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

  • Mathieu Bourgie - Friday, April 6, 2012 - link

    Here's hoping*
  • john21108 - Friday, April 6, 2012 - link

    I read the review and didn't see the FX-6200 getting walked over. The benches were all pretty close; the FX, X4, and the X6 all trading blows. At worse, the FX-6200 performed similar to the X4 980; at best, it would barely beat the X6 1100T.

    The FX looked good to me considering the X6 1100T is going for $240+ on eBay. If building new, is same performance worth an extra $70? Is it an upgrade to an X4 BE or X6, no.
  • estarkey7 - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link

    I am disappointed in this article for a number of reasons, most of all that the preface of this article had very little to do with the content at all. You start off by stating:

    "...despite the fact that Windows 7 (and Windows 8, natively) is now receiving updates so the operating system can understand the processor architecture a little better, and hopefully boost performance. This gives a second wind to those owning (or thinking of owning) a Bulldozer based processor, and in turn, a 900-series motherboard."

    With that being a defining point of this article, where are before and afters? I and everybody else on here already know what Anand did (hell, we read this site multiple times a day!). Why should I give this platform a second look?. Your preface led me to believe that I would see benches of these motherboards before and after firmware revisions or more importantly firmware revisions and Win 7 vs. Win 8 preview.

    It doesn't even make sense to run a full set of benches against motherboards with the same processor at stock speeds, as the differences will surely show in their overclocking potential and feature sets.

    Do you even realize that after reading this article that every single reader of Anandtech.com learned absolutely, positively nothing about Bulldozer vs. Thurban vs. Intelxxx that they didn't already know before they wasted 15 minutes of their time?

    Why not just delete it, and we'll forget you ever wrote it...
  • IanCutress - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link

    The purpose of the review was to look at the motherboards and the differences between them, not the absolute performance of the processors. Hence why this review is listed under the motherboard section rather than the CPU section, and the paragraph you quoted ended with the phrase, with appropriate pauses to create emphasis on, 'a 900-series motherboard'. The initial paragraph created purpose and the fact that there is reason to perhaps own one of these motherboards, generating the context and situation to which they are currently in.

    Anyway, as a regular reader of Anandtech, surely you recognise me as the motherboard reviewer for the past year or more? :)

    Ian
  • estarkey7 - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link

    Ian,

    I let my recent bulldozer system build get the best of me!

    I retract my statement. I believe my attack on you was not reasonable and served no purpose. Although I do disagree with some of the phrasing in the intro paragraph, my post was not warranted and I sincerely apologize.

    Keep up the good work.

    Ed
  • Dekkatek - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link

    I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but there is a galler pic of the ASUS Crosshair board with a 4 video card setup and the 4th card is not physically connected to the motherboard!

    http://www.anandtech.com/Gallery/Album/1843#13
  • IanCutress - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link

    Haha nice catch :) Most of those images are from ASUS' media kit for the board - I think I must have looked at it and thought they were using the ROG Xpander for four-way. Looking at the Xpander page now, it was only ever compatible on the R3E and R3F.

    Ian
  • Makaveli - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link

    When did you need a $1000 extreme edition cpu to be an enthusiast.

    I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.

    A i7 920 a 2500k or 2600k are all enthusiast cpu that cost less than $400. And all outperform AMD current line up.

    It like you are trying to be like AMD before they launched BD comparing it the 990x and saying look out processor is better and doesn't cost $1000 don't make me laugh.

    If you are gonna troll you better start doing a better job.
  • cocoviper - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link

    $1000? Try any CPU over $240.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-r...

    http://leapvine.com/p/1237/Intel%20Core%20i7-2600%...

    CPU price ranges tend to range between $50 and $1000 in the retail market. AMD's fastest solution captures the lowest 25% of this market, leaving 3/4 of the price range, and the range with the best margins, to Intel. We all want AMD to be competitive again like they were in the late 90s/early 2000s but they simply aren't.

    AMD has also officially stated they have no intention to compete in the performance / enthusiast segment. Per Anand:

    "As AMD's client strategy is predominantly built around APUs, the only high-end desktop parts we'll see from AMD are low-end server CPUs. Socket-AM3+ has a future for one more generation and we'll likely see other single-socket, high-end platforms for the desktop. The days of AMD chasing Intel for the high-end desktop market are done though. That war is officially over."

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/5503/understanding-a...
  • BaronMatrix - Thursday, April 5, 2012 - link

    Why doesn't anyone use the recommended GPU? If I buy an 8150, it will at least get a 6970 but probably a 7970.

    No wonder I left this "review site" stuff alone. I can't learn anything except that people think there are 50 CPU makers and AMD is the worst.

    Good luck with that.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now