ASRock Z390 Extreme4 Review: 9th Gen “Core” Value?
ASRock's Z390 Extreme4 officially supports Intel’s latest high-end mainstream processor, the Core i9-9900K. But that doesn’t mean it should be used with that CPU, as we'll see later in our testing.
Priced around $160 US (and also around £160 in UK), the Z390 Extreme4's target buyers are probably looking at something closer to the Core i5-9600K. And given the board’s similarities to its Z370 predecessor, we think it will probably support the mid-level CPU quite handily. But it’s still competing against other boards that can properly support the Core i9-9900K’s high power requirement, its failure to keep up with those competing models puts a significant ding in its approval rating.
Though it technically supports Intel’s Core i9-9900K, frequent throttling ruined enough of our performance measurements that we can only recommend ASRock’s Z390 Extreme4 to users of lesser processors.
ASRock Z390 Extreme4
Specifications
| Socket | LGA 1151 |
| Chipset | Intel Z390 |
| Form Factor | ATX |
| Voltage Regulator | 12 Phases |
| Video Ports | DisplayPort 1.2, HDMI 1.4, VGA |
| USB Ports | 10 Gbps: (1) Type-C, (1) Type A 5Gb/s: (4) Type A |
| Network Jacks | (1) Gigabit Ethernet |
| Audio Jacks | (5) Analog, (1) Digital Out |
| Legacy Ports/Jacks | (1) PS/2 |
| Other Ports/Jack | Antenna Bracket |
| PCIe x16 | (3) v3.0 (x16/x0/x4, x8/x8/x4) |
| PCIe x8 | ✗ |
| PCIe x4 | ✗ |
| PCIe x1 | (3) v3.0 |
| CrossFire/SLI | 3x / 2x |
| DIMM slots | (4) DDR4 |
| M.2 slots | (2) PCIe 3.0 x4* / SATA*, (1) M.2 Key-E (*Consumes SATA Ports 0/1, 4/5) |
| U.2 Ports | ✗ |
| SATA Ports | (8) 6Gb/s (Ports 0/1, 4/5 shared w/M.2) |
| USB Headers | (1) 5Gb/s Type-C, (2) v3.0, (2) v2.0 |
| Fan Headers | (5) 4-Pin |
| Legacy Interfaces | Serial COM Port, System (beep-code) Speaker |
| Other Interfaces | FP-Audio, D-LED, (2) RGB-LED, Thunderbolt AIC, TPM |
| Diagnostics Panel | ✗ |
| Internal Button/Switch | ✗ / ✗ |
| SATA Controllers | Integrated (0/1/5/10), ASM1061 PCIe |
| Ethernet Controllers | WGI219V PHY |
| Wi-Fi / Bluetooth | ✗ |
| USB Controllers | ASM1074 Hub |
| HD Audio Codec | ALC1220 |
| DDL/DTS Connect | DTS Connect |
| Warranty | 3 Years |
Features
Sitting at the middle of ASRock's consumer motherboard line, the Extreme4 has long offered users a cheaper way to achieve a mild overclock from high-end processors. That same concept has applied whether we were talking about the 8700K, the 7900X, or even some of its AMD offerings. Prices always reflected a big difference in power requirements between Intel’s big and little processors, but enthusiasts could count on the Extreme4 series to deliver value that was at least competitive to other boards that used the same socket.
But Intel’s decision to wedge the eight-core, sixteen-thread Core i9-9900K into the smaller “mainstream” socket left ASRock in a bind: Did Intel really expect value-seeking enthusiasts to pay an extra 25 percent for higher-capacity voltage regulation? ASRock doesn't seem to think so.
The Z390 Extreme4’s larger heatsinks are intended to deal with the higher continuous power draw of the newer Core i9 CPU, and the Z370-version’s USB 3.1 Gen2 controller disappears in favor of the Z390’s integrated Gen2 support, but we lose an internal USB 2.0 header. Smaller changes such as the addition of addressable LED and a second RGB connector might be more pertinent to the current market.
Two dual-port USB 2.0 headers remain, as do the Z370-version’s original two USB 3.0 and single Gen2 front-panel header--and that Gen2 header still runs at Gen1 speed (5Gb/s), just like on the Z370 model. The two metal-reinforced PCIe slots run at either x16/x0 or x8/x8 mode, depending on whether a card occupies the second slot. The bottom PCIe slot runs at x4 mode off the chipset’s integrated hub, and the three PCIe x1 slots are ocne again open-ended to support longer cards. The Z390 Extreme4 adds a decorative aluminum “heat spreader” cover over its lower M.2 storage slot, and repositions its Key-E slot (typically used for Wi-Fi/Bluetooth cards) to the center of the board while adding the CNVi mode that’s exclusive to Intel’s newer chipsets.
The Z390 Extreme4 loses the Z370 version’s DVI-D output, but gains DisplayPort, all while maintaining the legacy VGA port. The two-hole Wi-Fi antenna bracket is remains, but the motherboard’s installation kit doesn't include the needed cables to run between the bracket and any Wi-Fi card that a builder might otherwise be tempted to place at the mid-board Key-E slot.
The USB port configuration matches that of the old board, apart from its two Gen2 ports being connected to the Z390’s newly-integrated controller. The PS/2 keyboard/mouse port is still there, Gigabit Ethernet still comes from Intel’s i219 PHY, and the ALC1220 audio codec is still bolstered with DTS Connect to output live multichannel streams through the board’s digital optical port (to a DTS receiver, of course).
Z390 Extreme4 buyers get the good overall layout of the previous Z370 model, with all of the stiff perpendicularly-oriented cable headers paced above the top x16 slot to avoid card conflict. There’s still the possibility of a fan connector standing too tall beneath the lowest slot to allow a graphics card to be shoved in all the way, but a four-lane slot that shares those four lanes of bandwidth with all M.2 slots and SATA ports isn’t exactly optimal for graphics card placement anyway. ASRock adds a four-pin ATX12V connector to the 8-pin EPS12V, but we’re more concerned with the board’s capability than that of our cables (though your cables might be less robust than ours).
Z390 Extreme4 buyers get a driver disc, printed documentation, an I/O shield, four SATA cables, a legacy high-bandwidth SLI bridge, and a case badge to go with their board.
MORE: Best Motherboards
MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard
MORE: All Motherboard Content
"ASRock will not honor the warranty if purchased in Australia and if problems occur outside the typical retailer 30 day DOA"
When I see the 'extreme' moniker, I think high end, or something thereof. This doesn't fit the bill.
So where is your Best Motherboards for 9900K roundup review ? Best Value ones and best top ones only for i9 9900K?
I think the best I can do is get the Z390 awards into the Best Motherboards coverage
So far we have the Gigabyte Z390 Designare and ASRock Z390 Phantom Gaming ITX/ac, but those are both in the over-$200 class.
Z390 Motherboards
Asus has 21
MSI 11
Gigabyte 13
Asrock 11
I noticed that roundups in the last two years became very scarce and not like the old glory times of Tomshardware and other sites ..
What is the reason ? They dont send you free motherboards for testing anymore ? or is it not profitable as before to review alot of products ?
you can easily ask for Hardware donation for testing from Hardware Sellers in return of Ads for their sites , like newegg or Amazon or what ever.
Poor traffic is the reason we don't do many roundups. Most of our traffic comes from search engines now. More people are searching for reviews by motherboard name than for roundups. And the easiest way to get a search engine to promote a Gigabyte Z390 Designare review, for example, is to write an article called the Gigabyte Z390 Designare review.
So without further adieu, here are motherboard reviews:
https://www.tomshardware.com/t/motherboards/review/
I meant to say , why dont you review every motherboard released by known Vendors ?
It does seem like the vast majority of Z390 boards have been labeled as mediocre, with regards to 9900k overclocking. The platform, as a whole, while fast, is simply horrible when it comes to price/performance. The cost to run a 9900k vs a 2700/2700x, could easily mean a better GPU, going with the less expensive product. While I love my 6700k, Intel has priced themselves so far, that if I had to build now, it would be AMD. Intel simply has lost me as a customer with their ridiculous pricing. At one time I could at least argue, from an upgrade perspective, that Intel would make sense, as I could reuse my CL13 2133 ram, and not get a huge performance penalty, staying with Intel. Now the price difference is so vast, I would be spending just as much, to buy an AM4 platform, with new/faster ram. I could then repurpose my 6700k for something else.
The board should easily be able to run the CPU at the stock (base) frequency, with all cores heavily loaded, continously.
It's only if you overclock by going above the base frequency for a longer time that there's a problem. How far can you overclcok it? 3.8GHz, 4.0GHz or 4.2GHz?
Yeah I feel like if you're in the market for a 9900K that you would be spending way more on a motherboard anyways, because I know I wouldn't buy a $500 CPU and pair it with a $140-ish motherboard. I think if motherboard manufacturers were going that route that they'd probably get a lot of confused and very angry customers when they find out that their expensive new PC doesn't work because they decided to go cheap on the motherboard.
Some of the power performance problems described sounded like they could effect the lessor processors too.
Drawing excessive power and having difficulty with an Excel bench. ? Are you sure this was not a bad board that needed RMA'd?
Maybe the FLIR could shed some light on the issue.
For single core loads the CPU can keep running at full boost speed without exceeding TDP, but when all cores are utilized the clock needs to come down (to base speed) in order to prevent overheating.
The 9900K is a 3.6 GHz CPU that has the ability to occasionally run a bit faster.
(The Ryzen 7 2700X is slightly faster, at 3.7 GHz.)
That's not how they rate the things on a performance scale.
Don't blaim the affordable boards for the more expensive ones doing it wrong!
If complain should be placed anywhere it's with the boards that ignore the TDP and run the CPUs overclocked by default!
I'm glad that you're finally agreeing with me, that TDP chokes are at odds with the CPU's rated performance.
When adhering to the TDP you get the performance as rated by Intel. So the TDP is not at odds with the rated performance...
(If you can show me some official statement from Intel that their TDP is to be disregarded then I might reconsider.)
At least if they were following TDP we'd have consistency between boards, no?
And these are marketed towards enthusiasts, who often overclock. Yet for us to get an "overclock rating" on a board that can't support a continuous speed of at least the stock Turbo Boost ratio, we'd have to do something differently. Such as rate these at "100% stability with 50% of the cores disabled". That type of concession would have AMD guys jumping on us like rats on a slice of pizza. And for good reason. It looks like pandering.
On the other hand, understanding that the Core i9-9900k has vastly greater power requirements than the processors used by budget enthusiasts, we MIGHT be able to label these lower-cost models as enthusiast boards for the Core i5. That's far less pandering. Of course, it would require us to buy a Core i5.