990FX Motherboard Roundup with Thuban and Bulldozer – A Second Wind for ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI and Biostar
by Ian Cutress on April 5, 2012 11:00 AM ESTMSI 990FXA-GD80
When considering the MSI 990FXA-GD80 as a product to purchase, it comes with its highs and its lows. On the bright side, we have a good performing system that comes with a mountain of extras in the box compared to other products, and the BIOS is a great system. However, it becomes slightly negative if you want to overclock a Bulldozer, or want any distinct control over the fans.
Users should update their launch BIOSes to F5 or later to take advantage of that new BIOS system, and flashing the BIOS is very simple through the Live Update 5 software provided. Unfortunately the BIOS does not show the user what is auto for voltages, so a little insight is needed when changing these options. There was also a minor problem with my AMD 5850 graphics cards, spinning up to 100% for a few seconds after boot, but this did not happen with my NVIDIA 580 test cards.
Performance wise, nothing stuck out like a sore thumb and the MSI 990FXA-GD80 kept up in pace with the other products we have tested.
For $195, and the bonus in the box, the MSI 990FXA-GD80 is a nice board to run at stock, or a good one to have with a Thuban based processor.
Biostar TA990FXE
As the cheapest board in our test, it was fair to assume that perhaps the TA990FXE would not amount to much when in came to a direct comparison with the other boards in this review - with $50-$100 difference, it was to be expected. On some levels of testing, it shows - the layout isn't optimal, the DPC Latency is hideous compared to the other boards, there are not many fan headers and there is an odd choice of network controller.
However, the Biostar TA990FXE came across as pleasantly surprising. The BIOS works well (even if the options are sometimes in confusing places), it overclocks Bulldozer on par or better than some of the other boards and comes with more kit in the box than expected.
Performance wise it doesn't break into the top half much when discussing CPU benchmarks, however it has a relatively decent showing in the GPU benchmarks. Essentially, this is a board for people who just need something cheap to run their processor. It fits that niche quite well, especially if you only have one GPU and need a PCI slot or two.
While the Biostar TA990FXE isn't the best board in the world, and it could use a little insight and design change to be consumer optimal, it is a cheap board that works.
Conclusion
This combination review has been a long time coming, repetitively pushed back by other releases or events. However we have now crossed through the land of 990FX, examining boards ranging from $130 to $215, and there is a lot to choose from.
Each of the boards can be separated by styling, by BIOS function, any by software utilities. As a direct minor evolution of the 8-series for Bulldozer, it does seem amazing that some motherboards really take to Bulldozer like an old friend, while others prefer it left alone running at stock speeds.
Each board can have its own minor flaws; however one major flaw comes across most of the range - about which CPU temperature sensor to believe when it comes to determining fan speeds. Using HWMonitor, on some motherboards it would report ~14ºC at idle and the CPU fan would be slow, and on others it would be around 30ºC, a more realistic number. This all comes down to whether the system will read the onboard CPU temperature, or a different sensor placed on the board specifically for reporting different temperatures.
This aside, each board has its plus points. If I was a gamer, the ASUS ROG Crosshair V Formula would be my major priority - as it was the board AMD prioritized for Bulldozer release, it is tweaked to run as best as it can. For fan control and performance, nothing comes close to the ASUS Sabertooth 990FX. The Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 took advantage of that alternative CPU temperature reading and reduced my CPU fan to off or almost off at idle, resulting in a near silent system. The MSI 990FXA-GD80 performs well with a Thuban and provides a nifty USB 3.0 bracket in the box. The Biostar TA990FXE represents full sized ATX on a budget with AMD that is easy to update. If I were to take one, money no object, then I would plunge for one of the ASUS boards.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
57 Comments
View All Comments
mmstick - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
The primary problem with AMD FX is that in order to use the full power of the FPU the program needs to be compiled with FMA4 support, else it is only using half of the FPUs, thus making it a quad core. Secondly, many Windows-based programs are compiled with the Intel C+ compiler, so although the FX may support AVX and many other instructions, the compiled program sees it as a non-Intel CPU so it disables those instruction sets, allowing Intel CPUs to be optimized, and AMD CPUs to remain deoptimized. This is what happens when you are up against someone with the most market share, whom has the ability to dictate what instruction sets they want programmers to use. As well, when people say they are going to buy Intel CPUs instead because they claim AMD didn't make a good processor, why do you think they can't be on top of performance? Without R&D budget there isn't much that can be done, and when you face someone who practically owns a monopoly, that makes it even moreso harder to compete.Omoronovo - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
The IC++ compiler has not done that since 2010 when they were forced to settle their antitrust dispute with AMD.DigitalFreak - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
" This is what happens when you are up against someone with the most market share, whom has the ability to dictate what instruction sets they want programmers to use. As well, when people say they are going to buy Intel CPUs instead because they claim AMD didn't make a good processor, why do you think they can't be on top of performance? Without R&D budget there isn't much that can be done, and when you face someone who practically owns a monopoly, that makes it even moreso harder to compete."Waaaaah. It's always someone else's fault.
anubis44 - Friday, November 9, 2012 - link
"Waaaaah. It's always someone else's fault."Well, sometimes it really IS someone else's fault. If the mafia had it in for you, and cut your brake cables and burnt your house down when you weren't looking, you'd say it's 'someone else's fault' too. Intel's blackmail and threats to suppliers who used AMD processors kinda screwed AMD over just a tad.
That said, I think now that Jim Keller is back at AMD and head of AMD's CPU division, it won't be too long before AMD is seriously back in the game.
Monkeysweat - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
I saw them on some of the benchmarks, why didn't you post them along side the AMD benchies for gaming?If we are looking at a roundup of the best of what AMD and it's partners have to offer, I'd like to see what the competing team brings to the table,, just leave em stock and even let the AMD ones get overclocked.
I wouldn't even worry about cherry picking the Intel combos,, just something random.
Beenthere - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
AMD has not abandoned the highend CPU market. Their focus may be broadening but that does not mean they will discontinue discrete highend desktop CPUs for at least several years. Eventually everyone except a small group will use APUs as they will deliver the best performance/value proposition. Only extremists will bother with a discrete CPU/GPU with higher power consumption, increased heat and little practical benefit for mainstream users.Articuno - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
It's a pretty nice chipset and the lower tier boards are quite cost-effective. Just wish Bulldozer was competitive with Intel, let alone their last gen chips.Mathieu Bourgie - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
Thank you for this article Ian.Are there any chance that we'll see a review of the newer FX-6200 CPU or at least have data for it in the CPU bench? Considering that it's 500MHz faster than the model that it's replacing and no major site (or any that I can see) did a review of it, it'd be interesting to see how it performs.
I'm curious to see if it's a valid alternative, in any way, for $170, vs the Intel Core i5-2300 ($180).
I don't expect any miracle for gaming performance, but for workstation workloads (Photoshop, video editing and the like), who knows?
Thanks,
Mathieu
cosminmcm - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link
There is a review at pcper, a good one. The processor is pretty weak, nothing exciting there. Thuban walks all over it.Mathieu Bourgie - Friday, April 6, 2012 - link
Thanks, I didn't see that.Quite disappointing indeed.
Here's about that Piledriver or Trinity are more competitive.