MSI A78M-E35 Versus Gigabyte GA-F2A78M-D3H

Today we look at two AMD A78-based motherboards (MSI's A78M-E35 and Gigabyte's GA-F2A78M-D3H), to determine how they stack up against A88X.

An Introduction To AMD's A78 Chipset

It has been nearly a year since Tom's Hardware last reviewed a motherboard for AMD's processors. And with the recent Godavari APU announcement, we thought we should dust off our Kaveri APUs to see if we can find some additional value in the company's not-so-famous alternative chipsets. 

Our own Thomas Soderstrom looked at AMD's A88X chipset from an enthusiast's standpoint and determined that an APU placed into this platform, along with a complementary graphics card, could provide plenty of performance and features to satisfy anyone looking for a mainstream Intel alternative.

But does the average desktop user really need CrossFire, an eight-phase voltage regulator or enough SATA 6Gb/s ports to load an ATX tower? Do they instead want an HTPC with enough bells and whistles for an out-of-the-box overclock, modest graphics horsepower and plenty of room for storage without busting the budget (or form factor)? I have good news, friends: AMD has a solution and you might not have even considered it.


PCI Express1x16 / 2x81x161x161x16 / 2x81x16
SATA (6Gb/s)8 (8)6 (6)6 (0)8 (8)6 (6)
RAID0, 1, 5, 100, 1, 100, 1, 100, 1, 5, 100, 1, 10
RAID DriverPromisePromisePromiseDot HillDot Hill
USB (3.0)14 (4)14 (4)14 (0)14 (4)14 (4)

* Per AMD's website - FM2 easy upgrade path featuring latest USB and SATA technologies; FM2+ backwards compatible, future-ready and PCIe 3.0-ready.

Introducing the A78, AMD's "media-class" chipset. Though it doesn't have any fancy Xes or a three-digit designation, this platform is completely adequate for most folks. In fact, comparing AMD's FM2+-compatible offerings, the only difference between the flagship and A78 is an inability to split 16 lanes of PCIe into two x8 links, two missing SATA 6Gb/s ports and RAID 5 support. 

Today, I will be comparing MSI's A78M-E35 and Gigabyte's F2A78M-D3H. I will also be using some of Thomas' data for the Asus A88X-Pro Eric's MSI H81M-E34 results for comparisons to a different AMD chipset and Intel's low- budget offering. 

Technical Specifications


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

MORE: Motherboards in the Forums

MSI A78M-E35

MSI's A78M-E35 is the smaller of our two A78 boards, measuring 8.9x8.5 inches. Though both samples are microATX-sized, MSI's offering is geared more toward smaller enclosures and entry-level builds. With its reduced size, I have access to only two DDR3 DIMM slots, and the bottom of the board does get cramped if you have a PCI card installed. There is only one available four-pin ATX12V CPU connector, so make sure your power supply has a four-pin lead or that it can split its eight-pin connector.

The board offers two four-pin PWM fan connectors (one system fan and one CPU fan); they're are located right where you would need them. For those of us with legacy peripherals, two PS/2 ports are available. There are enough USB ports available on the back panel and through headers to satiate mainstream users, though higher-end chipsets enable more.  

MSI's UEFI definitely has more of a GUI-like feel than I am used to, and the home screen isn't as intuitive as I would have liked. Working through some of the pages, I noticed that the option selections were not consistent. Some of them required clicking for a list of settings, others demanded that you press + or - to increment up or down and some wanted you to key a number in specifically. Finally, since this is an entry-level board, there is no access to voltage biasing through the BIOS. If you intend to use OC Genie, MSI's one-button overclock, the software tool only supports 65W APUs with this chipset.

Looking at the board's packaging, "Military Class, "Top Quality" and "Stability" are the most readily apparent phrases. For less than $60 (at the time of this writing), that seems like a lot of marketing for such a low price tag. MSI has been a solid contender in the past, so I look forward to seeing the results. 

Gigabyte F2A78M-D3H

Gigabyte's F2A78M-D3H is a sleek black square measuring 9.6x9.6 inches and sporting the same back-panel connections as MSI's board. With the additional real estate, we get access to four DDR3 DIMM slots (supporting up to 64GB), an additional PCIe x16 slot and a little more space between the SATA connectors. A word of caution: the second PCIe x16 link is wired to only four lanes, so it's better suited to high-end storage and networking controllers.

Though I do enjoy the labeled front-panel wiring diagram printed out on the board, I am disappointed in some of Gigabyte's other layout decisions. All of the fan connections are PWM-capable, but the system and APU headers are right beside each other and directly below the cooler's mounting bracket. It was very difficult to connect fans after installing our large heat sink. Also, the other fan header is in the top-right corner above the 24-pin ATX connector, where traditionally you would be in hard drive bay territory. Needless to say, wiring around there can be tricky. Overclockers reading this might be glad to see the eight-pin EPS connector for additional power.

Gigabyte's UEFI feels more like a traditional BIOS, and to me is easier to navigate. After the lack of voltage biasing from MSI's board, I was pleased to see that Gigabyte's firmware adds both voltage biasing and load-line calibration options. For this comparison, I did not fully test those features, but I suspect that this platform could achieve overclocking comparable to what you'd get from AMD's higher-end APU-oriented chipset.

Gigabyte's packaging states that the product is "Ultra Durable." Will this extra durability help drive my APU to peak out-of-box performance? In data I trust!

How We Test

Test System Configuration

I was fortunate enough to have access to the same APU and heat sink/fan combo that Thomas used in his A88X article. This should show whether I can achieve similar overclocking results as well as similar CPU performance in the applicable benchmarks.

I am also using the same brand and part numbers for memory and solid-state storage to better compare system configurations between our Intel and AMD budget systems. This will help eliminate DRAM inconsistency when comparing memory controller performance.

Though this APU has enough graphics muscle to drive decent frame rates at lower detail levels, the motherboard review team decided to put in a low-power GPU to help put both AMD and Intel budget systems on a level playing field. For that, a Gigabyte GeForce GT 730 was installed for graphics workloads so that I can test system stability and repeatability across platforms. Both motherboards do support AMD Dual Graphics technology, allowing you to install a discrete GPU for CrossFire with your APU.

To power these test boards, I am using the same PSU used in Four LGA-1150 Motherboards Under $60, be Quiet!'s Straight Power 10 500W.  Since it is 80 PLUS Gold-rated, this unit will prove to be more efficient in low-load conditions.

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
PCMark 8Version: 2.3.293
Work, Home, and Creative Benchmarks
SiSoftware SandraVersion: 2015.01.21.15
CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography
File System Bandwidth
Memory Bandwidth
Cinebench R15Version: R15.0 x64
CPU Single- and Multi-Core
3D Tests and Settings
3DMarkCloud Gate Version: 1.1, Skydiver Version: 1.0
Test Set 1: Cloud Gate, 1920x1080, Default Preset
Test Set 2: Skydiver, 1920x1080, Default Preset
Unigine Heaven 4.0Version 4.0, Built-in Benchmark
DirectX 11, Low Detail, 1920x1080, No AA, No Tessellation
Unigine Valley 1.0Version 1.0, Built-in Benchmark
DirectX 11, Low Detail, 1920x1080, No AA

Comparison Products


Benchmark Results

Since I have three comparisons going on within these charts, I will do my best to describe what the numbers mean and how those results reflect the different scenarios. Though the primary focus is comparing the A78-based boards, I also want to explore which platform might be best for a  particular budget and system configuration. Let’s jump in!

Both A78 boards demonstrate similar behavior, which is expected. With less than 1.0 percent variance between them in all three usage scenarios, it's safe to say that the components are configured properly. This also shows us that when I compare A78 to A88X or H81M, I do see a slight performance decrease, which could be attributed to memory performance and possibly APU limitations.

Again, I observe consistent results with the A78 boards, with the Whetstone Double AVX showing the largest deviation of 2.6 percent across all SiSoftware tests. It is interesting (though not entirely surprising) to see that the Intel platform has higher memory performance than A78 while using the same memory modules. Also, the AMD APU scores better than the dual-core Pentium G3258, though I did not quite get twice the performance.

Both A78 boards perform well when I compare them to the multi-threaded results from Intel. However, single-threaded performance is clearly better on the Pentium. It's also important to note that Intel’s multi-thread to single-thread ratio is 1.91 (close to two since it’s a dual-core processor), whereas AMD's ratio is 3.58, quite a way off from the ratio of four for a quad-core processor. This shows how important CPU architecture is.

Gaming Results

The Cloud Gate benchmark is geared toward the Windows notebook and home PC market, and I see in the results that extra CPU horsepower helps the AMD-based platforms attain an extra 13 percent on the combined score. This lead disappears once I run the mid-range PC workload, where the physics component becomes less important. Both A78 results are right on top of each other, and it is starting to show how consistent the platform is.

Unigine Valley also reveals consistency across all three platforms, with a slight edge to Intel for average and minimum frame rates. However, at this resolution, anything below 30 FPS is marginal. Unigine Heaven does show more variation, and I finally see an instance where the MSI A78 board has higher performance than Gigabyte's offering, even if it is only a few frames.

Power Consumption

In every test condition, Intel's platform draws less power than the A78-based boards, which doesn't surprise us given each processor's TDP. The Gigabyte board burns a meager 2W more when running idle on the Windows desktop and continues to keep this delta under load with FurMark and Prime95.

Temperature Readings

Clearly, Intel has the advantage due to its lower-power part and more efficient architecture. Both A78 motherboards report the same CPU load temperature, but the MSI board has a nine-degree advantage over Gigabyte's solution when we measure VR temperatures. This is very beneficial for MSI's target segment, which might not have as much airflow. This is also interesting because the Gigabyte board dissipate just two additional watts of power in this test condition.

Overclocking Performance

For the sake of an equal comparison, both A78-based samples were overclocked using the firmware's ratio multiplier option. Without adjusting CPU voltage, I was unable to reach the clock rate that Thomas achieved. The MSI board completed an eight-hour Prime95 stress test at 4200MHz, while the Gigabyte board reached a 4100MHz overclock under the same test conditions. At first glance, it seems like the MSI board is better out of the box, but Gigabyte's board has much more potential, offering a wider range of BIOS options and more current through its EPS connector.

As always, overclocking is very stressful on components, and these boards are no exception. The MSI and Gigabyte A78-based boards reached regulator temperatures in the 80- to 90-degree Celsius range, which I do not feel comfortable with over extended periods. In a smaller enclosure or in an area with insufficient airflow, I could see this being a hazardous situation. Since these boards are not true enthusiast-grade parts, I recommend backing off to a 40x multiplier. Both boards were able to run the Mushkin memory modules in their XMP profiles flawlessly, but I did not further tweak the timings to improve performance. 


As the data shows, the A78 platform is consistent. From a chipset perspective, both of our samples perform well, making it hard to pick a favorite. Setting the Intel versus AMD debate aside, I really like AMD's A78. When I compare what Thomas did with A88X to my experiences with A78, the A88X does appear faster. And the flagship's added features open the door to a more sophisticated CrossFire configuration, more storage in RAID and better overclocking options. But are those features worth an extra $30 or so? Can you live without aggressive overclocking or CrossFire? For a lower price, I believe the A78 is a solid choice for many builders. 

Rather than give any awards in this article, I will consider this data once I get a chance to look at some competing hardware. In the meantime, I'll give you my final thoughts on each product.

If your goal is to build an HTPC or small office box and you have no intentions of overclocking aggressively, MSI's A78M-E35 will work well. I enjoyed its layout more than Gigabyte's, though the UEFI was harder to navigate. Of the two boards I reviewed, MSI's motherboard is more in-line with what AMD's APU was designed for.

If you are building an A88X clone but don't need the additional PCIe lanes, Gigabyte's board shows some real potential.  Given the right tuning, air flow and memory selection, I think this system could compete with similarly-equipped A88X systems. If the durability claim holds water, this would be even better for a tuner's system. This board also works in larger HTPC cases, but the odd fan header placement might make cable management a challenge.

MORE: Best Motherboards
How To Choose A Motherboard: A Guide For Beginners
MORE: Motherboards in the Forums

Jacob Terkelsen is an Associate Contributing Writer for Tom's Hardware, covering Motherboards.

Follow us on Twitter @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

This thread is closed for comments
    Your comment
  • Yuka
    The only problem I have with these boards, is the lack of a proper sound chip in them. The Realtek 887 sucks. It had been a 889 or a 1150 or even a VIA VT17xx, VT18xx or a VT 20xx.

    Plus, the VRMs have to be of good quality as well for noise over the sound card. Remember you're recommending these boards for HTPC as well, so noise over audio is a HUGE issue when not careful.

  • Gary Tallowin
    I think you could have gone with faster ram for the igpu and ditched the GT 730
  • SuperVeloce
    "It's also important to note that Intel’s multi-thread to single-thread ratio is 1.91 (close to two since it’s a dual-core processor), whereas AMD's ratio is 3.58, quite a way off from the ratio of four for a quad-core processor. This shows how important CPU architecture is."
    Well, A10 apu has turbo, Pentium does not, so there is that
  • Shankovich
    Nifty little review. Have a friend who wants to game on PC more than console but doesn't want to spend much, was looking into AMD's APU's.

    Also, I love Gigabyte and they're usually my first choice for boards, but this review highlights my biggest pet peeve with them: fan header placement. Seriously Gigabyte, stop putting the damn things in line with PCI-E slots or in the most hard to reach places.
  • Calculatron
    Spiffy little article on the FM2+ chipset.
  • Someone Somewhere
    One minor change: The specs chart up the top shows both boards as not having a digital audio out, but it's fairly obvious from the images that the Gigabyte does.
  • theterk
    One minor change: The specs chart up the top shows both boards as not having a digital audio out, but it's fairly obvious from the images that the Gigabyte does.
    the sample I reviewed is PCB revision 4.0 which does not have an optical out on the rear panel. Looking at Gigabyte's A78 page, revision 3.0 has the optical connector on the rear panel. Looks like there's a header location on the rev 4 board for S/PDIF connector. We will update the article accordingly.
  • logainofhades
    2008705 said:
    I think you could have gone with faster ram for the igpu and ditched the GT 730

    The GT 730 would still be faster, as it was the 64bit, GDDR5, version. If memory serves me right, the 7850k's IGP was about even with an R7 240. The GT 730 is 3 tiers above that, according to the GPU Hierarchy Chart.
  • RedJaron
    59887 said:
    2008705 said:
    I think you could have gone with faster ram for the igpu and ditched the GT 730
    The GT 730 would still be faster, as it was the 64bit, GDDR5, version. If memory serves me right, the 7850k's IGP was about even with an R7 240. The GT 730 is 3 tiers above that, according to the GPU Hierarchy Chart.

    We also aren't going for maximum performance or performance/money here. Keeping the test benches similar ( hopefully identical except for the reviewed part, ) means the results are more comparable.
  • jack_28
    Actually the a10 7850k onboard gpu (with 2133 mhz ram) is closer to the r7 250 ddr 3 . One can easily find articles testing this by a little googling.