MSI 990FXA-GD80 BIOS

As mentioned in the overview of this board, the BIOS of the 990FXA-GD80 is different depending on which BIOS it is flashed to.  When MSI released their X79 products, their BIOS had changed to the style we see today (which was actually determined by an internal MSI contest) – and it seems that through BIOS updates, MSI is backdating all of its products to match this new direction.  Thus if you flash to a BIOS beyond B5 (as per the MSI website), you will see the BIOS I will talk about below.

In my view, this MSI BIOS is laid out pretty well.  From the start, we have a top screen which lists the CPU, the CPU frequency (multiplier and base frequency), memory size and speed, the BIOS version, and the CPU/System temperatures.  This is a little less than what we see with the ASUS BIOS, but the added advantage with the MSI BIOS that is it persistent – the top bar and the two side bars are all constant, while the center console in the middle is fixed.  If we ever move into a higher resolution with the BIOSes (and a bigger BIOS chip), then this could be a winning layout and design.  As of today, in my view, it is one of the best.

By default, the BIOS sets the SATA ports to IDE rather than AHCI, indicative that MSI believes this product will be bought by users with older non-AHCI drives.  The setting for this option is not under the ‘South Bridge’ option that we see on other 990FX boards, but under the ‘Integrated Peripherals’ of Settings -> Advanced.  Fan control is also under the Advanced Menu, in the Hardware Monitor.  The controls for the fans are pretty basic, with the CPU fan aimed at a given temperature and the system fans given distinct percentage options only.

Overclock settings are neatly found in the OC menu, and the standard range is offered.  Luckily, the numbers of ‘target’ frequencies are also given, helping users in their adjustments.  Almost the full range of adjustments can be made on the one screen, from multiplier to base frequencies, memory straps as well as HT/NB Link speeds.  We also have access to core unlocking tools and voltages in this one screen.  Up to six overclock profiles can be stored.

Overclocking

Similar to the ASUS Sabertooth 990FX, overclocking on the MSI 990FXA-GD80 was a mixed bag of extremes.  In general, the Thuban X6-1100T performed as it has done on the other products in this review.  However the latest BIOS from MSI could not handle the Bulldozer FX-8150 as competently as other boards have done, being restricted in terms of voltage and base frequency.

Auto overclock options came in the form of OC Genie II, which is enabled either by a switch on the motherboard or within the BIOS.  For manual overclocks, the user could either play with the Control Center software within the operating system (which limits Bulldozer frequency from 190 MHz to 250 MHz), or utilize the BIOS options.  The major downside of the BIOS is that in terms of voltages and memory sub timings, it does not tell you want what is the automatic setting, thus leaving the user to guess what is appropriate or relevant.

Each overclock is tested for stability and temperature by a full run of PovRay and Blender, two 3D image generators that utilize both the CPU and memory.  Our methodology is as follows:

1) Auto Overclock
2a) Manual Overclock, High FSB (Tune to a high FSB, then raise multiplier)
2b) Manual Overclock, Stock FSB, High Multiplier
2c) Manual Overclock, Combination

Thuban X6-1100T Overclock

1) Auto Overclock: The OC Genie auto-overclock system enables a set of pre-programmed overclock settings within the BIOS to achieve the overclock.  When enabling OC Genie, the first boot is longer than normal.  With the X6-1100T, the processor base frequency was increased from 200 MHz to 220 MHz (10% OC), and at the base 16.5x multiplier, this gives 3630 MHz overall.  In terms of voltages, under load the operating system reported a load voltage of 1.360 volts.  This automatic overclock is somewhat less than what we have seen from other manufacturers, which is a little disappointing.

For the manual overclocks, the CPU was set at 1.5 volts, the memory at 1.65 volts, and the NB/HT Link options adjusted to keep around 2000 MHz.

2a) Manual Overclock, High FSB: By keeping the initial multiplier low (10x), the base frequency was adjusted until unstable under PovRay and Blender then reduced slightly and the multiplier subsequently increased to the maximum possible overclock.  This lead to a 320 MHz setting on the base frequency and 12.5x on the multiplier, totaling a 4 GHz overclock.  At these settings, the memory was automatically set at DDR3-1700 9-10-10, and the CPU was showing a rather alarming 1.584 volts under load.  This suggests that the load line calibration on the MSI board is rather aggressive.  Despite this, the processor showed a maximum of 59°C for both PovRay and Blender.  Nonetheless, this overclock is still ~50-150 MHz less than what we have seen on the other boards at this voltage.

2b) Manual Overclock, High Multiplier: By raising the multiplier and keeping the base frequency constant, other variables such as memory and the NB/HT link frequencies can be ignored as they are untouched by the CPU multiplier.  In this mode, a multiplier of 20.5x was reached, leading to an overall CPU frequency of 4100 MHz.  This was both PovRay and Blender stable, giving 60°C as a maximum temperature on both.  Similar to the high base frequency overclock, the operating system reported a peak voltage of 1.584 volts under load.

2c) Combination Overclock:  As with previous tests, the combination overclock is primarily aimed at a base frequency of 233 MHz or 280 MHz, as this keeps the memory strap rather happy in terms of absolute frequency.  In this case, a combination overclock of 233 MHz and 17.5x on the multiplier was the best in terms of stability, giving an overall overclock of 4078 MHz and DDR3-1866 9-11-11.  At this frequency and at load, PovRay reported a temperature of 60°C, whereas Blender gave 59°C.  The operating system still showed 1.584 volts under load.

Bulldozer FX-8150 Overclock

Bulldozer overclocking on the MSI 990FXA-GD80 was a case of trial and extreme error.  In terms of OC Genie auto overclocking, the system would refuse to even boot into the operating system, either hanging or giving a blue screen and restarting.  This is a poor show from the MSI board in this regard.

For manual overclocking the system also came up short, liming the CPU voltage to 1.45 volts.  Every so often, the system would allow up to 1.8 volts for the Bulldozer processor, but I was unable to determine what exactly caused this change in behavior. As a result, it was difficult to get a good reading for an overclock.

When testing for high base frequency, with the CPU set at 1.45 volts, not even 230 MHz on the base frequency would cause the system to reach the operating system, even when adjusting the HT/NB links to reasonable values.  In the end I left the system on automatic settings for everything, and just adjusted the base frequency.  This limited the system to only 215 MHz on the base frequency, but still kept Turbo Core enabled (4515 MHz on low loads, 4192 MHz on high loads).  With the voltage at 1.45 volts now, the multiplier was upped to 20.5x, giving 4407 MHz at all times.  This led to 1.368 volts at load (something odd with the load line calibration again), with the CPU giving 59°C under PovRay and 57°C for Blender.  Given this voltage limit I saw little point in attempting the other overclock scenarios as they would not be comparable to the other boards.

MSI 990FXA-GD80 – Overview and Visual Inspection MSI 990FXA-GD80 – In The Box, Board Features, Software
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