Asus takes the win at medium settings in Call of Duty: World at War, but falls to the middle when game details are increased.
The M4A79T Deluxe stays slightly ahead through both Crysis detail levels.
Asus repeats its performance at medium settings in Far Cry 2, falling slightly behind Gigabyte at higher details.
Taking the top position in World in Conflict helps the M4A79T Deluxe secure its overall gaming lead.
Previous
Next
Summary
- 790FX Is Still The King
- Socket AM3 Motherboard Features Comparison
- Asus M4A79T Deluxe
- DFI LANParty DK 790FXB-M3H5
- Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P
- MSI 790FX-GD70
- Test Settings
- Benchmark Results: 3D Games
- Benchmark Results: A/V Encoding And Productivity
- Benchmark Results: Synthetic
- Overclocking, Power, And Heat
- Conclusion
Ask a Category Expert








(2.80 GHz, 86.0 MB Cache)
I never knew any AMD processors had that much cache!
Super CPU!
1.66% better than the worst performer in the tests. :-)
Not much point in throwing that much GPU horsepower at a motherboard review; the card Thomas used is our current reference--and it's more than ample for showcasing the differences between these boards.
If you want to see quad-CrossFire for any specific reason, feel free to let us know and we can put together a story idea!
Consistent would have been better if not for the fear of people pointing out ever tiny inconsistency. Just remember, if you're 5'11" tall it's clear to just about everyone that you're not 6'!!!
Could you clarify that a bit Chris? Are you saying you would not expect any difference in crossfire between the MBs? If so, that's OK. However, if there's going to be a difference, that is the main reason to buy a 790FX. If you aren't going to crossfire might as well get a GX.
I suspect the chipset isn't the whole story and the various manufacturers could still screw up the PCI-E voltages or something
It depends on the numbers you're looking for. I interpreted the OP's request to mean he wanted performance results with 4870 X2s, which are overkill for comparing these boards. If it's a matter of comparing PCI Express scaling (the reason for going FX instead of GX), check out this piece: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-pci-express,2095.html. It isn't on the AMD platforms, but it still illustrates fairly well how much/little performance you'd lose with PCIe 2.0 x8 vs. x16.
Granted my request isn't based on the real needs of the consumer, it's more of a scientific curiosity behind it. But I remember a while back tom's had an article about nvidia's SLI with 2, 3 or 4 cards in different configurations and that was an interesting read.
PS: Just to clear something up in the 2 x 4870X2 vs. 4 x 4870 or other versions. I know that 4x4870 are more $$ then 2x4870X2 but if you buy a 4 slot PCIe motherboard what if you start out with a single 4870 or 4890 and just add in cards over the period of a year since prices change and people might not have all the cash to get 4 cards at the same time.
"We guys" just made a suggestion since Chris stated he's opened to ideas. The asrock X58 article a few days back is another good example of a story that can be looked at from a more technical perspective. Since that board and these two AMD ones share 4 PCIe ports and ATI & Nvidia cards support ATI STREA/CUDA one would be inclined to have a look beyond the "can it run crysis" comment. And I'm sure finding 4 identical cards isn't an issues since the time that takes to right an article wasn't up for debate.