ASRock Z390 Pro4 & Z390M Pro4

The ASRock Z390 Pro 4 and Z390M Pro 4 are so similar in terms specification, design and aesthetic, the only real core differences between both models are the form factor, PCIe layout including M.2 compatibility and through the rear panel. Both Z390 Pro4 boards feature a black PCB with a similar grey colored patterning to the Z390 Phantom Gaming 4 model. Neither board has a rear panel cover and both also disregard a power delivery heatsink for the SoC sections; both boards seemingly incorporate the same 10-phase power delivery as per ASRock's marketing resources. Both models also include a total of four 4-pin fan headers, with the Z390 Pro4 offering one extra PCIe 3.0 x1 slot than the smaller mATX version.


ASRock Z390 Pro4 (left) and ASRock Z390M Pro4 (right)

On the ATX sized Z390 Pro4 and maTX Z390M Pro4, there are two full-length PCIe 3.0 slots with the top slot running at x16 and the bottom one at x4; this means two-way CrossFire is supported but no dice on SLI I'm afraid. The primary difference in PCIe which is a consequence to jumping from ATX to mATX is the Z390 Pro4 has three PCIe 3.0 x1 slots whereas the Z390M Pro4 has two. 

With the storage, the Z390 Pro4 has a pair of PCIe 3.0 x4 and SATA supported M.2 slots with a total of six SATA ports; the ports are split up into four right-angled and two straight-angled connectors. The Z390M Pro4 has a slightly different setup with one of the dual M.2 slots only offering PCIe 3.0 x4 with the other port allowing for both PCIe 3.0 x4 and SATA drives to be used. The ASRock Z390M Pro4 also has six SATA ports with four featuring right-angled connectors and two with straight-angled connectors located between the right-angled ports and 24-pin ATX motherboard power input. Both boards have four RAM slots with a total capacity of up to 64 GB and have official support for DDR4-4300.

The rear panel on the ASRock Z390 Pro4 consists of two USB 3.1 Gen2 (Type-A and Type-C), two USB 3.0 Type-A and two USB 2.0 ports. A trio of video outputs including HDMI, DVI-D and D-sub, as well as a combo PS/2 port and thanks to an M.2 E-key socket, a compatible Wi-Fi adapter can be installed with a bracket currently sitting empty for this on the rear IO. The singe LAN port is controlled by an Intel I219V Gigabit chip and the three 3.5 mm audio jacks are powered by a Realtek ALC892 HD audio codec.

On the mATX sized ASRock Z390M Pro4 rear panel, a single USB 3.1 Gen2 Type and Type-C port are there, along with four additional USB 3.0 Type-A ports. Featured is a single Intel I219V Gigabit powered LAN port with the same Realtek ALC892 HD audio codec offering three 3.5 mm audio jacks, but the Z390M Pro4 drops the bracket and instead opts for two PS/2 ports; one for a mouse and the other for a keyboard. The same trifecta of video outputs is also featured which consist of a DVI-D, HDMI and D-Sub output. 

Both the ASRock Z390 Pro4 and Z390M Pro4 have a suggested MSRP of $130 which are currently the cheapest boards ASRock offers so far on the Z390 chipset. The models trade off well with the extra PCB space on the Z390 Pro4 being used to include an extra PCIe 3.0 x1 slot and both M.2 slots on this model allow for both PCIe 3.0 x4 and SATA drives to be used. The Z390M Pro4 marks itself as one of only a handful of mATX boards currently the on the Z390 chipset and on the whole, doesn't really lose anything of worth over the ATX model. Neither model supports RGB backlighting and there isn't even a single and basic 5050 RGB header in sight. The Pro4 boards as you would expect are more for professional users and although there are no obvious drawbacks for gaming, the lack of features means most will look elsewhere.

ASRock Z390 Phantom Gaming-ITX/ac ASRock Z390 Extreme4
Comments Locked

79 Comments

View All Comments

  • Smell This - Tuesday, October 9, 2018 - link

    Much.
    Of.
    The.
    Same.

    2 HSIO lanes per Gen 2 port and WiFi. Wow (rolling I-eyeballs) ...
  • MadAd - Tuesday, October 9, 2018 - link

    58 motherboards, only 13 of which are smaller than ATX. When on earth are we going to move off this outdated oversized format? Its just more of the same every time, so depressing.
  • gavbon - Wednesday, October 10, 2018 - link

    13 is better than 0, or 12 :D
  • MadAd - Wednesday, October 10, 2018 - link

    Considering very small form formats (ITX) are harder to build for and only 7 are uATX, a size which is the most useful to transition away from ATX then no, it feels like an afterthought from a lazy industry. I mean who uses more than 1 main video card and 2-4 sticks of ram in a gaming PC these days? Even water builds into uATX isnt that hard to accomplish.

    After literally decades ATX should be a choice for edge cases not a mainstream build.
  • shaolin95 - Monday, October 22, 2018 - link

    who cares about midge boards!
  • Edkiefer - Wednesday, October 10, 2018 - link

    All these MB with 2x 8 pin power inputs, is both mandatory and if so I guess new PSU will need 2x 8pin now.
  • entity279 - Wednesday, October 10, 2018 - link

    so it's ok to just buy SM motherboards now with them being involved in a security scandal?
  • gavbon - Thursday, October 11, 2018 - link

    I currently have the Supermicro C9Z390-PGW awaiting to go on the test bench next week, so from a consumers standpoint, I could potentially shed light on that board. As far as the Chinese/Supermicro/Spy scandal goes, I don't want to speculate without the finer details.
  • eastcoast_pete - Wednesday, October 10, 2018 - link

    Ian & Gavin, thanks for the overview.
    @ both - Question: I've read that Intel, to deal with its bad planning/capacity problems on 14 nm, has contracted the fabbing of some of its chipsets out to TSMC, specifically in TSMC's 22 nm tech. Is that correct, and did you have a chance to confirm that the new 390s used by these boards are indeed made by Intel on their 14 nm FinFET tech, or are they made by a contractor (TSMC)?
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, October 10, 2018 - link

    AFAIK the chipsets being reverted to 22nm are using Intel's 22nm process in old unupgraded fabs. Doing so would be far less work than porting to a process from a different company; the latter would require massive rework to follow a completely different set of design rules.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now