| BIOS Frequency and Voltage settings (for overclocking) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASRock X79 Extreme9 | Asus P9X79 Deluxe | Asus P9X79 WS | Gigabyte G1.Assassin2 | Gigabyte X79-UD5 | |
| Base Clock | 90-300 MHz (1 MHz) | 80-300 MHz (0.1 MHz) | 80-300 MHz (0.1 MHz) | 80-333 MHz (0.01 MHz) | 80-333 MHz (0.01 MHz) |
| CPU Multiplier | 12x to 60x (1x) | 12x to 57x (1x) | 12x to 57x (1x) | 12x to 59x (1x) | 12x to 59x (1x) |
| DRAM Data Rates | 800-2400 (266.6 MHz) | 800-2666 (266.6 MHz) | 800-2666 (266.6 MHz) | 800-3200 (266.6 MHz) | 800-3200 (266.6 MHz) |
| CPU Vcore | 0.60-1.52 V (5 mV) | 0.80-1.70 V (5 mV) | 0.80-1.70 V (5 mV) | 0.80-1.74 V (5mV) | 0.80-1.74 V (5mV) |
| VTT Voltage | 0.86-1.71 V (13 mV) | 1.05-1.70 V (6.25 mV) | 1.05-1.70 V (6.25 mV) | 0.72-1.61 V (5mV) | 0.72-1.61 V (5mV) |
| X79 PCH Voltage | 0.73-1.91 V (13 mV) | 1.10-1.70 V (6.25 mV) | 1.10-1.70 V (6.25 mV) | 0.87-1.98 V (5 mV) | 0.87-1.98 V (5 mV) |
| DRAM Voltage | 1.20-1.80 V (15 mV) | 1.20-1.99 V (5 mV) | 1.20-1.99 V (5 mV) | 0.83-1.51 V (5 mV) | 0.83-1.51 V (5 mV) |
| CAS Latency | 4-15 Cycles | 3-15 Cycles | 3-15 Cycles | 5-12 Cycles | 5-12 Cycles |
| tRCD | 4-15 Cycles | 4-15 Cycles | 4-15 Cycles | 5-31 Cycles | 5-31 Cycles |
| tRP | 4-15 Cycles | 4-15 Cycles | 4-15 Cycles | 5.15 Cycles | 5.15 Cycles |
| tRAS | 9-63 Cycles | 4-40 Cycles | 4-40 Cycles | 5-63 Cycles | 5-63 Cycles |
The addition of boot straps (chipset to CPU base clock ratios) to the LGA 2011 platform should have made overclocking easier compared to multiplier-locked LGA 1155-based CPUs, and yet every manufacturer appears to have figured out a way to make the process more difficult. ASRock, for example, make it clear where the ratios take effect as you scale up and down the base clock range. Altering Gigabyte’s base clock control by only 0.1 MHz caused boot failures with both motherboards when used in conjunction with higher-than-stock (33x) CPU ratios, leaving 100.00 and 125.00 MHz as our only overclocking options.

Asus’ limits were least-intrusive and appeared to be caused by changes in C1 core stepping power controls (a lower thermal throttling limit is one change that's easy to identify). We tried maxing out all of the settings we knew might help, but to no avail. Even still, 4.4 GHz at a mere 1.35 V core is nothing to be ashamed of.
We retested with a C0 Core i7 and shot straight to 4.7 GHz. We won't bother breaking down the settings we used to achieve that frequency because we don't want anyone to form expectations about a processor they can't actually buy. We'll instead keep testing whatever production-era samples we can get in hopes of finding a better example of Sandy Bridge-E's potential.
Once we figured out how ASRock's automatic adjustment worked, we were able to push our processor to a similar frequency as those achieved on both Asus boards. ASRock had also contacted us to say that it discovered the same C1-oriented multiplier problem in one of the 40 CPU samples it tested, credited a competitor with finding a workaround (we like that kind of honesty), and further stated that its team has developed a similar workaround we should have access to in mid-December. Since that's when the testing starts for our next round-up, we'll have a good opportunity to hold ASRock to that promise and report back to you.
Gigabyte’s results don’t look bad, but we were unable to overclock beyond stock Turbo Boost limits using multiplier adjustment alone. We were instead forced to use the 1.25x boot strap with a 34x multiplier and leave the 100 MHz base clock well enough alone.

Intel’s P67 X79 chipset still has the same 107-108 MHz limitation we've endured from mainstream Sandy Bridge platforms for the past 11 months. Boot straps multiply that range by 1.25x (and higher), though we were not able to reach the 166 or 250 MHz straps with our processor.

Asus has the best DRAM data rates, its P9X79 WS and P9X79 Deluxe taking first and second place.
- Sandy Bridge-E And X79: The Best Intel Has To Offer
- ASRock X79 Extreme9
- X79 Extreme9 Firmware
- Asus P9X79 Deluxe
- Asus P9X79 WS
- Asus’ UEFI
- Gigabyte G1.Assassin2
- Gigabyte GA-X79-UD5
- Gigabyte’s UEFI
- Test Settings
- Benchmark Results: 3D Games
- Benchmark Results: Audio And Video Encoding
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Power, Heat, And Efficiency
- X79 Overclocking
- Which High-End X79 Motherboard Is Best?
You might want re check the facts.
Thanks.
How could that happen? ASRock has repeatedly removed previous BIOS versions from its website and labeled the replacement as the initial release.
This review was published after many hours of collaboration with ASRock, and some of the problems with this specific CPU are further detailed in the overclocking section. ASRock acknowledged the problem exists with a portion of the C1 CPU supply and has begun issuing patched BIOS to fix the multiplier issue, according to ASRock engineer William Yu.
Not to mention that they didnt say they couldnt hit 4.4ghz, they just stated they didnt get that high without going beyond 1.35v
Kinda wish we got to see a MAX overclock for air before temps got out of control =P
But then you get various coolers involved... yada yada... but PLEASE anyway
I had to comment on something. I can't really comment on the hardware as its so enthusiast and SB-E is well beyond my needs. I can't comment too much on the bios because I still barely understand mine, but I am seeing the trend that it might be best to stick with what you know, or risk having to translate the various names/definitions of settings across different products. I'm not that smart nor that patient. I liked the comment on the 6.00...lol... %! I never would have thought. I think that just deciphered half of my bios options, thanks. /wink
Just sayin'
Question does tht little fan on the motherboard get loud? If it does that would be a deal breaker for me
On a side note I would love to see how these boards look assembled
I am running 4.4GHz on 1.2V Revision C1 ASRock Extreme4 Bios 1.50. At 1.4V i can run 5.0Ghz but i don't have good enough cooler so i reverted back to 4.4.
I was wondering the same thing. I was about to purchase the rampage iv extreme then I saw this story. I was hoping to see it compaired with these boards. But, maybe it's in a league of its own.
It uses the same chipset and Asus doesn't differentiate integrated components on a per board testing basis. It will almost assuredly perform at the same level the other boards do, it just has a brand name unscaled cost and different tweak software.
In general, the entire x79 platform seems poorly executed to me. For having over twice the transistor count of a Sandy Bridge chip, the E line does not have performance to match that much of a die size increase, coupled with the base TDP being as high as it is, I would expect many more cores or much higher clocks out of them, especially considering they don't waste die space on integrated graphics.
That and the motherboards to go with the platform are all extremely overpriced. It is understandable that a new socket type has a lot of manufacturing overhead, and 4 channel RAM is magnitudes more complicated circuitry than dual channel, and having the PCI lanes support almost three times the bandwidth and channels is costly. But it isn't triple the price of a reasonable z68 motherboard costly.
The CPU is worse; for a total buy-in of $920+ (adds the cost of an i7-3930K) you can build a very nice system indeed, as the $1K SBM articles clearly show.
In today's economic climate, X79 may make sense for only a very few people. I'm not one of them, and while there's certainly no harm in reading about it, I doubt many regular Tom's readers are either.
Suckers!! haha
Which makes me wonder. If a 2600K can normally hit 4.8GHz on modest air cooling, and an i7 3960X is going to typically max out at around 4.4GHz with the same Vcore and cooling.... that's a 10% higher clock speed on the 2600K. The 3960X should perform about 20% faster at the same speed.... meaning... the difference is going to be what? 10% in favor of the 3960X.
So, 10% more performance for about 3 times the cost.
For anything but professional workstations, it seems that X79 doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Next year i'm getting a new LGA 2011 mobo and an "old" 2600K and spare some cash for a better GPU.
Greedy bastards...