Trending

ASRock X99 Extreme3 Review

By

Non-Gaming Applications

Lower is better in timed benchmarks, and rounding makes a one-second difference almost meaningless. Still, it’s surprising to see the X99 Extreme3 fall a second behind in every audio and video encoding application.

Image 1 of 4

Image 2 of 4

Image 3 of 4

Image 4 of 4

The X99 Extreme3 overcomes previous (yet inconsequential) losses by assuming a marginal lead in 7-Zip file compression. That means it’s still average, allowing us to base any value judgements on price, features and overclocking.

20 Comments Comment from the forums
  • chenw 28 April 2015 08:37
    In the 3D games benchmarks, you have CPU labeled as i7-4790k.

    Unless I completely missed something, that is a typo, 4790k cannot be paired with a X99 motherboard.
    Reply
  • chenw 28 April 2015 08:37
    In the 3D games benchmarks, you have CPU labeled as i7-4790k.

    Unless I completely missed something, that is a typo, 4790k cannot be paired with a X99 motherboard.
    Reply
  • Crashman 28 April 2015 08:47
    15763410 said:
    In the 3D games benchmarks, you have CPU labeled as i7-4790k.

    Unless I completely missed something, that is a typo, 4790k cannot be paired with a X99 motherboard.

    Recycled charts, it could take a while to replace the typo version with the corrected version. Thanks for pointing this out.

    15763411 said:
    In the 3D games benchmarks, you have CPU labeled as i7-4790k.

    Unless I completely missed something, that is a typo, 4790k cannot be paired with a X99 motherboard.

    Recycled charts, it could take a while to replace the typo version with the corrected version. Thanks for pointing this out.

    Reply
  • PaulBags 28 April 2015 11:13
    As I understand most current single graphics cards run fine at pcie3 8x, so staying sans switches and running perminantly at 8x/8x/8x +M.2 4x would have been an interesting option. Ah well.
    Reply
  • Larry Litmanen 28 April 2015 17:00
    As we all know some (if not all) Apple laptops come without a CD drive, some do not have a Ethernet jack (WiFi only), obviously everyone heard about the new laptop with USB 3.1 being the only jack on the laptop.

    I am not saying Intel and motherboard manufacturers need to go to that extreme, but we have reached a point where removing some of these old ports will allow manufacturers to save money and pass them to the buyer.

    Is there really a need for a PS/2 port on a performance motherboard? Why not remove all the USB 2.0 ports and maybe add 2 more USB 3.0 ports.

    I recently purchased a MSI motherboards called GAMING 5, it is a gaming motherboard (duhh), marketed towards people on the gaming/performance side. Obviously anyone buying this board in the retail store is buying it with an intent to play games, and almost no one who games in 2015 uses a VGA or DVI ports, it also has PS/2 port.

    I am paying for these useless features that regular people almost no longer use, let alone gamers or people who are into PC building. You can include a HDMI to VGA or DVI adapter just in case someone out there still needs them.

    I think they need to start removing some of the legacy ports and chips and make boards cleaner, cheaper and more affordable to manufacture and buy.

    Reply
  • firefoxx04 28 April 2015 17:28
    Sigh.. I know that in order to make things cheaper you need to compromise but only 4 ram slots for an X99 platform? To me, a big reason to go X99 is the idea that I can run LOTS of ram. What is the point of going X99 if you only want the lower end 6 core with less PCIe lanes and only 4 ram slots?

    Call me crazy or missing the point but I would almost rather save even more and just stick with Z97.
    Reply
  • ShermOR 28 April 2015 17:43
    It's not time to be buying. We need X99 & Z97 motherboards with NVMe enabled EUFI BIOS, USB 3.1 Type A & C front and rear & bootable NVMe M.2 3.0 4X . No MB's or cases support all these specs now.
    Reply
  • mapesdhs 28 April 2015 17:46
    Hmm, not keen on a top-end board without a debug post LED.

    Btw, Filippo's SLI article implies 3-way SLI at x8/x4/x4 would likely work,
    since his tests showed no limitations with 2-way at x8/x8, but of course
    NV doesn't support it. See the section entitled, "How Many PCIe Lanes
    Do You Need?".

    Ian.

    Reply
  • logainofhades 28 April 2015 17:51
    This board, to me, would only be useful for a non overclocking workstation rig, that doesn't need more than 32gb of ram. Otherwise, spend a little more and get at least the extreme 4.

    Edit* After looking at the prices on PCpartpicker, this board is pointless, unless it becomes much cheaper.

    PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
    Motherboard: ASRock X99 Extreme3 ATX LGA2011-3 Motherboard ($174.99 @ SuperBiiz)
    Total: $174.99
    Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when availableGenerated by PCPartPicker 2015-04-28 13:52 EDT-0400

    PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
    Motherboard: ASRock X99 Extreme4 ATX LGA2011-3 Motherboard ($192.98 @ Newegg)
    Total: $192.98
    Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when availableGenerated by PCPartPicker 2015-04-28 13:53 EDT-0400
    I really hope the MSI X99S SLI Plus gets reviewed soon. It looks to be a promising budget board for X99.
    Reply
  • Larry Litmanen 28 April 2015 17:59
    It's not time to be buying. We need X99 & Z97 motherboards with NVMe enabled EUFI BIOS, USB 3.1 Type A & C front and rear & bootable NVMe M.2 3.0 4X . No MB's or cases support all these specs now.

    That will be a very expensive system, life is too short to wait until all that hits the market and becomes somewhat affordable.
    Reply