Skip to main content

Retesting The MSI MPG X570 Plus Motherboard

The potential for increased VR MOS temperature could stem from the use of AMD PBO overclocking, which is built into every modern AMD motherboard we’ve tested. It’s supposed to push the processor frequency and voltage to its thermal limit, assuring increased VR MOS temperature.

Image 1 of 2

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)
Image 2 of 2

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Our closed system didn’t reach its 102° default throttle point at 100% fans, and dropping the case’s onboard controller to “medium” and the system’s PWM fans to 40% got it only a few degrees warmer. Another thing that happened was that our Prime95 test effectively dropped out.

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Under Prime95, PBO would spike the CPU multiplier and core voltage (up to 1.5V VID!) and hold it at its throttle point before engaging a cooldown. To eliminate the motherboard, firmware, and CPU as culprits, we applied the same load to a Gigabyte TRX40 Aorus Xtreme and a Ryzen Threadripper 3970X that was already sitting on our original testbed.

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Note that in order to get this result, we had to use PBO with the 3970X in a 2x2 Downcore (16C/32T) configuration: With PBO enabled at its default 32C/64T, a more traditional throttling curve appeared.

Manual Overclocking

Given that PBO settings aren’t necessarily optimized for the lowest-stable per-clock voltage or the highest per-voltage frequency specific to a single CPU sample, we spent some time to figure out that the highest setting we could get was 4.20 GHz at 1.2625V. Anything greater caused voltage regulator thermal throttling, despite the cooling advantages that this closed case has over our original testbed.

Image 1 of 3

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)
Image 2 of 3

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)
Image 3 of 3

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

We successfully reached 115 degrees by manually overclocking the CPU, and this can be done at even lower settings: An earlier test on our original testbed yielded a lower 4.10 GHz limit at 1.175V, due to the voltage regulator running hotter on our semi-open system. Thus, while the 3900X works on this board, it’s not an ideal pairing when put into a less-than-ideal environment.

Conclusion

In our original conclusion, we noted that the MPG X570 Gaming Plus could be a bargain buy for those who simply wanted to pair a PCIe 4.0 SSD with a Ryzen 5 or 7 CPU. That narrow value advantage has since disappeared, as the cooler-running Asus Tuf Gaming X570 Plus has dropped to $165 at Newegg while the MPG X570 Gaming Plus remains $160 at Amazon. Even a small decrease in temperature would be enough to bump a board away from the margins that the 3900X-equipped MPG X570 Gaming Plus hit with our testbed cranked down to 40% fans.

While none of our tests validated the extremes we had come to expect, it’s nice to know that the thermal performance of our original testbed falls directly between that of our own closed build and MSI’s worst-case scenario. MSI has acknowledged that the VRMs on the X570 Gaming Plus can run hot under some operating conditions if the board is paired with a 3900X (or beyond) and put under heavy load. The company says to look to its forthcoming X570 Tomahawk motherboard as a similarly-priced alternative to the MPG X570 Gaming Plus. However, the company hasn’t specified a release date.

In short, it's certain that the MPG X570 can run hot depending on the CPU, settings, cooling system and workload that exceed our original test conditions. Responding to the valuable feedback we received has provided a great opportunity for us to refine our motherboard testing going forward so we can better reflect the range of components someone might use in the real world.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content

  • refillable
    ASUS TUF Gaming or Prime-P X570 deserves the editor's choice, not this one.
    Reply
  • Lutfij
    Where do you see mention of the board in the review(linked above) being awarded an Editor's Choice?
    Reply
  • refillable
    I'm pretty sure you have been following the whole story.
    Reply
  • Crashman
    refillable said:
    ASUS TUF Gaming or Prime-P X570 deserves the editor's choice, not this one.
    I wish we had tested it. The board Asus sent was priced significantly higher, and even the non-WiFi version of the board Asus sent was $15 more costly at the time of the review.

    But the later board dropped $10 after the original review, so the original review's value assessment is a snapshot of bargain pricing for that specific time.
    Reply
  • refillable
    Crashman said:
    I wish we had tested it. The board Asus sent was priced significantly higher, and even the non-WiFi version of the board Asus sent was $15 more costly at the time of the review.

    But the later board dropped $10 after the original review, so the original review's value assessment is a snapshot of bargain pricing for that specific time.

    I see. I am really glad you decided to re-test this and removed the editor choice award for an obviously inferior board.
    Reply
  • Crashman
    refillable said:
    I see. I am really glad you decided to re-test this and removed the editor choice award for an obviously inferior board.
    The data presented here shows that the original data was correct. The new problem for the board is that it is no longer price competitive.
    Reply
  • refillable
    Crashman said:
    The data presented here shows that the original data was correct. The new problem for the board is that it is no longer price competitive.
    It was correct, but it was incomplete. I feel like it takes a Ryzen 9 to show how inferior the board is to a slightly more expensive board. Now you have the full picture and different conclusions and I appreciate that (regardless of the price drop).
    Reply
  • Crashman
    refillable said:
    It was correct, but it was incomplete. I feel like it takes a Ryzen 9 to show how inferior the board is to a slightly more expensive board. Now you have the full picture and different conclusions and I appreciate that (regardless of the price drop).
    The Ryzen 9 heat estimates from the original article were shown accurate in the first chart of this article. We understand that some users would prefer to see a worst case scenario rather than a typical case, but also realize that most people building a PC have read enough to understand the basics of system cooling.

    All of that is water under the bridge concerning the award, since competing boards are now cheap enough to knock this one out of contention.
    Reply