MSI 990FXA-GD80

Where the ASUS channel boards are called the LE, the standard, the Pro, and the Deluxe, Gigabyte has the UD3, UD4/H, UD5, UD7, UD9, and ASRock has Extreme3, Extreme4, Extreme6, Extreme7 and Extreme9.  For MSI, this rears itself as a set of numbers preceded by the letters G or GD: we have the 80, 65, 55, 45, and 43, amongst others.

Channel boards are very important to all these manufacturers – they represent the bulk of consumer level sales whereas the gaming / overclocking / stability products are purely for niche environments.  In most cases, the home user will only need a channel board, either at the high, medium or low end depending on need.  So here we have the MSI 990FXA-GD80, which represents MSI’s higher end ‘mainstream’ offering.

The board itself currently e-tails for $195, slightly more than the ASUS Sabertooth 990FX and the Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 in this combination review, but should offer a good comparison point.  As it is up to $15 more than the Gigabyte, I hope that we can pin down where the $15 goes.

Overview

As a manufacturer, MSI has come up with some good products in their time (e.g. X79 Big Bang XPower II), and some that made me turn around and wonder ‘why?’ (e.g. the BIOS on the P67A-GD65).  With our first look at some MSI AMD action in a fair while, I can say that while the 990FXA-GD80 is a nice board to work with, it is perhaps not the feature packed product to cover certain market areas.  Do not get me wrong, MSI has some strong areas such as what comes In The Box with the board, however certain features like their fan header placement are not exactly optimal.

Performance wise, the MSI 990FXA-GD80 is no slouch, roughing it toe-to-toe with the other products we have in this review.  Features such as the OC Genie, Power/Reset Buttons and a USB 3.0 header at right angles to the board are to be well received.  The heatsink design and shape fits in well with the products image (despite the Military Class II paraphernalia obligatorily pasted across it), and the onboard PCIe layout has some thought behind it.

Users will note that different BIOS versions have different BIOS screens.  If you update this beyond BIOS B5, the system will display the new graphical BIOS which MSI is very proud about (and it works rather well).  However on startup, the board caused my AMD graphics cards (note, 5850s) to spin at 100% for several seconds.  Somewhat odd behavior – the cards did not do this in other boards, and neither did our NVIDIA testing cards.

For overclocking, under Thuban the 990FXA-GD80 performed well giving respectable numbers.  However while using the Bulldozer processor we were severely limited in terms of voltages and base frequency adjustments, limiting the range to which the overclocks can be performed.  More on this is detailed in the Overclocking section.

This board, at $195, performs well for its money compared to other boards in its bracket, and with some bonuses in the box, would fit well into a 990FX system.  With a few minor modifications/suggestions, this could have been the ultimate 990FX product, but nonetheless, I can see a lot of people using this board and enjoying it.

Visual Inspection

In keeping with MSI’s mainstream color scheme, the 990FXA-GD80 comes in with a distinct blue and black livery, sporting a very edge-heavy angular design on the heatsinks.  The heatsinks, like on the previous three boards, provide a large amount of surface area and cover the VRMs to the left of the socket.  This heatsink is connected via a heatpipe to another heatsink, in an effort to improve the cooling, and provide a little bit more advertising space on the board for features.  The chipset heatsink is rather similar to that from the Gigabyte board, covering a large area of the board with fins but very low profile.  It also all fits into the angular style.

In terms of the socket itself, despite the AM3 socket providing space, MSI has gone a bit further, giving more horizontal space than most other boards here and thus should not be an issue for large air coolers.  For water coolers however the fan headers on board are neither that numerate (five in total) nor in ideal locations.  The sole CPU header (4-pin) is next to the DIMMs in the top right of the socket, and the other socket fan header is above the 8-pin 12V header, but this is a 3-pin system header.  Other fan headers on board are a 3-pin system fan header between the 24-pin ATX connector and the SATA ports, a 3-pin system fan header below the SATA ports (would be blocked by a GPU in the appropriate slot), and a three-pin system fan header to the left of the PCIe slots (would be blocked by an appropriate GPU).  So if a user is running three large GPUs in this board, two fan headers instantly become inaccessible.

Down the right hand side of the board, below the 24-pin ATX power connector, are our SATA ports.  MSI has decided to keep the standard set of six SATA 6 Gbps from the chipset, rather than add to it with controllers.  However what MSI does do is give a USB 3.0 header at right angles to the board below the SATA ports.  This suggests that this header is purely aimed at front panel USB 3.0 ports, either through the case or by a front panel addition.

The bottom of the board points to a couple of reasons as to why this board is $15 more expensive than the Gigabyte – we get power and reset buttons, as well as a two-digit debug LED.  Also on board is the MSI standard OC-Genie button, offering a set overclock when pressed.  Alongside these buttons are the standard array of USB 2.0 headers, front panel audio, a COM header, and an IEEE1394 header.

In terms of PCIe layout, MSI has done similar to Gigabyte with an x1 at the top, but this time the heatsink does not impede any long x1 cards.  Below this we see a three GPU layout being emphasized, with full length PCIe slots being alternated such that we have: x1, x16, x1, x8, PCI, x8/16, x4.

The back panel is varied enough for this platform.  We have two PS/2 ports, a Clear CMOS button, both optical and digital S/PDIF outputs, two eSATA ports, IEEE1394, four USB 3.0 ports, two USB 3.0 ports, Realtek 8111E gigabit Ethernet, and standard audio jacks.  What MSI has done here is to try and include as many different protocols as possible, at the expense of USB 2.0 ports.  Having four of them on the back panel of a board (and a pair of USB 3.0) covers most usage scenarios, and there are still a few front panel headers on board for more.  It begs me to wonder if motherboard vendors should just use a single set of four USB 2.0 ports in one segment of the board, and then focus on all the other functionality.  Some motherboard vendors do have that stack of four, but as with the Sabertooth and Gigabyte boards previously that have had 10 and 8 USB 2.0 respectively – are there usage models for this?  If you personally use 8 back panel USB 2.0 ports (ignore front panel), then let me know in the comments – it will be interesting to see what is used.

Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 – In The Box, Board Features, Software MSI 990FXA-GD80 – BIOS and Overclocking
Comments Locked

57 Comments

View All Comments

  • fredisdead - Saturday, April 7, 2012 - link

    The design of bulldozer/ interlagos is aimed at the server market, where it has absolutely smoked intel the last few months.

    That said, these are suspiciously skewed benchmarks. Have a look here for a better representation of how bulldozer really performs.

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&...

    It's pretty simple really, AMD used the chip real estate to double the number of cores, vs using it on less, but more powerful cores. Seeing that a single bulldozer core appears to have about 80% of the performance of an intel i5 core, looks like a good trade off. For highly threaded applications, its a complete win, and they are doing it on less advanced geometry.
    That said, AMD's main product in the consumer space isn't bulldozer, it's llano, and thats looking like a rather large success too.
  • Oscarcharliezulu - Saturday, April 7, 2012 - link

    Nicely written review Ian, was a pleasure to read. I like to hear subjective impressions as well as the facts and figures.

    Looking at an upgrade I thought to support AMD this time around. The boards seem very well featured for the price compared to intel (though they are catching up) and provide good sata3 and USB support. The problem is the BD cpu's run hot, slow and old software won't run well on it compared to older thubans.

    My question- is AMD looking to provide support for more than 4 dimm sockets so we can run large amounts of ram in the future?
  • quanta - Tuesday, April 10, 2012 - link

    Ironically, the A70M/A75 'Hudson' chips, which are designed for the non-FX CPU, actually has built-in USB 3 support that even SB950 doesn't have! The 9-series is supposed to be the enthusiast choice, how can AMD dropped the ball even BEFORE it can pick it up? Compare to the CPU that AMD has designed and built, the I/O support chip design is simple, yet AMD can't even get USB 3.0 and PCI Express 3 to at least relieving some performance bottleneck. If AMD can't even get the chip set right, there is no way in silicon hell for AMD to keep its dwindling fan base, at ANY price/performance bracket.
  • primonatron - Thursday, April 12, 2012 - link

    That audio chip on the ASUS ROG motherboard IS a Realtek one. They just allow the installation of a X-Fi utility on top for sound effects.
    You can see the realtek drivers are required on the ASUS website, but an X-Fi utility is also provided.

    Marketing hogwash. :(

    http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/AMD_AM3Plus/Cross...
  • cocoviper - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link

    I'm not defining $240 as the limit for Enthusiast CPUs, I'm saying AMD doesn't have any CPUs that are competitive above that price-point.

    What the category is called is semantics. We could break the entire line into 100 different categories and it wouldn't change the fact that AMD doesn't have any consumer CPUs in the top 3/4 of the market.

    I wasn't quoting Anand like he what he says is law or something, I was noting AMD's strategy day where getting out of the high end market was discussed.

    Don't you believe AMD, and ultimately all of us as consumers are at a disadvantage if AMD's best product is capped at $250 or so, leaving $250-up-to-however much Intel wants to charge all their domain? How would you feel if the Radeon series only had products in the lower 25% of the $0-$700 Videocard market? Does the best Radeon being capped at $175 seem like it would keep Nvidia competitive in performance and price?
  • cocoviper - Thursday, April 19, 2012 - link

    Isn't arguing about what price-point defines enthusiast the very definition of semantics? Why don't we just make all processors enthusiast, regardless of price. There AMD and Intel now both make enthusiast processors.

    To return to the point, Intel's enthusiast processors are the only ones occupying the top 3/4 of the market in cost to end customers. Cost is determined by the market; what people will and will not buy. This is why AMD just announced a price cut on the 7000 series to account for the Kepler launch. Competitive performance and prices keep all suppliers in the market in check, and the end consumer benefits.

    The point is AMD is ceding the top 3/4 of the market, and even if they make $200 "enthusiast" processors, Intel is free to charge whatever they like to people that need or want high-end performance. This is bad for all of us, and lame on AMD's part.
  • menlg21p - Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - link

    I made a mistake of installing network genie, and it doesn't show up in my programs and features. I cannot uninstall this program. There is no option for execution on startup. So it always starts up on boot. And there is nothing in the directories that pertain to uninstall. Also no online-content about this feature. Ugh, MSI, what are you doing? Why did you suggest this "crap" on my driver disk. REALLY?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now