Battle of the X670E Flagships: Testing MSI, Asus and Gigabyte’s Best

Test System / Comparison Products

We’ve updated our test system to Windows 11 64-bit OS with all updates applied. We kept the same Asus TUF RTX 3070 video card from our previous testing platforms but updated the driver. We also updated to F1 22 for our games and kept Far Cry 6. Unless otherwise noted, we use the latest non-beta motherboard BIOS available to the public. The hardware we used is as follows: 

Test System Components

Image 1 of 3

 EVGA supplied our Supernova 850W P6 power supply (appropriately sized and more efficient than the 1.2KW monster we used previously) for our test systems, and G.Skill sent us a DDR5-5600 (F5-5600U3636C16GX2-TZ5RK) memory kit for testing. 

Image 1 of 7

Benchmark Settings

Benchmark Results and Final Analysis 

Our standard benchmarks and power tests are performed using the CPU’s stock frequencies (including any default boost/turbo), with all power-saving features enabled. We set optimized defaults in the BIOS and the memory by enabling the XMP profile. For this baseline testing, the Windows power scheme is set to Balanced (default), so the PC idles appropriately.

Synthetic Benchmarks

Synthetics provide a great way to determine how a board runs, as identical settings should produce similar performance results. Turbo boost wattage and advanced memory timings are places where motherboard makers can still optimize for either stability or performance, though, and those settings can impact some testing.

Image 1 of 18

Across our synthetic benchmarks, all these boards performed well, ending up around the average when it’s all said and done. In several instances, the Gigabyte X670E Xtreme was the faster of our group, though again, not by much.

Timed Applications

Image 1 of 4

In our timed applications, both of the ‘Extreme’ boards led the MSI Godlike. Although the difference wasn’t big, it was still a trend in these timed applications (and several others below). That said, none of the results, slower or faster, are significantly out of line, and all of the boards were performant in these tests.

3D Games and 3DMark

Image 1 of 4

Starting with the launch of Zen 4, we’ve updated one of our test games, F1 21 to F1 22, while keeping Far Cry 6 in our testing suite. We run the games at 1920x1080 resolution using the Ultra preset (details listed above). As the resolution goes up, the CPU tends to have less impact. The goal with these settings is to determine if there are differences in performance at the most commonly used (and CPU/system bound) resolution with settings most people use or strive for (Ultra). We expect the difference between boards in these tests to be minor, with most falling within the margin of error differences. We’ve also added a minimum FPS value, which can affect your gameplay and immersion experience.

Looking at the results from our gaming tests, our flagships did well here again, posting average or above-average results in the 3DMark tests and F1 2022, but merely average among all results in Far Cry 6. Like the Z790 flagships, these are competent gaming boards too.

Overclocking

When overclocking, we aim to increase the power and add stress to the VRMs. We do so by increasing the clock speed and voltage until we’re at the thermal threshold for the processor during stress testing. However, where these CPUs are allowed to run with ‘boost’ speeds, those speeds are closer to the limit than ever before.

Image 1 of 3

Overclocking with all three boards was simple and easy. We plug in our values, set the voltage to manual, adjusted LLC if needed, and off we went. Once in Windows, we applied the stress test load and successfully finished our short test on all these boards. No fiddling was needed outside of the usual suspects (voltage, multiplier, and LLC adjustments).

On the memory side, we dropped our Kingston Fury Beast DDR5-6000 kit in the systems, enabled XMP, and tested it without issue, as expected. The boards list speeds above this, but your mileage may vary, as reaching speeds past this depends on the memory kit, the quality of the IMC, and the motherboard/BIOS. Quite frankly, most boards top out around DDR5-6400 anyway. 

Power Consumption / VRM Temperatures

We used AIDA64’s System Stability Test with Stress CPU, FPU, Cache and Memory enabled for power testing, using the peak power consumption value. The wattage reading is from the wall via a Kill-A-Watt meter to capture the entire PC (minus the monitor). The only variable that changes is the motherboard; all other parts remain the same. Please note we moved to use only the stock power use/VRM temperature charts, as this section aims to ensure the power delivery can handle the chip even when overclocked. Since we’re using less power to get more clocks, those datasets are more novel than useful. We’re also temperature limited on the processor, so adding more power isn’t possible without increased throttling. 

The power consumption difference between our three review boards was around 10%, with the Godlike becoming our first AM5 board to average over 200W between idle and a stress test load. The Godlike idled higher (103W compared to 84W and 82W) and used slightly more power under load (300W compared to 284W and 283 for the Crosshair Extreme and Aorus Xtreme, respectively) to reach this distinction.

Image 1 of 4

VRM temperatures on the boards were more than acceptable, keeping the overkill power bits underneath running well within specification. In fact, none of the boards broke 50 degrees Celsius in our stress testing, which is quite impressive. These boards won’t have any issue driving AMD’s processors with any cooling option.

Bottom Line

Right out of the gate, all of these flagship boards offer the best of the best for the current AMD platform. Each board includes overkill power delivery, 10 GbE ports and Wi-Fi 6E, PCIe 5.0 slots and M.2 sockets, and a high-end appearance. From there, we find a few differences, with most (but not all) boards implementing flagship-class audio and some using 40 Gbps USB ports. Still, which is better for you is generally going to come down to price and appearance, unless you absolutely need those features.

That out of the way, let’s address the elephant in the room: pricing. At the time of this writing, The MSI X670E Godlike at $1299.99 is, by far, the most expensive AM5 board. Asus’ ROG Crosshair X670E Extreme checks in at $999.99, while the Gigabyte sits at $699.99. A dark horse in the race is ASRock’s flagship, the X670E Taichi, at $479.99. Frankly, the Taichi is arguably the most well-rounded and is, by far, the least expensive option. It has everything the more expensive boards do, including 40 Gbps USB ports, the latest generation audio codec, overkill power delivery, and even the look.

So which flagship board should you choose? That’s a tough one, as each has redeeming qualities. The MSI X670E Godlike and its six total M.2 sockets are on the table if budget isn't a concern, but that price needs to come closer to $1000 as there’s nothing it offers more than the other boards outside of additional M.2 sockets. The Asus is a great option for those looking for all the bells and whistles but unwilling to pay for the MSI. Gigabyte’s Xtreme is a great option as it’s reasonably priced (for a flagship) but does not have 40 Gbps ports or current-gen flagship audio. Chances are that’s not a deal breaker for most users, however. If you’re looking to get the most bang for your buck out of these flagships and don’t require more than four M.2 sockets, ASRock’s X670E would be my weapon of choice in the battle of these behemoths. That’s one of the reasons we’ve already given it a full review and placed it in the number two spot on our best motherboards list.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard

MORE: All Motherboard Content