pricey, I always replace stock fans in cases with NDS fans anyway, so the overall cost
    will be about the same since this unit already has the desired fans.


    > Still, if the performance is as good as it might be and the price is reasonable- under $350,
    > it looks to be very good and a new 8-core Xeon E5-1660 v3 at 3.5/ 3.9GHz, a PCIe SSD,
    > 64GB of 1866 DDR4, a Quadro K5000 or Firepro W7000 could make me very happy.

    Is that with ECC RAM? If not, get the 5930K instead, easily better than a 10-core XEON
    once oc'd. Btw, the K5000 is about 3X faster than the Q4000, I've tested both recently.


    > I'll look forward to Tom's giving this one a test drive, especially with regards to Ultra M.2.

    The newer storage tech is a definite improvement. And I read yesterday that it will
    support at least 128GB RAM.


    > eight-core E5-1660 v3 on a completely different die, why not call it simply E5-1680 or similar?

    I agree, but then lots of modern tech marketing names are really dumb.

    Ian.
    0