Three AMD 990FX-Based Motherboards For Enthusiasts

by
87 Comments

Power, Heat, And Efficiency

The strangest thing about Asus’ power management software might be that, operating at its default mode, the app costs us between 25 and 30 W at idle compared to “Max Power Saving” mode or even Windows 8 running without some form of manufacturer-imposed management. Either of those options drops idle draw into the mid-60 W range. Why not switch to “Max Power Saving” mode exclusively for this test? I don't think it's realistic to expect enthusiasts to toggle between operating modes based on what they're doing. What we're testing here is a more real-world configuration.

That high idle wattage result is particularly unfortunate when we see just how much better the M5A99FX Pro R2.0 is than Gigabyte's 990FXA-UD3 at full load. Default settings appear designed to cap CPU current (and thus heat), rather than maximize performance or efficiency.

As a point of comparison, ASRock’s Intelligent Energy Saver is disabled by default.

ASRock’s multitude of tiny voltage regulator phases does a fairly good job of spreading heat across the 990FX Extreme9’s oversized heat sink.

Asus’ software plays a role in dropping the M5A99FX Pro R2.0 a percent below average, while Gigabyte’s reduced storage performance bends the ends of the curve to put ASRock 2% over the top.

More than anything, ASRock's efficiency lead is a testament to how well AMD’s hardware and firmware manages power on its own, without the intervention of software.

Previous Next
Summary
  1. Performance Beats Features?
  2. ASRock 990FX Extreme9
  3. 990FX Extreme9 Software
  4. 990FX Extreme9 Firmware
  5. Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0
  6. M5A99FX Pro R2.0 Software
  7. M5A99FX Pro R2.0 Firmware
  8. Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3
  9. 990FXA-UD3 Software
  10. 990FXA-UD3 Firmware
  11. Test Settings And Benchmarks
  12. Results: Synthetic Benchmarks
  13. Results: Battlefield 3 And Far Cry 3
  14. Results: F1 2012 And Skyrim
  15. Results: Audio And Video Encoding
  16. Results: Content Creation
  17. Results: Productivity And File Compression
  18. Overclocking Results
  19. Power, Heat, And Efficiency
  20. Who Wins This Three-Way 990FX Comparison?
About the author
Thomas Soderstrom

Thomas Soderstrom is a Senior Staff Editor at Tom's Hardware US. He tests and reviews cases, cooling, memory and motherboards.

Read more
This thread is closed for comments
87 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
  • boulbox
    Glad to see AMD getting some love.
  • designasaurus
    "if we diminished most of those power differences by not installing Asus' power management software at default settings, the company would have likely matched the performance of Gigabyte and ASRock."


    Don't speculate! Do the tests and add it to the article so we can see what the software packages are actually accomplishing! That's why I read your site, yeah? For hard info that I can't get myself.
  • bgunner
    designasaurus"if we diminished most of those power differences by not installing Asus' power management software at default settings, the company would have likely matched the performance of Gigabyte and ASRock."Don't speculate! Do the tests and add it to the article so we can see what the software packages are actually accomplishing! That's why I read your site, yeah? For hard info that I can't get myself.

    I totally agree with this statement. The test should have been done and added into the article because this would of been a good representative of the value of the software. I would like to know for a fact if the software was a hindrance to the electrical efficiency of the Asus and Gigabye boards.
  • Crashman
    bgunnerI totally agree with this statement. The test should have been done and added into the article because this would of been a good representative of the value of the software. I would like to know for a fact if the software was a hindrance to the electrical efficiency of the Asus and Gigabye boards.
    At least the power was measured and mentioned, even if it didn't get into the chart.
  • bit_user
    AMD's 890FX was an excellent low-cost server platform, in its day. Great I/O, tons of PCIe lanes, 6-channel SATA3, and ECC support. All with boards and CPUs in the desktop price range that were close to being performance competitive with Intel (when they were introduced, at least).

    Now, AMD is just slipping too far behind. Not just on the CPU front, but like how about some PCIe 3?

    I'm waiting for 64-bit ARMs to hit the desktop. That's probably the next truly interesting thing on the horizon.
  • falchard
    Aren't the 990FX chipsets kind old?
  • boulbox
    137621 said:
    Aren't the 990FX chipsets kind old?


    Yes, but not a lot of new things need to be offered anyways. PCIe 3.0 is just a gimmick and doesn't really give much more performance over PCIe2
  • Crashman
    falchardAren't the 990FX chipsets kind old?
    990FX is AMD's current "high-end" chipset for enthusiast-level desktops. AMD occasionally releases new chips (look last fall) and motherboard companies keep updating their selection of products.

    Old chipset, recent boards, any questions?
  • darkchazz
    "Three AMD 990FX-Based Motherboards For Enthusiasts"
    I don't think enthusiasts would want to buy a slow CPU from AMD.
  • Onus
    What did I miss? The ASRock has better features, including 3-way SLI, more USB3.0, an abundance of accessories, uses less power (the only positive efficiency), has higher performance, lower VRM temps; but BOTH of the other two got awards? I noted the comment about fluctuating prices, but on features alone ASRock looks like the winner. Surely it wasn't the slightly lower OC...
  • Onus
    darkchazz"Three AMD 990FX-Based Motherboards For Enthusiasts"I don't think enthusiasts would want to buy a slow CPU from AMD.

    I think of enthusiasts as people interested in getting the maximum performance from their hardware; regardless of its base level, getting the most out of it. Boards like these which can be tweaked every which way are precisely the kinds of products enthusiasts enjoy.
  • Novuake
    Saddest part about the platform is that it feels old and out of date. So little integration... This design is now years old and its their top of the lane. I see nothing new since 890.
  • Novuake
    darkchazz"Three AMD 990FX-Based Motherboards For Enthusiasts"I don't think enthusiasts would want to buy a slow CPU from AMD.


    Really? Wow...
  • Novuake
    boulboxYes, but not a lot of new things need to be offered anyways. PCIe 3.0 is just a gimmick and doesn't really give much more performance over PCIe2


    I disagree, the whole platform smells of too much power consumption. AMD needs to INNOVATE, not just add more features and drive up power.
  • azraa
    NovuakeI disagree, the whole platform smells of too much power consumption. AMD needs to INNOVATE, not just add more features and drive up power.


    I disagree again. Sure the HT is old, but except for a few details, this boards, being updated regularly with their firmwares or even the pcb revisions, are quite good. The power modulation works fine for this quite cheap boards, I mean, check out those overclocks, and they are very conservative. The amount of sata3 ports is excellent, PCI lanes are ok just what you need nothing more nothing less. RAM management seems a bit old, you are correct, but only professionals get value of it, professionals that should be buying extreme Intel setups. For the average Joe editing and rendering, their memory solution is just 1 minute slower, who cares.

    I think AMD doesn't need to innovate, which is quite a prostituted word. They need to improve their technologies further, as they've been doing for the last years, just at a faster pace, without falling into self indulgence, in that i agree with you.
  • lilcinw
    It is nice to see my GA-990FXA-UD3 win a Tom's award (even if it is an older rev).

    My only complaint about the board is that the NB or SB, I don't exactly remember which, would cause a thermal shutdown while running Folding@Home 24/7 last summer. It didn't help that a GTX 560 Ti at 100% load was dumping waste heat right on top of it.

    Re-configuring the cooling in my cheap case and down-clocking the GPU got me back up and running.
  • ddpruitt
    Quote:
    folks who put in the effort to configure Asus' power management software to their perfect preferences


    I love Asus's power management options, power savings or performance when needed. Although I wish the balanced setting didn't cause problems with OCing and would pile on the juice when needed.
  • dsolom3
    lilcinw, my friend had a similar problem. 2 ways to solve it:

    1. move the GPU down to the second slot, which should drop NB temps by about 5-7 degrees C.

    2. Replace the northbridge cooling solution with an active fan (10-15 degree drop). VRMs also get super-hot, 75C is not uncommon under load. Quite frankly, the NB/VRM colling solution on this board is terrible, and I cannot fathom how it got a recommendation at all given these grievances.
  • g-unit1111
    I have that same Gigabyte board but an older version of it without the UEFI - it still holds up very well even after a CPU upgrade.
  • subcutaneous
    OnusWhat did I miss? The ASRock has better features, including 3-way SLI, more USB3.0, an abundance of accessories, uses less power (the only positive efficiency), has higher performance, lower VRM temps; but BOTH of the other two got awards? I noted the comment about fluctuating prices, but on features alone ASRock looks like the winner. Surely it wasn't the slightly lower OC...


    I was left wondering the same thing.
  • m32
    Thanks for the article, Toms.
  • Crashman
    OnusWhat did I miss? The ASRock has better features, including 3-way SLI, more USB3.0, an abundance of accessories, uses less power (the only positive efficiency), has higher performance, lower VRM temps; but BOTH of the other two got awards? I noted the comment about fluctuating prices, but on features alone ASRock looks like the winner. Surely it wasn't the slightly lower OC...
    Nobody could compare its worth to its price because the price kept changing. It couldn't win at $190, it might have won at $160, and it was priced $175 last week when the article was written.

    The process went something like this: "$160 for this? Bam, let me add the award logo", "Wait, I'd better check the price again", "Huh, $175? Should it still get an award?" "Oh, now it's $190, never mind".
  • Onus
    Hmmm, it seems to me someone considering a $160 board would readily choose the ASRock at $190. The bracket and extra cables and extra SLI Bridge are probably worth another $25 anyway.
  • Novuake
    8708 said:
    OnusWhat did I miss? The ASRock has better features, including 3-way SLI, more USB3.0, an abundance of accessories, uses less power (the only positive efficiency), has higher performance, lower VRM temps; but BOTH of the other two got awards? I noted the comment about fluctuating prices, but on features alone ASRock looks like the winner. Surely it wasn't the slightly lower OC...
    Nobody could compare its worth to its price because the price kept changing. It couldn't win at $190, it might have won at $160, and it was priced $175 last week when the article was written. The process went something like this: "$160 for this? Bam, let me add the award logo", "Wait, I'd better check the price again", "Huh, $175? Should it still get an award?" "Oh, now it's $190, never mind".


    Yeah Asrock boards are known for fluctuating prices. Mine is 25% more expensive now than it was 2 weeks ago...
Display more comments
Most Popular
  1. Tyan Showcasing its GPU Platforms at GTC 2013
  2. MSI Displays Its Z87 Motherboard Prototype
  3. MSI G-Series Gaming Motherboard to Pack High-Polling USB
The Latest On Tom's Hardware
Edition
Subscribe to our newsletter
Company
Resources
Other Purch sites
  • © 2019 Purch All Rights Reserved.