Our A990FXM-A sample arrived with a pre-Bulldozer firmware that required the installation of a pre-Bulldozer CPU to update. That could be a problem for anyone who doesn't already have a Socket AM3 CPU sitting around. However, later samples of this board should ship with the newer firmware factory-installed.

ECS spreads the fewest overclocking options across as many menus as it could, with the primary M.I.B. menu offering only reference clock settings and a few voltage options. We were a little disappointed in the menu’s lack of a fixed voltage option, which forced us to hunt for our 1.40 V target using offsets. Also, the integrated northbridge's voltage cannot be controlled independently.

CPU multiplier control turns out to be an inexact science as well, since it controls neither the minimum nor maximum ratio, but instead the target base ratio for AMD Turbo Core. CPU VID control appears to require an alphanumeric input that we didn’t have a chart for, and none of this menu’s options are even described in the manual.

Memory ratios are fully adjustable, while timings are limited to primary and a few secondary settings.

The external HyperTransport frequency ratio is adjustable, but the CPU’s internal HT interface is not. This dramatically limits how far we can push the CPU’s reference clock.
Because of missing overclock settings and the inability to control Turbo Core through firmware, we were forced to use AMD Overdrive for most of the A990FXM-A’s O/C testing.
- 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