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

  • 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