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.
- 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