Gigabyte TRX40 Aorus Xtreme Review: Battle For Threadripper Supremacy

A multi-GPU monster board

Reviews
By
Published
(Image credit: © Gigabyte)

Tom's Hardware Verdict

The TRX40 Aorus Xtreme is likely the best board available to HEDT users who want a superior networking solution and have little care for manual CPU overclocking.

Reasons to buy

  • +

    Ideal slot layout for multiple graphics cards

  • +

    Intel X550 dual-port 10GbE controller with 10GBASE-T for enhanced interoperability

  • +

    Four onboard M.2 slots, with sharing limited to one of those slots and SATA

  • +

    Includes premium four-by M.2 to PCIe 4.0 X16 adapter

  • +

    Rugged construction with backplate aiding VR MOS cooling

Reasons to avoid

  • -

    As pricey as its closest rival, which seemed slightly overpriced

  • -

    CPU overclock settings didn’t always work as expected

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.

AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper processors don’t come cheap, so a race for the top in motherboards to support the platform was expected before the latest CPU series was even confirmed. Asus got to us first with its $850 ROG Zenith II Extreme, and it was only a matter of time before Gigabyte sent its own $850 entry. 

Specifications

Thomas Soderstrom
Thomas Soderstrom
Thomas Soderstrom is a Senior Staff Editor at Tom's Hardware US. He tests and reviews cases, cooling, memory and motherboards.
5 Comments Comment from the forums
  • mrwitte
    UPDATE: I eventually did get 4 GPUs to work on this motherboard, with a lot of research and help & suggestions from several different people. The simple lowdown:
    Enable Above 4G Decoding in UEFI
    Convert Windows OS drive from MBR to GPT (using mbr2gpt in Command Prompt)
    Disable CSM Support (This makes the system unbootable unless you perform Step 2 above)I'm not 100% certain that step 1 was necessary, but it does seem likely, judging from everything I've read about Above 4G Encoding. But I do know that everything is indeed working (and at x16/x8/x16/x8 as the specs state) after performing all three of these steps.

    Very glad to be able to keep this motherboard after all.

    I got one of these for a 4xGPU (RTX 2080 ti's) Octane/Redshift render workstation build, and that's apparently not what this motherboard is for. When I connect the 4th GPU it won't post and kicks out a d4 code. From the manual: "PCI resource allocation error. Out of Resources."

    I've ruled out other variables by rotating GPUs/cables/slot population through all sorts of configurations, and it consistently spins like a top with 3GPUs wherever they're placed, and croaks with an error as soon as 4 GPUs are connected. The conclusion I've reached is that despite what the physical spacing of the PCIE slots suggests, this motherboard does not support four GPUs simultaneously.

    Getting rid of this thing is really going to hurt because it's the most beautiful motherboard I have ever beheld! Unfortunately, it's of no use to me if I can't add that 4th 2080 ti to the pool. Instead, I'll be going for a known quantity: the ASRock TRX40 Creator. To my taste, an incredibly goofy-looking motherboard compared to the Aorus Xtreme, but I've been in personal contact with several people who've successfully built quad-GPU workstations on the platform. This is what matters, so I'll learn to love it!
    Reply
  • Crashman
    mrwitte said:
    I got one of these for a 4xGPU (RTX 2080 ti's) Octane/Redshift render workstation build, and that's apparently not what this motherboard is for. When I connect the 4th GPU it won't post and kicks out a d4 code. From the manual: "PCI resource allocation error. Out of Resources."

    I've ruled out other variables by rotating GPUs/cables/slot population through all sorts of configurations, and it consistently spins like a top with 3GPUs wherever they're placed, and croaks with an error as soon as 4 GPUs are connected. The conclusion I've reached is that despite what the physical spacing of the PCIE slots suggests, this motherboard does not support four GPUs simultaneously.

    Getting rid of this thing is really going to hurt because it's the most beautiful motherboard I have ever beheld! Unfortunately, it's of no use to me if I can't add that 4th 2080 ti to the pool. Instead, I'll be going for a known quantity: the ASRock TRX40 Creator. To my taste, an incredibly goofy-looking motherboard compared to the Aorus Xtreme, but I've been in personal contact with several people who've successfully built quad-GPU workstations on the platform. This is what matters, so I'll learn to love it!
    That certainly sounds like an undocumented shared resource, have you contacted Gigabyte to clarify?
    Reply
  • mrwitte
    No, haven't heard back yet. But I'm all set anyway!
    Crashman said:
    That certainly sounds like an undocumented shared resource, have you contacted Gigabyte to clarify?
    Reply
  • 3L6research
    Reviewing your old reviews for the Gigabyte TRX40 Aorus Xtreme (1 APR 2020), I noticed in one of your photos that it looked like you had paired this MOBO with a Cooler Master HAF XB or XB EVO case.
    Because the MOBO is supposed to be either XL-ATX or E-ATX (depending on how you name these things) and the case specs state it only takes ATX boards, how did you make this work?
    Like to try it myself.
    Reply
  • Crashman
    3L6research said:
    Reviewing your old reviews for the Gigabyte TRX40 Aorus Xtreme (1 APR 2020), I noticed in one of your photos that it looked like you had paired this MOBO with a Cooler Master HAF XB or XB EVO case.
    Because the MOBO is supposed to be either XL-ATX or E-ATX (depending on how you name these things) and the case specs state it only takes ATX boards, how did you make this work?
    Like to try it myself.
    I wrote several case guides about this very issue: Most "EATX" PC motherboards are not full EATX spec. They're XL-ATX depth and ATX from north to south edges (call that height if you build towers or width if you do server racks). In other words, rather than 13" deep they're only 10.6" deep.

    The HAF XB has a roughly 10.5" tray with plenty of room ahead of it, so that folding the front edge down a bit easily allows boards up to roughly 13" to fit. But why lead with the added details?

    Because I was also responsible for many of the site's case reviews, and many of THOSE cases were built to the defunct XL-ATX standard. A 10.6" board fits an XL-ATX case, while a 13" board does not. And since XL-ATX was defunct, those cases were sold as ATX.

    Because of this, I routinely went after both contributing motherboard editors to provide exact motherboard depth, as well as contributing case editors to manually measure the clearance before a motherboard contacted any part of the case. The last two Editors In Chief thought I was being obtuse about this stuff, but it's obvious that you don't need 13" of clearance to fit a 10.6" board.

    After that, things got ridiculous with case labels: Companies started calling any case that had 13" of clearance EATX, even though many of those didn't have the front (forth) column of standoffs needed to support a 13"-deep motherboard's forward edge. Some manufacturers started making notes like "EATX" with an asterisk pointing to a number such as "Up to 11" deep". But that's not the full EATX spec, and I'm always concerned with someone getting parts that don't fit based on faulty specifications. It's important for buyers to be as fully-informed as possible.

    I can give you some historical perspective about how the HAF XB ended up being the standard platform if you'd like.
    Reply