Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

ECS A990FXM-A

Five $160 To $240 990FX-Based Socket AM3+ Motherboards
By

Opposite Asus, ECS packs its A990FXM-A with a full set of third-party controllers for dual gigabit Ethernet, Bluetooth, and 6 Gb/s eSATA, leaving out any additional internal SATA ports. Opposite ASRock, its three PCIe x16 slots support either x16-x0-x16 or x16-x8-x8 transfer modes, depending on whether or not a card is installed in the middle.

Though at first this appears to be the best combination of Asus' and ASRock's features, ECS doesn’t fall in the middle on price. In fact, the A990FXM-A costs around 25% more than its rivals (even if neither of them come with Bluetooth connectivity).

Of the A990FXM-A’s two third-party SATA 6 Gb/s controllers, one serves eSATA needs and the other is reserved exclusively for enabling Ultra ATA 133. Questions of marketability aside, we’re certain that dual SATA ports would have taken up less space on the motherboard’s front edge and may have even allowed a forward-facing USB 3.0 internal interface to be placed next to those alternative ports.

The A990FXM-A’s internal USB 3.0 header is instead found along its bottom edge, where it creates cable clearance problems for most dual-slot blower-style GPU coolers. If you aren't concerned about breaking the header, you can try forcing a card into place, but we’d suggest using the USB 3.0 header only in conjunction with carefully selected card configurations instead.

The A990FXM-A installation kit includes six internal SATA cables, three SLI bridges, a 3.5” bay adapter for USB 3.0, a slot bracket for repositioning the ports of its bay adapter, and several USB port dust covers.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 67 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 14 Hide
    ta152h , November 7, 2011 6:08 AM
    What a bunch of pretzel logic we have in this article.
    Quote:
    Of course, a fan of Intel's work could argue against the need for 42 lanes of second-gen PCIe when the 36 native to X58 Express support multi-card graphics configurations just as capably. But such a comparison really isn't necessary. After all, we've known for almost a year that Intel’s lower-cost Sandy Bridge-based part outperform the pricey six-core Gulftown-based processors in many desktop benchmarks, including pretty much every gaming scenario we throw at the two platforms.


    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.
  • 14 Hide
    _Pez_ , November 7, 2011 5:09 AM
    Yeah If were to buy this boards would be with a Phenom real 6 core CPU 1100T :D  that is the smartest choice. I think.
  • 11 Hide
    ellmondo , November 7, 2011 4:56 AM
    let the amd bashing begin...
Other Comments
  • 2 Hide
    julianbautista87 , November 7, 2011 4:23 AM
    thanks for this article. I was waiting for it since some guy said that the 8150 was performing badly because of the mainboard used, but now I see that that was not correct.
  • 4 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , November 7, 2011 4:36 AM
    nice thorough review.
    but great chipsets cant offset poor CPU's.
  • 11 Hide
    ellmondo , November 7, 2011 4:56 AM
    let the amd bashing begin...
  • 14 Hide
    _Pez_ , November 7, 2011 5:09 AM
    Yeah If were to buy this boards would be with a Phenom real 6 core CPU 1100T :D  that is the smartest choice. I think.
  • 5 Hide
    theuniquegamer , November 7, 2011 5:23 AM
    What about asus 990fx crosshair v formula motherboard?
  • -2 Hide
    frostweaver , November 7, 2011 5:30 AM
    I would wait till next year to decide. I still feel that windows 7 aint optimized for BD.
  • 9 Hide
    Tijok , November 7, 2011 5:34 AM
    First off, thanks for the great article, good to see Tom's is keeping up the top notch quality!

    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!
  • 4 Hide
    palladin9479 , November 7, 2011 5:58 AM
    I bought the Sabertooth during the summer and I can attest to how amazing that board is. It's really nice, lots of features and high quality. I'm running a Phenom II X4 970BE @ 4.3Ghz on water right now. Absolutely wonderful system.
  • 14 Hide
    ta152h , November 7, 2011 6:08 AM
    What a bunch of pretzel logic we have in this article.
    Quote:
    Of course, a fan of Intel's work could argue against the need for 42 lanes of second-gen PCIe when the 36 native to X58 Express support multi-card graphics configurations just as capably. But such a comparison really isn't necessary. After all, we've known for almost a year that Intel’s lower-cost Sandy Bridge-based part outperform the pricey six-core Gulftown-based processors in many desktop benchmarks, including pretty much every gaming scenario we throw at the two platforms.


    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.
  • 6 Hide
    we_san , November 7, 2011 6:32 AM
    Want to know if 990's abundant pci lane give significant benefit over z68 in gpu bottleneck scenario (SLI or crosfire off course).
  • 1 Hide
    Crashman , November 7, 2011 6:32 AM
    TA152HWhat a bunch of pretzel logic we have in this article.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.
    That's what it looks like after copy-edit.

    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 :) 
  • 0 Hide
    Device Unknown , November 7, 2011 7:21 AM
    Fantastic guys! I have been researching which mobo to get the last 2 days for our mod... this saved me a lot of trouble. Asus it is :) 
  • 2 Hide
    jdwii , November 7, 2011 7:33 AM
    The Sabertooth is such a good board i love it so much. I even think its the best bang for buck out of the 990FX boards. To bad i could not give such positivism for the Bulldozer.
  • 1 Hide
    masterofevil22 , November 7, 2011 7:51 AM
    Hey, that my board :D  Sabertooth 990FX with 1055t @4.1Ghz on a Noctua D-14. Waitin around for better AM3+ chips..
  • 0 Hide
    kg2010 , November 7, 2011 8:24 AM
    Dear Tom's,

    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
  • 0 Hide
    g00ey , November 7, 2011 9:36 AM
    I have read that the Gigabyte UD5 and UD7 motherboards have vdroop issues due to lack of an LLC unit. There has been a lot of talk about this in different forums with a lot of people getting disappointed about it. When I wrote to the Gigabyte support team they said that they have added the LLC in revision 1.1 of the UD7 motherboard in the review. According to your review you have the rev 1.1 of this motherboard and yet LLC features are missing in the BIOS, so there are still vdroop issues with this motherboard, am I to understand that this is correct?
  • 4 Hide
    tmk221 , November 7, 2011 9:47 AM
    you use radeon hd 6950 while there is radeon 6970 on a picture :) 
  • 0 Hide
    nikorr , November 7, 2011 10:48 AM
    Not bad at all!
  • -3 Hide
    dkraptor , November 7, 2011 11:00 AM
    Hmmm. So where is the most important of them all? Asus Crosshair V Formula?
Display more comments