ASRock X99E-ITX/ac Motherboard Review

Introduction

ASRock announced its exclusive mini-ITX coverage for the LGA 2011-v3 platform with much praise and panning from the enthusiast community, a large portion of which didn’t see the point of pairing a 40-lane (or 28-lane) PCIe 3.0 controller with a single expansion slot. Among those who understood its usefulness, there were still those who felt that two memory slots might be a little too limiting for the CPU’s quad-channel controller. But if we look at this another way, we see an LGA 1150 alternative with up to twice as many active cores. And that can only be a good thing, right?

A quick look at the overall picture shows a board with all the high-end mini-ITX prerequisites, from dual gigabit Ethernet controllers to a true dual-band 802.11ac (867 Mb/s) controller with integrated Bluetooth, which we as PC enthusiasts know is far more than an interface for your hands-free kit. It even has an eSATA port. But what’s with the two teal USB ports? ASRock found a use for a couple of the chipset’s spare PCIe 2.0 lanes, adding ASMedia's ASM1142 USB 3.1 controller. Two more lanes connect the PCIe portion of the SATA Express connector, leaving a few lanes untapped to reduce DMI bandwidth.

The CPU’s leftover PCIe 3.0 lanes aren’t completely wasted either, as the X99E-ITX/ac connects four of them to an M.2 slot. The trip gets a little stranger at this point because, according to Device Manager in Windows, the secondary network controller is connected to the CPU’s PCIe 3.0 pathway. We’ve heard that Haswell-E processors can support up to five devices, and connecting this to the CPU does free up some of the chipset’s DMI bandwidth, even though the network controller doesn’t benefit from PCIe 3.0.

Before we dig any deeper into the details, here’s how the X99E-ITX/ac compares to the microATX motherboards we’ve reviewed:

Technical Specifications

MORE: Best Motherboards
MORE:
How To Choose A Motherboard: A Guide For Beginners
MORE: All Motherboard Articles

The mini-ITX board has fewer slots of course, and adds a USB 3.1 controller, but...well, did you notice this page's title? It seems that while everyone was talking about the transition of mini-ITX to performance platforms (2007), AMD was pushing DTX as a means to standardize the SFF–type gaming machine. That’s “Shuttle” form factor. Its main benefit over mini-ITX was a 9.6” front-to-back measurement, the same as a microATX motherboard, which meant that it had space for four DIMMs. Our benchmarks will show whether the missing memory channels are a real problem or a mere distraction.

X99E-ITX/ac Details

The X99E-ITX/ac’s greatest design weakness may be those four pins at the leading edge of the PCIe x16 connector, according to my colleagues. It’s a fan header, and the connectors of some fans won’t fit under some graphics cards. Mine fit, but it did smash the wires flat against the top of the plastic, and there’s always a chance that their fan plugs were taller than mine. It’s also one of three connectors though, where many mini-ITX boards only have two.

My biggest concern instead is the rectangular "narrow ILM" cooler mount, which is an alternative specification previously defined for tightly-spaced multi-socket server boards. Where will we find a cooler?

That’s right, ASRock actually includes a cooler with the X99E-ITX/ac! Designed for 2U servers, this little thing is pretty amazing, beginning with its specs. Dynatron says its 60x28mm fan produces 47.5 decibels at 7000 RPM, but our measurements show that it spins all the way up to 7500 RPM, producing a whopping 54 decibels in the process. Thankfully, non-overclockers don’t need to worry about it generating much more than 33 decibels as long as they don’t run an extended full load. And since heavy workloads are the reason you bought an X99 platform for your mini-ITX case, ASRock also includes a liquid cooler mounting bracket for Cooler Master’s Seidon 120V. Other readily-available upgrades include Dynatron’s R27, which is an 80mm alternative to the included cooler. Cooler Master may be the real winner here.

Accessing the M.2 connector immediately adjacent to the CPU socket requires a narrow CPU cooler. We found several big-air coolers that provide enough clearance, but can’t be screwed down due to the unusual mounting pattern. The USB 3.0 header just south of the M.2 mounting screws would provide even more heat sink clearance, if only more cooling options were available to take advantage of the space.

Shown in the motherboard images, the X99E-ITX/ac includes a separately-wrapped mini-PCIe Wi-Fi card in addition to the parts shown. The installation kit’s greatest weakness might be its inclusion of only two SATA cables, though a USB 3.0 to USB 2.0 adapter points to the motherboard’s single USB 2.0 header in a market where more than two ports are often needed.

Firmware And Software

ASRock App Shop includes a software updater in addition to freeware links. Previous troubles linking to the update server appear to have been resolved.

ASRock’s A-Tuning interface hasn’t changed from our recent deep-dive, including useful integrated utilities like XFast RAM, XFast LAN and USB Key. The software is tied to firmware settings and limits though, and the X99E-ITX/ac has only one factory-programed overclocking profile at 3.8GHz/1.20V CPU core.

ASRock’s Auto-Tuning program provides 4.3GHz at 1.25V, which is stable within the limits of thermal throttling (occurring after several minutes at full load). Manual tuning provides frequency and voltage controls within the full range supported by hardware.

The reason A-Tuning finds only one overclocking profile is because it pulls this information from firmware. The setting is a good starting point for basic overclocking, though it’s slower than the “Load 4GHz and XMP OC Setting” that accompanies our installation of DDR4-3000.

The long story on this is that since XMP-3000 requires a 125MHz base clock, the “4GHz and XMP” setting drops the operational multiplier to 32x and the CPU Cache Ratio to 24x, while increasing the CPU core voltage to 1.20V and CPU base clock ratio to 1.25x. Four gigahertz is faster than 3.8, and it’s the same voltage, so everybody wins.

Additional tuning gets us to 4.3GHz at 43x 100MHz. Our processor's usual 4.45GHz overclock works for a while, but the 1.28V needed to get it there eventually causes thermal throttling.

I was nearly thrilled to see the range of functioning memory ratios in the X99E-ITX/ac, all the way up to DDR4-2800 at 14x. DDR4-3000 at 15x doesn’t work, but DDR4-3200 at 12x works by using a 4:3 memory controller-to-CPU core ratio. That leaves our DDR4-3000 the odd man out by requiring a 125MHz BCLK at the 4:3 memory controller ratio and 9x memory multiplier. Oh, and for those who forgot, a doubled data rate is 2x the set clock frequency.

Thermal throttling ruined our attempts to find a completely stable overclock at 1.28V CPU core, so we chose 1.225V after lengthy experimentation. That still got us within 150MHz of this CPU's previous 1.28V maximum clock, so efficiency seekers would probably be wise to use the lower voltage anyway.

A separate voltage menu includes a redundant DIMM voltage setting, in addition to “Load-Line Calibration” to control core voltage drop under load, I/O voltage and PCH (chipset) voltage.

How We Test

Hardware and software settings carried over from our initial round-up allow me to compare the performance of every tested X99 motherboard to the most recent products. Charts include the three most closely-sized competitors:

Loading...

Synthetic Benchmarks

Synthetic benchmarks are a great way to find configuration problems like unrequested overclocks (which wreck a head-to-head match) and configuration issues (which can slow down certain components). In this case, we can see that the X99E-ITX/ac’s 3DMark 11 scores suffer slightly compared to larger motherboards, but we don’t see the cause until we get towards the end of our synthetic test.

Scrolling through to the sixth image, we see a 36% performance deficit in Sandra's Cryptography module, and the next image reveals the reason: the X99E-ITX/ac interfaces only two of the platform’s four memory channels. Bandwidth drops by slightly less than half, but will we see any big differences in real-world applications?

Gaming Benchmarks

Here’s a shocker: the X99E-ITX/ac performs better in most games than its larger microATX rivals. Tighter default timings are most likely reason for this odd behavior, as more DIMMs mean more latency.

We were particularly interested in seeing how Grid 2 worked at low settings, since this game has responded poorly in the past to either low bandwidth or high latency. The bandwidth issue seemed to evaporate at lower data rates in our DDR3 platform tests though, and similar timings between dual- and quad-channel boards allowed the one with the least total latency (two channels) to assume leadership in this title.

Before you go out and ditch half your RAM, we’d like to remind everyone that the gaming differences seen in the charts are too small to notice in real-world game play.

Application Benchmarks

Though the X99E-ITX/ac did suffer a small loss in Photoshop's OpenCL-optimized filters and took a small lead in Adobe Premiere, its overall performance appears average.

We do need to reveal a trick though: we had to change the memory to get a decent time in Adobe After Effects. The reason is that this benchmark needs more than 8GB of RAM, and our modules are 4GB each. By using the same RAM in both dual- and quad-channel tests, the dual-channel board suffers half the bandwidth and half the capacity. That's even less fair than different RAM, but if you want to know, the completion time for this test slowed from 20 seconds to 73 seconds when crippled by an 8GB capacity.

Power, Heat And Efficiency

With half as many memory channels, fewer slots and a voltage regulator that ASRock said is designed for better efficiency, the X99E-ITX/ac draws a little less power than its microATX rivals.

An overall performance deficit of less than one percent allows the X99E-ITX/ac’s reduced power to translate almost directly into increased efficiency.

Overclocking Performance

BIOS Frequency & Voltage Settings

The X99E-ITX/ac includes a similar range of settings compared to its larger siblings, lacking only a little PCH and DRAM voltage for the sake of compact system thermal limits. Yet, even those two reduced settings far exceed anything we’d need for safe-and-sane O/C evaluation.

As discussed in the firmware section of this review, thermal throttling forces the use of a lower CPU core voltage to retain a consistent O/C frequency. At 1.225V CPU core, the board still pushes our Core i7-5960X to 4.3GHz. This is also the first ASRock motherboard we’ve tested to exceed DDR4-3200, though we’re not sure how much of this feat is due to firmware advancement, and how much is due to the missing third and fourth DIMMs.

The DDR4-2666 test lets us see how different boards optimize timings for non-native data rates. The X99E-ITX/ac has only half the memory channels of its microATX competitors, yet still produces more than half the bandwidth.

Value Analysis

We usually try to put a motherboard up against its peers to determine the best value for the money, but that’s a problem for the only mini-ITX motherboard for LGA 2011-v3. For better or worse, it has no peers. Based on a $250 MSRP, here’s how it compares to its closest rivals.

MicroATX might be a better value, and this is where we’d normally discuss features versus price. Indeed, the X99E-ITX/ac comes with a $30 CPU cooler where the microATX motherboard do not, and has USB 3.1. The X99E-ITX/ac also requires a special CPU cooler though, and your few cooler upgrade options appear slightly overpriced for the money. Moreover, the included cooler’s tiny 60mm/7500 RPM fan will drive you nuts if you like to push a lot heat from your processor. This might be a good time to pine for AMD’s DTX form factor, which would have allowed space for a standard CPU cooler mechanism and four DIMMs. Unfortunately, VIA's mini-ITX won that competition by being first out of the gate.

Conclusion

We saw the huge bandwidth penalty of having only two DIMM slots on a four-channel memory controller, but we also saw how little effect that bandwidth reduction had on real-world applications. The X99E-ITX/ac even won some gaming benchmarks, though we probably could have gotten similar results by dropping any competing samples to a pair of DIMMs.

The biggest deficit of mini-ITX is indeed cooling, as we were forced to use lower core voltage to reach a non-throttled overclock that was about 150MHz lower than what we've seen from larger boards. But we might have been tempted to use lower voltage anyway to improve efficiency in a compact PC.

That brings us to the award discussion. Since the X99E-ITX/ac exceeded our expectations, we could give it our ordinary “Approved” recognition. Since it doesn’t have anything to compete directly against, it can’t win our comparative value “Recommended” award. Our top award, “Choice”, means that a product is best-in-class. There are no other motherboards directly competing with ASRock's X99-based mini-ITX offering. But even if there were, there's a good chance this would be our victor anyway. An impressive list of features (despite limited board space), performance  befitting a workstation-class platform and a reasonable price tag earn the X99E-ITX/ac the highest honor we bestow.

MORE: Best Motherboards

This thread is closed for comments
58 comments
    Your comment
  • SoerenHedemand
    How about a test of the ASRock EPC612D4I. It has four memory slots.
  • Crashman
    1994191 said:
    How about a test of the ASRock EPC612D4I. It has four memory slots.
    Sorry, I don't have any DDR4 SODIMMs yet.
  • uglyduckling81
    Is it just me or does the lets compare to other boards bit not contain any other boards to to compare against?
  • wtfxxxgp
    Quote:
    Is it just me or does the lets compare to other boards bit not contain any other boards to to compare against?


    True. However, that section is pointless as it has no direct rivals - I think they're using a standard template and they had to fill something in there.
  • apache_lives
    For that socket/platform its almost a complete waste - all those unusable memory channels and pcie lanes that make the 2011 platform high end have been stripped away
  • Crashman
    18084 said:
    For that socket/platform its almost a complete waste - all those unusable memory channels and pcie lanes that make the 2011 platform high end have been stripped away
    it's really just for people who want more cores. So, feel free to ridicule anyone who tries to pair it with an E5-1620 :p
  • Daniel Ladishew
    Testing this on the stock cooler is useful information, but this mobo will only shine when water cooled. I'd like to see the tests repeated with a closed loop cooler attached. Either the Cooler Master or Corsair H100 (which i've heard will work with that bracket as well). If the point is to pack lots of cores into a small form factor, not overcoming the thermal throttling seems like a weak test.
  • TechyInAZ
    While not as good as it's micro atx counterparts (obviously), I am very impressed by this motherboard.

    So if somebody that doesn't need all the PCIE lanes or memory lanes but just the pure power of a hexa/octo core CPU in a small package, then this is the best solution.
  • Bossyfins
    The cooler bracket also seems to fit a Corsair H100i/h80i as seen in Linus's video.
  • goinginstyle
    So other X99 boards get ripped for not being able to do 4-way SLI or 3-way with a PCIe RAID controller but this one gets a pass on those items plus numerous others (lower OC, lack of memory expansion, high price, etc) and receives an award. The board reviews here are just becoming a joke.
  • Eggz
    Can you comment on whether the PCI-e slot supports bifurcation to utilize a passive PCI-e spliter? If so, that would allow SLI or Xfire by splitting the x 16 slot into two x 8 slots. That single feature would make it the most epic mITX board I can think of!
  • Crashman
    177297 said:
    So other X99 boards get ripped for not being able to do 4-way SLI or 3-way with a PCIe RAID controller but this one gets a pass on those items plus numerous others (lower OC, lack of memory expansion, high price, etc) and receives an award. The board reviews here are just becoming a joke.
    I guess you're going to tell me next that a car with two wheels missing is a motorcycle? In full ATX boards you have the space and the slots for 3-way SLI, so full ATX boards that don't support it are broken. We can probably agree that Mini ITX is a ridiculous form factor for LGA 2011-v3 in most circumstances, but you and I don't individually represent the target market of this product. At least I'm willing to admit that from a Mini ITX builder's perspective, the joke's on us (or you, since I already made that confession). I was thinking of them, the Mini ITX builder who wants more cores, when I issued the award. Because as a reviewer, I have to think about the needs and desires of the buyer.

    1858088 said:
    The cooler bracket also seems to fit a Corsair H100i/h80i as seen in Linus's video.
    We haven't confirmed that yet, but will attempt to :)
  • Eggz
    8708 said:
    1858088 said:
    The cooler bracket also seems to fit a Corsair H100i/h80i as seen in Linus's video.
    We haven't confirmed that yet, but will attempt to :)


    It works. ASRock's own info video showed the cooler bracket fitting an All-in-One cooler like the Corsair Hydro-Series.

    Also, LinusTechTips got it working with an H100i.

    Cooling this thing is by no means limited to the stock cooler, which is great!
  • Crashman
    1406980 said:
    8708 said:
    1858088 said:
    The cooler bracket also seems to fit a Corsair H100i/h80i as seen in Linus's video.
    We haven't confirmed that yet, but will attempt to :)
    It works. ASRock's own info video showed the cooler bracket fitting an All-in-One cooler like the Corsair Hydro-Series. Also, LinusTechTips got it working with an H100i. Cooling this thing is by no means limited to the stock cooler, which is great!
    I didn't see the LinusTechTips segment, but the article didn't make a mistake: The ASRock video is referring to the Cooler Master unit, and ASRock informed us that there may be fitment issues on the H100i. So, we wanted to verify any Corsair units before reporting on them.
  • Eggz
    8708 said:
    I didn't see the LinusTechTips segment, but the article didn't make a mistake: The ASRock video is referring to the Cooler Master unit, and ASRock informed us that there may be fitment issues on the H100i. So, we wanted to verify any Corsair units before reporting on them.


    I didn't mean to give the impression that I was nitpicking an error in the article, just providing info. Sorry if that's how it came off.

    Aside from that, though, do you know anything about whether the PCI-e slot supports a passive spliter? I know it's a basic server-oriented feature to allow two x 8 signals to come out of an x 16 slot that feeds a spliter, and this board supports high-end server CPUs. I couldn't find anything in the documentation. My hope is that you might have a PCI-e spliter on hand to test SLI or Xfire compatibility. Fingers crossed!
  • Crashman
    1406980 said:
    8708 said:
    I didn't see the LinusTechTips segment, but the article didn't make a mistake: The ASRock video is referring to the Cooler Master unit, and ASRock informed us that there may be fitment issues on the H100i. So, we wanted to verify any Corsair units before reporting on them.
    I didn't mean to give the impression that I was nitpicking an error in the article, just providing info. Sorry if that's how it came off. Aside from that, though, do you know anything about whether the PCI-e slot supports a passive spliter? I know it's a basic server-oriented feature to allow two x 8 signals to come out of an x 16 slot that feeds a spliter, and this board supports high-end server CPUs. I couldn't find anything in the documentation. My hope is that you might have a PCI-e spliter on hand to test SLI or Xfire compatibility. Fingers crossed!
    It's supported by the CPU and not capped by the chipset (as on some of Intel's lower-end 1155 chipsets), so the first person to try it likely wins.

    I bought an H60 to test with this bracket. Fingers crossed that you'll tell me the H60, H80i, and H100i all use the same mounting bracket.
  • Eggz
    8708 said:
    It's supported by the CPU and not capped by the chipset (as on some of Intel's lower-end 1155 chipsets), so the first person to try it likely wins. I bought an H60 to test with this bracket. Fingers crossed that you'll tell me the H60, H80i, and H100i all use the same mounting bracket.


    Yes'r! At least the square blocks will work, though not the older circular ones. Looks like you're in luck, though, because the H60 appears to have the newer square block.

    http://www.corsair.com/en/cooling
  • Crashman
    1406980 said:
    8708 said:
    It's supported by the CPU and not capped by the chipset (as on some of Intel's lower-end 1155 chipsets), so the first person to try it likely wins. I bought an H60 to test with this bracket. Fingers crossed that you'll tell me the H60, H80i, and H100i all use the same mounting bracket.
    Yes'r! At least the square blocks will work, though not the older circular ones. Looks like you're in luck, though, because the H60 appears to have the newer square block. http://www.corsair.com/en/cooling


    I used the photograph to make my selection :)
  • rhysiam
    Quote:
    So other X99 boards get ripped for not being able to do 4-way SLI or 3-way with a PCIe RAID controller but this one gets a pass on those items plus numerous others (lower OC, lack of memory expansion, high price, etc) and receives an award. The board reviews here are just becoming a joke.


    The way I see it there are 4 main (sensible) reasons why someone would step up to X99 over Z97:
    1) Additional PCIe lanes
    2) Increased memory bandwidth
    3) Increased memory capacity
    4) Access to CPUs with more than 4 cores
    (Of course there are probably other minor benefits too, but that's the main ones)
    For most people any and all of the above are not really necessary, which is why X99 is very much an enthusiast (i.e. not mainstream) platform.

    This ITX board does eliminate the benefits of numbers 1-3 above, but it doesn't hold you back on #4 -> more cores. So you're trading #1,2 & 3 for a smaller form factor. I agree that there's a pretty small number people for whom that tradeoff is worthwhile, but there will be some and I think they'd be pretty excited about this board.

    Is this a niche product within an (already relatively small) enthusiast product range... Yes.

    Is it useless/irrelevant... absolutely not for those (few people) who have these exact requirements.
  • Crashman
    1287211 said:
    Quote:
    So other X99 boards get ripped for not being able to do 4-way SLI or 3-way with a PCIe RAID controller but this one gets a pass on those items plus numerous others (lower OC, lack of memory expansion, high price, etc) and receives an award. The board reviews here are just becoming a joke.
    The way I see it there are 4 main (sensible) reasons why someone would step up to X99 over Z97: 1) Additional PCIe lanes 2) Increased memory bandwidth 3) Increased memory capacity 4) Access to CPUs with more than 4 cores (Of course there are probably other minor benefits too, but that's the main ones) For most people any and all of the above are not really necessary, which is why X99 is very much an enthusiast (i.e. not mainstream) platform. This ITX board does eliminate the benefits of numbers 1-3 above, but it doesn't hold you back on #4 -> more cores. So you're trading #1,2 & 3 for a smaller form factor. I agree that there's a pretty small number people for whom that tradeoff is worthwhile, but there will be some and I think they'd be pretty excited about this board. Is this a niche product within an (already relatively small) enthusiast product range... Yes. Is it useless/irrelevant... absolutely not for those (few people) who have these exact requirements.

    The problem certain PR people are having is that I rate similar boards on a features-v-price argument and the board that offers the best features for a similar price, or a similar set of features for a lower price, usually wins. A bit of hyperbole points out HOW the features are better, and the next thing you know a guy leaves the motherboard business for the storage business, or something like that.

    When one of them responds to an article like this with equal hyperbole, all i can do is ask them to supply the Mini ITX board they have that supports multiple cards and four DIMMs, so that I might give that one an award instead :)
  • rhysiam
    8708 said:
    The problem certain PR people are having is that I rate similar boards on a features-v-price argument and the board that offers the best features for a similar price, or a similar set of features for a lower price, usually wins. A bit of hyperbole points out HOW the features are better, and the next thing you know a guy leaves the motherboard business for the storage business, or something like that. When one of them responds to an article like this with equal hyperbole, all i can do is ask them to supply the Mini ITX board they have that supports multiple cards and four DIMMs, so that I might give that one an award instead :)

    It seems to me to be fairly similar to criticizing the Surface Pro because of its poor performance in gaming benchmarks... you have to make sacrifices to go small. For some people, those sacrifices aren't worth it and they'd prefer something larger with a better performance or set of features. Of course that makes sense... but it doesn't mean that others aren't happy to make those trade offs for the smaller form factor.

    This board makes an mITX 18 core/36 thread DIY build possible. It's absolutely a niche produce, but worth the review and, given the lack of any competition, well worth the award IMHO.
  • Arabian Knight
    8708 said:
    The only LGA 2011-v3 motherboard for compact cases, ASRock’s X99E-ITX squeezes up to eight CPU cores into the mini-ITX form factor. ASRock X99E-ITX/ac Motherboard Review : Read more


    I dont get it ,

    Did you use the Seidon 120V cooler to test this mobo or not ?

    and haven't you noticed that that Seidon 120V bracket is actually the AMD bracket ?

    which means that you can use ANY cooler that is AMD compatible here ? the same holes ?

    the Seidon 120V specs does not say anything about narrow 2011-3 sockets , actually that special bracket is the AMD bracket .

    so TRY amd brackets on this motherboard PLEASE .

    The Sidon 120V

    http://www.coolermaster.com/cooling/cpu-liquid-cooler/seidon-120v/


    here is a link for the Seidon 120V installation manual

    http://www.coolermaster.com/xresserver01-DLFILE-P1307220001acf5-F13072200028e0f.html

    as you see that second bracket the AMD ONE is the same supplied with the Motherboard for the ILM , which means the screws places are compatable between AMD and ILM 2011-3

    PLEAAAASE try all the coolers you have and see if they fit on this mobo using the AMD brackets. use the AMD brackets that comes with the coolers. and try Noctua coolers too.

    and more over :


    ASRock EPC612D4I

    try to test please the Asrock itx mobo that comes with Quad channel SOdimms , you can Ask Asrock to supply the SODIMMS DDR4 for you.

    and if you want to buy them , they are available in the market already ..

    here is a direct link to Crucial USA

    http://www.crucial.com/csrusa/en/ct8g4tfd8213
  • Crashman
    1922137 said:
    I dont get it , Did you use the Seidon 120V cooler to test this mobo or not ?
    No, it was out of stock everywhere I shopped.

    1922137 said:
    and haven't you noticed that that Seidon 120V bracket is actually the AMD bracket ?
    No, it's Intel's narrrow ILM bracket. The holes are spaced differently.

    1922137 said:
    which means that you can use ANY cooler that is AMD compatible here ? the same holes ?
    No, most AMD coolers are not compatible. But a few that have legs hanging from a raised bracket, such as the Seidon 120V and certain Corsair models, might be flexible enough to squeeze into place.

    1922137 said:
    the Seidon 120V specs does not say anything about narrow 2011-3 sockets , actually that special bracket is the AMD bracket.
    No, it's an Intel Narrow ILM bracket. And those didn't change between 2011 and 2011-v3. Actually, neither did the square ILM bracket.

    1922137 said:
    so TRY amd brackets on this motherboard PLEASE.
    I did. They didn't fit.

    1922137 said:
    here is a link for the Seidon 120V installation manual
    What good will that do me if I don't have a Seidon 120V?

    1922137 said:
    as you see that second bracket the AMD ONE is the same supplied with the Motherboard for the ILM, which means the screws places are compatable between AMD and ILM 2011-3
    I just checked, the screws are different too.

    1922137 said:
    PLEAAAASE try all the coolers you have and see if they fit on this mobo using the AMD brackets. use the AMD brackets that comes with the coolers. and try Noctua coolers too.
    I did that before I wrote the article. Persistence only makes you right if you're a pandering politician.

    1922137 said:
    and more over : try to test please the Asrock itx mobo that comes with Quad channel SOdimms , you can Ask Asrock to supply the SODIMMS DDR4 for you. and if you want to buy them , they are available in the market already .. here is a direct link to Crucial USA http://www.crucial.com/csrusa/en/ct8g4tfd8213

    OK, I'll tell them you asked.