Gigabyte targets the gaming community by offering the only true four-way SLI-compatible slot configuration in today’s round-up. Getting back to the AMD theme, that could also make the 990FX-UD7 ideal for four-way CrossFireX.
Anyone who would rather have a ton of monitors attached to their PC will note that the 990FXA-UD7 supports up to six single-slot PCIe graphics cards, though lane limitations force the second and fourth x16 slots down to four-lane transfers. The first and third graphics slots switch from x16/x0 to x8/x8 when a card is installed into the third slot, as do the fifth and seventh slots.
This would be almost perfect had Gigabyte put a forward-facing USB 3.0 header where its “ATX4P” connector resides. Instead, the USB 3.0 header is found along the bottom edge, faces outward, and cannot be utilized when a graphics card is installed in the bottom slot. Gigabyte tells us that this was necessary to accommodate the motherboard's layout, and mentioned making a more conscious effort to relocate that header in the future.
Unlike Asus' and ASRock's models, the 990FXA-UD7 is the only board with a graphics slot located so close to its memory slots that users might actually want single-sided DIMM latches. Also unlike Asus and ASRock, Gigabyte doesn’t have them. Fortunately, we were able to install and remove memory with a card in the top slot, but we're also craftier than many system builders.
Bench testers will love that the 990FXA-UD7 includes a lighted CLR_CMOS button right next to its power and reset buttons, but they’ll probably have more love for the fact that it employs a clear snap-on cover to prevent accidental invocation.
Filling the 990FXA-UD7 with graphics cards would prevent builders from adding any add-in storage controllers. So, Gigabyte integrates a couple of them on the board itself. A pair of Marvell 9172 SATA 6Gb/s controllers add two eSATA and two SATA ports to the six enabled by AMD’s SB950 southbridge.

The 990FXA-UD7 includes two-way, three-way, and four-way SLI bridges. Gigabyte even throws in a pair of CrossFire bridges, in spite of the fact that most AMD cards include them. Four SATA cables, on the other hand, appear merely adequate for a board that has eight ports, even after we consider that we’d probably use the third-party-controlled ports for front-panel eSATA.
- 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