ASUS Sabertooth 990FX

In similar ilk to covering ASUS ROG boards last year, we also never touched upon the ASUS Sabertooth range.  The Sabertooth range hits a very specific niche in their goals, and as such ASUS has dedicated designers and engineers working solely for the Sabertooth ranges.  In a nutshell, Sabertooth boards are aimed to complete control, stability, temperatures, and all coupled in a five year warranty.  The fan headers onboard have more control than other competitors', and there is also a set of specialized software to go along with it.  The Sabertooth 990FX is thus ASUS’ answer for this niche in the 900-series.

Overview

As the major selling point of the ASUS Sabertooth range is the warranty and the features on the board that contribute to temperature.  ASUS is playing to its strength in this area – the software provided with the system is fully featured to deal with any manner of fan settings and combination settings (i.e. pulling temperatures from different sensors on board) and all of this is completely configurable.  The Fan Xpert software from ASUS is a joy to play with, and well constructed.

On the board itself, we are spoilt slightly for features, with extra SATA 6 Gbps from a JMicron JMB362 controller, six fan headers, and room enough for tri-card GPU setups.  We are missing a set of on/off buttons on board (and two-digit debug LED), but this seems to be more a feature of the Sabertooth range in general.

Despite that attention to detail, at default the temperatures on board were a little warm, with some difficulty in overclocking the FX-8150 (Bulldozer) processor and keeping the temperatures in check.  Performance wise, the Sabertooth 990FX was decently respectable with both Thuban and Bulldozer, however it does suffer at the hands of AI Suite a little during the DPC (Audio) Latency test due to the sensor sub-program.  This situation is easily rectified by closing AI Suite however.

Being in the ~$180 range means that the Sabertooth is side by side with the MSI and Gigabyte boards in this roundup.  On the whole, it does perform well and has a feature set which befits its price.  However that warranty is hard to ignore when considering this price range, coupled with ASUS’ strong backing of software and support.

Visual Inspection

From the start, the board sports distinct military camouflage colors – shades of brown or grey that you might be able to take from an army desert uniform swatch catalogue.  This is a lot different from other ASUS products, which helps to distinguish the Sabertooth as a brand.

The heatsinks are jagged affairs but feel fairly beefy in design.  The heatsink covering the VRMs is linked to another below the socket by an enclosed heatpipe – this design covers what would typically be the area used by an initial PCIe x1 at the top of the PCIe section, but with good reason.  The segment of this board and design is such that a top PCIe x1 isn’t an issue, even if the user would like to run tri-GPU with a x1 audio solution or similar.

If you want fan headers, then the Sabertooth has them.  All six are within easy reach of the CPU socket – two 4-pin CPU headers above the socket itself, another 4-pin chassis fan header above the DIMM slots, two 4-pin chassis headers above the PCIe slots, and a 3-pin header below the 24-pin ATX power connector.  As I will discuss later, all these 4-pin headers are completely controllable thanks to the fan controllers that ASUS use, with specialized software to help fine tune the speed of each fan as required.

Along the right hand side, at the top is the ASUS Mem-OK! Button, which allows the board to recover from failed memory overclocks that fail to get through the initial POST screen by setting defaults.  Further down, below the 24-pin ATX connector is a USB 3.0 header.  The position of this (and one of the 4-pin chassis headers) is a little odd – if the user has a very beefy GPU in the first slot which has a large (>4mm) back plate, it could possibly intrude into the USB header, making it rather annoying.  I see a current trend to put USB 3.0 headers at right angles like the SATA ports, for dedicated USB 3.0 front panel support – perhaps this will occur on later models, depending on the design philosophy.

While the chipset heatsink does not look like it will remove a lot of heat (very few fins), it does look pretty substantial in terms of bulk.  The SATA ports are beside this, with two SATA 3 Gbps from a JMicron JMB362 controller in black, and the six SATA 6 Gbps ports from the chipset below.   The bottom of the board is standard – a trio of USB 2.0 headers, a COM port, front panel audio and front panel connectors.

For PCIe layout, we have a design that rather than maximize the number of GPUs available, tries to make sure that there is enough airflow.  So from the top, we have an x16, x1, x4, x16, PCI, x8.  This means that there is plenty of space for a trio of GPUs (the second x16 will reduce to x8 if a card is in the x8 slot) and an x4 card.  But the common usage will be in dual GPU mode, which leaves a one slot gap between cards (unlike the Gigabyte board later).

The IO back panel is representative of a 9-series board at $185, though personally there could be score for improvement.  We have a combination PS/2 port, eight USB 2.0 ports in black, two more USB 2.0 ports in red, two USB 3.0 ports in blue, an IEEE1394 port, a Power eSATA 3 Gbps port, a standard eSATA 3 Gbps, optical SPDIF output, Realtek 8111E gigabit Ethernet, and standard audio headers.   Personally it could have been arranged a little nicer – it does look a bit of an up-and-down skyscraper landscape.  There is space for another Ethernet port, and I have a feeling that Sabertooth users might be interested in another one.

ASUS Crosshair V Formula – In The Box, Board Features, Software ASUS Sabertooth 990FX – BIOS and Overclocking
Comments Locked

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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now