MSI’s three-way SLI and CrossFireX solution risks becoming an also-ran in a market topped by Gigabyte’s four-way alternative. MSI has a trick up its sleeve, though. Priced at only $180, the 990FXA-GD80 is the cheapest product to properly support three-way graphics modes. MSI gets there by automatically switching from x16-x0-x8 transfers to x16-x8-x8 whenever a card is installed in the middle slot, just like the more expensive offering from ECS.
Like ECS, MSI adds a CLR_CMOS button to its I/O panel. Unlike ECS, MSI chooses to conceal this button to reduce the incidence of accidental engagement. The 990FXA-GD80 also lacks ECS' second network port and Bluetooth transceiver, but the sacrifice of a few features was required to maintain this model's low price.
Layout aside, the most closely matched product in a combination of features and price comes from Asus. Yet, while the Sabertooth 990FX requires an eight-slot case to hold three double-slot cards in SLI or CrossFire, the 990FXA-GD80 can fit those same cards into a standard seven-slot case. The 990FXA-GD80 does lose the usefulness of its four-lane slot in this configuration, but the board also has a x1 slot at the top that’s completely missing from its Asus competition.
MSI slides its USB 3.0 header further south along the 990FXA-GD80’s front edge, but avoids collision with graphics cards by facing that connector forward. Case designers have long been making room for SATA cables in this area, so appropriate cases are plentiful.
Remaining layout concerns are trivial and apply to every model in this round-up, such as the bottom-rear corner front-panel audio connector and the close proximity between memory slots and the CPU socket. Both MSI and its competitors require extra-long front-panel cables, along with careful consideration of clearance between oversized CPU coolers and tall memory modules.

The 990FXA-GD80 includes three SLI bridges, the longer one designed to accommodate cross-connector placement for three-way SLI, along with the full set of six SATA cables and a USB 3.0 slot adapter plate.
- 990FX: AMD Leads The Chipset Game
- ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Professional
- Fatal1ty 990FX Professional Firmware
- Asus Sabertooth 990FX
- Sabertooth 990FX Firmware
- ECS A990FXM-A
- A990FXM-A Firmware
- Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7
- 990FXA-UD7 Firmware
- MSI 990FXA-GD80
- 990FXA-GD80 Firmware
- Test Settings And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: 3D Games
- Benchmark Results: Audio And Video Encoding
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Power, Heat, And Efficiency
- Overclocking
- Which 990FX Board Should You Buy?


So, x58 is irrelevant, because SB beats it. Except AMD's offering is somehow relevant even though both x58 and SB beat it. What?????
If you ignore x58 because SB offers better performance, you ignore anything AMD has because a SB setup offers better performance. If you want 36 or less lanes, x58 still offers better processors than you can hope to get from AMD. Bizarre logic.
Not that AMD is irrelevant, just the logic is badly flawed.
but great chipsets cant offset poor CPU's.
Secondly, I would really like to see a piece on extreme CFX/SLI configurations on rigs like this. It seems an article with reliable information on this would be beneficial to gaming enthusiasts, IT professionals, and HPC builders alike!
Hope to see an article along these lines soon!
So, x58 is irrelevant, because SB beats it. Except AMD's offering is somehow relevant even though both x58 and SB beat it. What?????
If you ignore x58 because SB offers better performance, you ignore anything AMD has because a SB setup offers better performance. If you want 36 or less lanes, x58 still offers better processors than you can hope to get from AMD. Bizarre logic.
Not that AMD is irrelevant, just the logic is badly flawed.
Originally it referred to AMD's insistence of comparing its FX-8150 to the 990X to prove that the FX-8150 had far better value. The original version of the paragraph referred to that comparison method a sham, and THEN referred to the SB vs BD debate. I guess it's neither nice nor necessary to call the 8150/990X price/performance comparison a sham, so the paragraph was altered to improve it's tone
Please do a Tri-Sli review with 580's in it.
Compare the 8150 @ $279 vs the 2500K @ $215, who would you recommend?
Hint: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/03/amd_fx8150_multigpu_gameplay_performance_review/1