Intel now counts itself amongst the motherboard vendors with thorough overclocking functionality. Its DX79TO stands out most clearly for its lack of passive voltage regulator cooling compared to the other boards tested in this round-up. A fairly large heat sink positioned where you would have expected to find a northbridge is nothing more than an extension of the PCH cooler that alleviates any need for a chipset cooling fan.
Intel adds two USB 3.0 ports to its rear panel and not much else. Though a Port 80 diagnostics display, a power button, and a reset switch all aid in bench testing, IEEE-1394a is its only other concession to add-in connectivity.
We would expect Intel’s reduced-price motherboards to maximize the platform's built-in capabilities, and were pleased to find eight memory slots available for quad-channel upgrades. On the other hand, a mere three 1/8" analog audio jacks on a board that lacks even a single digital output is far more disappointing, and we're left to wonder where the CPU's eight remaining lanes--normally reserved for a third graphics slot--have gone.
At least the board still includes Intel’s Back-to-BIOS button, which allows the system to boot at its default configuration, while still retaining custom settings in its firmware GUI.
While a mere two graphics slots is likely sufficient for most enthusiasts, those same enthusiasts could save even more money by simply switching to LGA 1155. Slot connectors are relatively cheap, and the eight lanes that most competing products use for a third slot are native to all LGA 2011 CPUs. Intel doesn't even take advantage of the reduced graphics support by spacing remaining slots farther apart for increased graphics cooling. Though we're certain some LGA 2011 buyers are simply looking for a low-cost yet reliable way to support Intel's latest six-core processors, competing platforms that include both an extra graphics slot and extra space between the two primarily slots should be far more attractive to the majority of buyers.
A board with fewer internal headers should inherently be easier to lay out, though we would have preferred to find the front-panel audio header a little further forward from its bottom-rear corner placement. The cables of some cases come up less than an inch short of reaching this location.

Four SATA cables and a single SLI bridge illustrate Intel’s focus on cutting cost in the DX79TO’s least-significant places. These savings add up to a board that comes in as the least expensive of today’s competitors, in spite of Intel’s reputation for arming its boards with stability through thorough validation.
- Can LGA 2011 Be Made More Affordable?
- ASRock X79 Extreme4
- X79 Extreme4 Firmware
- Asus P9X79
- P9X79 Firmware
- Biostar TPower X79
- TPower X79 Firmware
- ECS X79R-AX Black Deluxe
- X79R-AX Deluxe Firmware
- Intel DX79TO
- DX79TO Firmware
- MSI X79A-GD45 (8D)
- X79A-GD45 (8D) Firmware
- Test Settings And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: DiRT 3
- Benchmark Results: Metro 2033
- Benchmark Results: StarCraft II
- Benchmark Results: Audio And Video Encoding
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Power, Heat, And Efficiency
- Overclocking
- Which X79-Based Motherboard Offers More Value?


Since the boards all have vastly superior profit margins, your statement is misleading. Why is everyone too afraid to reveal the truth about motherboard pricing?
A comparison of the time between the power button being pressed and the installed bootloader starting would be very interesting to me. I was thinking it might be easiest to measure this by having no OS on the boot media and measuring the time to the "please insert boot media" message, but I'm sure you can think of other ways of doing it.
I'm also informed that on some boards the boot time varies dramatically dependent on whether any Overclocking is enabled, as compared to the stock settings - that would also be worth knowing.
not anymore, asrock is no longer affiliated with Asus and is owned by Pegatron Corp.
But I'm wondering why AMD continues the ATI brand on the ASrock motherboard? Seems odd. They had everyone replace the CCC as soon as they rebranded and here we are looking at the ATI logo on the ASrock board.
Also, even though there is so little difference when comparing boards using the same architecture, why no BF3 in the gaming section of the review? I thought this was one of the games mentioned in the 2012 goals for Tom's when reviewing gaming performance?
I settled on the ASRock Extreme4-m. I did have to wait for a new BIOS chip to arrive in order to make use of it though. They overnighted one to me last week and I got my system up and running over the weekend. So far so good. I've been quite happy with it now that it's working. I can't say that I've tried the overclocking features.
With the ASRock Extreme4-m the memory slots and CPU 8-pin power connectors are very close to the radiator. I went with the Intel liquid cooler for my build. It's a 120mm fan and radiator. I placed these in a Silverstone FT03 as exhaust from the top of the case. It's important to pick out RAM that doesn't have any crazy fins or spikes on it. I went with some Kingston HyperX DDR3 1600 4x4GB that were on the official support list. There is a 4 to 5 mm gap between the RAM and radiator. it is plenty of room for the 8-pin wires to clear without touching the RAM or radiator. It's tight, but it works. I originally was going to buy GSkill RAM that was $20 cheaper, but there's no way the big red fins on those sticks would have fit.
I don't blame them for skipping BF3. Since the most recent video drivers I've been having all sorts of issues with BF3. It's the only game on my machine to display a "Something went wrong" error and crash the entire system. I'd imagine it's hard to benchmark such an unstable game. My Extreme4-m, i7 3820, and Radeon 7950 system has no trouble with Just Cause 2, GTA IV, Crysis, and others, but BF3 has this remarkable capability to come up with the most ridiculous of error messages and strange behavior. That game still has issues.