ASRock was quick to respond to the overclocking issues encountered in our Core i7 Sub-$300 Motherboard Roundup, offering a replacement board and processor within hours of article publication. And how could we pass up the offer, when the replacement Core i7 processor ASRock offered was based on Intel’s improved D0 stepping?
Yet, we wanted to make sure we were representing the situation as accurately as possible, so we took time to carefully consider our commitment to you before finally deciding the most balanced approach. We’ll begin today’s review update by presenting ASRock’s explanation, and finish by applying our previous overclocking configuration to a second motherboard we purchased at e-tail to see if a newer board revision and improved BIOS will protect overclocking enthusiasts.
The only motherboard we’ve tested to properly support four double-thick graphics cards, ASRock's X58 SuperComputer’s name isn’t too far off from at least one of the product’s intended markets as an Nvidia Tesla Personal Supercomputer platform. Gaming fanatics can also appreciate the flexibility of supporting extra cards, since a 3-way SLI configuration still has space for a fourth card that can be dedicated to in-game physics calculations.
We had much praise and few complaints in our full layout description, so our next page will re-examine the product’s overclocking capabilities using the latest BIOS and CPU core stepping.

K9A2 Platinum cannot support Core i7: The ASRock X58 SuperComputer is only ever compared to other LGA-1366 motherboards.
You do get a lot of features, but it's not cheaper than the competition. The big difference is that it supports four double-thick cards, as long as your case has enough room under the last slot.
Yes, Tom's Hardware uses 1.44 to 1.45 volts for testing the overclocking capabilty of its Core i7 920 on various boards. The problem is that set voltage is never actual voltage, and an attempt to get 1.44-1.45V actual voltage would overload the VRM when using traditional voltage-changing methods on version 1.03 boards (and 1.04 with early BIOS). Newer BIOS on 1.05 boards (and 1.04 according to ASRock) allows setting electronic compensation which is much more responsive (than a person is) to changes in load, preventing damage.
Kudos to them for their slot layout though, that is what would cause me to buy their board; much better use than, say, a daughterboard slot for a sound processor which might be good but I'm going to replace anyway (much as I love my Asus Rampage II Extreme, that 'feature' chaps me).
Unsuspecting buyers? I'm pretty sure you can read their warranty where they tell you that manually adjusting settings is dangerous and can void your warranty. Believe it or not, there is actually a reason companies tend to recommend against overclocking their products, because you are taking the product out of its designed specifications.
I don't think any of these ASRock boards are failing out of the box with a stock CPU, and therefore, ASRock has no responsibility to pull or repair these boards. Should Ford re-build your engine cause you used jet fuel instead of regular gasoline?
Anyone who knows enough to overclock their CPU should know that they do so at their own risk.
You know that Rampage II audio riser slot also supports x1 cards: Asus has some nice x1 sound cards.
Let's see just how well they implemented this design before we call foul to droop. VRM 11 specs point out perfectly well why some droop is mandatory when it comes to motherboard CPU PWM design. Having the board only show an offset of 2% at whatever voltage after having had humungous levels of it does not suddenly mean that droop is bad per se.
In an ideal world we'd have no droop, but some form of oscillation during load changes are guaranteed in the real world on all these crazy motherboards. I'd like to see the scope shots to prove this load calibration business has been done right or whther its a fix merely to pander to those who form their beliefs merely by having insufficient knowledge of how a well designed power circuit reacts to load changes.
You sir, is an idiot. There are people out there still using IDE drives as back up drives,etc.
PS2 keyboard >>>>> USB for OC
You know that when Abit listened to people like that and tried "legacy free" boards, their sales dropped so low they no longer had the money to pay for warranty service from boards of "better days".
It would be nice (if possible) if we get a link where we can directly buy the hardware you guys tested, knowing that I can get the performance you guys had.
Often, because of the mobo's or cpu versions not being in stock in our local cpu store, we end up buying a lower performing part,for nearly the same amount of money.
A while ago Tomshardware did a $600-$800 pc. I went to the local staples/Brand smart or other store,and found for the price only celeron machines back then. Not even a lower grade core2duo.
Knowing that (I have an OEM CD of XP) building my system in parts like done on toms, will give me a better performing system for less money.
Remember that you must use the case, or motherboard...or hard drive from the system that came with that OEM XP license in order to stay legal.
The article doesn't cover all the details on Core i7 overclocking, but you basically get one of two kinds of processors: Those that need more than 1.40V to hit 4.0 GHz, and those that don't. The ones that don't need as much voltage will usually go to around 4.2-4.4 GHz, while those that do need the extra voltage will generally go to 3.9-4.1 GHz.
The difference in achievable clock speed appears to be internal hotspots on the less-overclockable processors.
Both of the processors in this article required more than 1.40 volts to reach 4.0 GHz. One was a C0, the other a D0 stepping, yet both exhibited similar overclocking behavior with one exception: The D0 topped out at around 1.42V, while the C0 topped out at around 1.45V.