Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.
Benchmark Results
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 offer a valuable method for evaluating a board's performance, as identical settings are expected to yield similar results. Turbo boost wattage and advanced memory timings are areas where motherboard manufacturers can still optimize for stability or performance, though, and these settings can impact specific testing scenarios.
Looking at our synthetic benchmarks, nothing stood out with the Ace's performance. Average is as average does, which is a satisfactory result among our dozens of tested boards.
Timed Applications
The Ace Max also did well in the timed applications. It ran 9 seconds in LAME and 42 seconds in Corona (the slower of the two times in both benchmarks). Handbrake results were good, finishing above average there. Again, we find nothing to worry about so far.
3D Games and 3DMark
Starting with the launch of Zen 5, we’ve updated our game tests. We’re keeping the F1 racing game but have upgraded to F1 24. We also dropped Far Cry 6 in favor of an even more popular game in Cyberpunk 2077. We run both games at 1920x1080 resolution using the Ultra preset (details listed above). Cyberpunk 2077 uses DLSS, while we left F1 24 to native resolution scaling.
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. We’ve also added a minimum FPS setting, which can affect your gameplay and immersion.
In our 3DMark and game tests, the Ace was average in both 3DMark tests (Speedway was slower; Steel Nomad was faster than average) and in games. Overall, nothing to worry about. The Ace Max, as expected, performs well across a wide variety of functions.
Overclocking
Over the past few CPU generations, overclocking headroom has been shrinking on both sides of the fence, while the out-of-the-box potential has increased. For overclockers, this means there’s less fun to have. For the average consumer, you’re getting the most out of the processor without manual tweaking. Today’s motherboards are more robust than ever, and they easily support power-hungry flagship-class processors; We know the hardware can handle them. There are multiple ways to extract even more performance from these processors: enabling a canned PBO setting, manually tweaking the PBO settings, or just going for an all-core overclock. Results will vary and depend on the cooling as well. In other words, your mileage may vary. Considering all the above, we will not be overclocking the CPU. However, we will try out our different memory kits to ensure they meet the specifications.
For memory testing, we start with our fastest non-clock driver kit: Klevv 32GB (2x16) DDR5-8000. Per usual on this platform, it booted to Windows but wouldn’t pass a stress test with our 9900X. The Team Group DDR5-7200 kit worked without issue. Those speeds are well past the ‘sweet spot’ for the AMD platform, and with today’s RAM prices, we doubt many people are looking at these higher speeds in the first place.
Dropping in a new Ryzen 5 8600G APU, we were able to run our Klevv DDR5-8000 kit without issue. I’d imagine we’ll see similar stories moving forward, as the IMC on the APUs is generally better than the desktop processors we usually test with.
Power Consumption / VRM Temperatures
We used AIDA64’s System Stability Test with Stress CPU, FPU, cache, and Memory enabled for power testing, using the processor's peak power consumption value. The wattage reading is obtained from the wall via a Kill-A-Watt meter, capturing the entire PC (excluding the monitor). The only variable that changes is the motherboard; all other parts remain the same. We've moved to using only the stock power use/VRM temperature charts, as this section aims to ensure the power delivery can handle flagship-class processors.
Stress testing the Ace Max with our DDR5-6000 kit showed it to be a fairly power-hungry board. At idle, it sat around 108W and peaked at 268W. This averages out to 186W, the highest result we’ve recorded on the platform. You likely won’t notice on your electric bill, but it’s worth noting that idle power use was among the highest we’ve seen.
VRM temperatures, surprisingly, ran warm on this machine, peaking at almost 58 degrees Celsius on our hottest sensor and nearly 60 degrees on the internal sensor. This is one of our warmer results, which is curious considering the high-quality MOSFETs and oversized heatsinks. Ambient temperatures were a few degrees warmer than usual, so that’s a part of it. Still, we have complete faith in the hardware and cooling solution on this board, even with a flagship-class processor and overclocking.
Bottom Line
The return of MSI’s Ace SKU for AMD motherboards is a welcome sight after its absence the past few years, and the X870E Ace Max fills a significant price gap in MSI's AM5 lineup. Positioned well below the flagship X870E Godlike (now $829) and the limited edition X870E Godlike X ($1,300 MSRP), the Ace Max sits above the X870E Carbon Wifi ($429.99, with $60 off with promo code DAVANTEADAMS17 when I wrote this). At a sub-$650 price point, the Ace Max is feature-rich and ready for the upcoming Zen 6 processors.
However, the board is not without faults. Our primary concern is lane sharing between the expansion slots and the M.2 sockets. Unusually, all three PCIe slots connect directly to the processor, unlike typical designs where one or two slots connect via the chipset. This setup means that if you use an add-in card in the bottom x4 slot, you will lose access to the M.2_1 socket. M.2_2 socket also supports PCIe 5.0, so you're OK, but using the x4 slot will cost you one of the 5.0 M.2 sockets. While this limitation is unlikely to affect most users, it is worth pointing out.
The Ace Max faces direct competition from several high-caliber boards in this segment. Asus's worthy competitor, the ROG Crosshair X870E Hero, is priced slightly lower ($621) and boasts similar features. Gigabyte’s X870E Aorus Master ($589.99) is also a strong contender alongside the Ace. ASRock's flagship, the X870E Taichi, merits a mention for its high-end specifications and notably lower price ($349.99), although it lacks the EZ DIY and AI overclocking features present in the competition.
Ultimately, selecting among these motherboards—all packed with flagship-class features—will hinge on individual budget, aesthetic preferences, or brand loyalty. This is a viable premium ‘new’ board from MSI and should be on your short list if you’re lucky enough to be shopping in this price range, but it doesn’t stand out enough to make our best motherboards list.
MORE: Best Motherboards
MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard
MORE: All Motherboard Content
