ASRock X99 WS: The New

The clue is in the name, and ASRock’s WS line is aimed at workstation like builds. Historically we are more accustomed to ‘WS’ being another manufacturer’s product, but it would seem that terms like ‘Gaming’ and ‘Formula’ are now being wielded by many of the motherboard players. This is not ASRock’s first WS product – ASRock Rack has a number of WS products mostly based on server chipsets, but the Z77 WS and Z97M WS are still part of that product line.

ASRock’s big plug with the X99 WS is going to be workstation level features. This means a supersized heatsink, an enhanced power delivery system to improve efficiency as well as longevity while using a 160W processor and a total z-height sufficient to allow the motherboard to be included within a 1U chassis with an appropriate heatsink. ASRock is also claiming DDR4 ECC and RDIMM support with Xeon processors, dual Intel NICs (I217-LM with vPro and I210-AT) and support for 4-way PCIe devices. Ultra M.2 x4 with PCIe 3.0 is supported, although this reduces PCIe bandwidth of a fourth PCIe device.

Despite the WS name, the motherboard does support the Core i7 processors and non-ECC UDIMMs, although ASRock’s main selling point will be the combination of their consumer platform (BIOS + software stacks) while still having Xeon + ECC RDIMM support for a workstation. This is compared to a server, as this motherboard does not support LRDIMMs, although the 1U z-height integration means that it can be server capable. One limitation, or benefit depending how it is looked at, will be the use of X99 rather than the C612 chipset.

Regular functionality comes in the form of 10 SATA slots (all from the chipset), a TPM header, two COM headers (for WS), six fan headers, a Thunderbolt header, Realtek ALC1150 audio under Purity Sound 2, six USB 3.0 ports, an eSATA port and the extra PCIe power supplied by two molex connectors. Relatively new to ASRock from Z97 and carried to X99 is the HDD Saver feature, allowing users to connect two SATA drives via the included cable and power these drives down while in the OS in order to keep them safe from viruses that corrupt data or improve longevity by only being enabled when needed.

All of this will retail for $324, and aims to be one of the cheapest ‘WS’ X99 motherboards on the market. The only issue there is that some other manufacturers might not advertise Xeon support, but the QVL lists will confirm this. ASRock’s claim then comes from the workstation level equipment on board (power delivery, dual Intel NIC), the BIOS and software ecosystem, and that these other Xeon-capable motherboards might not be ECC/RDIMM capable.

ASRock X99 Visual Inspection

ASRock’s ‘XXL’ power delivery heatsink design uses a total of four heatsinks, connected in pairs. The big addition is the heatsink to the left of the DRAM slots – while it covers some of the ICs in that region, its main purpose is to provide more bulk and surface area to aid in cooling the twelve power phases underneath the heatsink at the top. If you were not sure what chipset is being used here, the big X99 logo at the top tells you.

The X99 WS uses a two DIMM-per-channel design, with the slots having a single sided latch design due to the close proximity of the first PCIe slot. The DRAM slots are color coded, though nothing specifically tells the user to use the black slots first. I would assume that when the user is in 1DPC mode, this allows the blue color to come though.

The socket area has access to four fan headers: two in the top right, one just above the PCIe molex power and another below the USB 3.0 header. The final two are at the bottom of the motherboard. Out of these six, only two of them are 4-pin headers which is perhaps a little disappointing.

Beneath the USB 3.0 header on the right hand side of the motherboard is the HDD Saver header for the cable included in the box. The ten SATA ports then follow, with RAID supported on the six SATA3_x ports rather than the four S_SATA3_x ports. The S_SATA3_3 connector is shared with the eSATA port on the rear, meaning only one can be used at a time. Ideally I would have liked ASRock to color code the SATA ports, indicating which are RAID capable and which were not. Notice there is also no SATA Express here, perhaps indicating how ASRock feels the storage market is evolving.

The somewhat large chipset heatsink is above a BIOS select switch next to two removable BIOS chips. Power and reset buttons are handy to have on any workstation/server motherboard, and these are included here in the bottom right hand corner as well.

As workstation users can work with any number of requirements, ASRock has included a TPM header as well as two COM headers, with two USB 2.0 headers in-between.

The PCIe layout is geared towards four-way GPU/PCIe device layouts, although the configuration differs depending on using a 40 lane PCIe processor or a 28-lane PCIe processor (such as the i7-5820K) with the following arrangements:

40 Lane PCIe: PCIe 1/2/3/4/6 at x8/x8/-/x8/x8
28 Lane PCIe: PCIe 1/2/3/4/6 at x8/x8/x4/x8/x0

PCIe 5 uses four lanes from the PCH, while PCIe 1 and 4 use 15 micron gold connectors as these are used for the first two GPU slots. Interestingly, when four-way GPU is used with a 40 PCIe lane processor, the system does not enable the full 40 lanes (x16/x8/x8/x8). This would suggest that the motherboard lacks the additional external clocks required to enable this orientation, while the ASUS and GIGABYTE motherboards in this review have this feature. That being said, we have not seen a use case where x16/x8/x8/x8 wins out against x8/x8/x8/x8. More investigation would be needed.

Another point of contention for the PCIe layout will be the source of additional PCIe power. While having two extra sources of power is appreciated, the fact that it comes from a molex connector is unfortunately short-sighted. Molex connectors are bulky, and the top power connector being in the middle of the board is frustrating. It means stretching a cable over most of the motherboard, destroying any potential aesthetic and potentially disrupting the airflow.

The IO panel is basic for an X99 platform but covers the bases:  a PS/2 combination port, four USB 2.0 ports, four USB 3.0 ports, a ClearCMOS button, an eSATA port, two Intel network ports and a set of audio jacks from the ALC1150 codec.

ASRock X99 WS Board Features

ASRock X99 WS
Price US (Newegg)
Size ATX
CPU Interface LGA2011-3
Chipset Intel X99
Memory Slots Eight DDR4 DIMM slots, up to Quad Channel 128GB
1600-3200 MHz Non-ECC UDIMM
ECC/RDIMM at JEDEC
Video Outputs None
Network Connectivity Intel I217-LM (vPro enabled)
Intel I210-AT
Onboard Audio Realtek ALC1150 via Purity Sound 2
Expansion Slots 5 x PCIe 3.0 x16
- 40 PCIe Lane CPU: x16, x16/x16, x16/x16/x8, x8/x8/x8/x8
- 28 PCIe Lane CPU: x16, x16/x8, x8/x8/x8, x8/x8/x4/x8
1 x PCIe 3.0 x4 (Shared with M.2)
Onboard Storage 6 x SATA 6 Gbps, RAID 0/1/5/10
4 x S_SATA 6 Gbps, no RAID
1 x Ultra M.2 3.0 x4
USB 3.0 4 x USB 3.0 Ports, Rear IO
1 x USB 3.0 Header
Onboard 10 x SATA 6 Gbps
1 x USB 3.0 Header
2 x USB 2.0 Headers
6 x Fan Headers
2 x COM Headers
1 x TPM Header
Power/Reset Buttons
Two Digit Debug
HDD Saver Header
Thunderbolt Header
Front Audio Header
Front Panel Header
BIOS Select Switch
Power Connectors 1 x 24-pin ATX
1 x 8-pin EPS 12V CPU
2 x 4-pin Molex for PCIe
Fan Headers 2 x CPU (4-pin, 3-pin)
3 x CHA (4-pin, 2x 3-pin)
1 x PWR (3-pin)
IO Panel 1 x Combination PS/2 Port
4 x USB 2.0 Ports
4 x USB 3.0 Ports
ClearCMOS Button
1 x eSATA 6 Gbps
2 x Intel GbE Network Ports
Audio Jacks
Warranty Period 3 Years
Product Page Link

I am not sure how I feel about the $324 cost of this motherboard. For the most part we are getting the basics, whereas we get something different with the GIGABYTE around the similar price and something more with the ASUS at $400. ASRock would counter this and point to the server grade components. It seems odd to discuss a more expensive ASRock board without extra functionality you can physically use, although the use of a vPro enabled NIC does allow for Windows Server applications.

GIGABYTE X99-UD7 WiFi BIOS and Software ASRock X99 WS BIOS and Software
Comments Locked

62 Comments

View All Comments

  • gostan - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    feel like I'm transported back to 2001

    good job AT!
  • xunknownx - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link

    what settings on povray is being used in this article? i would love to compare my results against theirs.
  • todo1 - Tuesday, September 30, 2014 - link

    X79 supports TRIPLE CHANNEL DDR3, not quad!
    I don't how it is even possible to make such a mistake?!?
  • tyaiyama - Wednesday, October 1, 2014 - link

    After reading the following:
    http://www.legitreviews.com/intel-x99-motherboard-...
    Is it worth recommendation from Anadtech? Almost 1 month has passed without Asus solving the problem. What's good about this M/B unable to certain hours operations(^^)
  • tyaiyama - Wednesday, October 1, 2014 - link

    BTW, MSI M/B also has an issue.
    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&...
    Both of these M/B happened to be recommended by Anand over the other two: AsRock & Giga. What does it mean? I personally likes AsRock X99 WS which seems Asus X99-E WS w/o PLX.
  • Haravikk - Thursday, October 2, 2014 - link

    Is there a reason the motherboards with moulded shapes over the various I/O ports don't include the I/O shield built-in? I hate adding those damned things; seems unnecessary if your motherboard is shaped around the ports already.
  • Oxford Guy - Saturday, October 4, 2014 - link

    Power phases?

    Also, it seems really lazy to not check what changing the MSI load line calibration setting would actually do if changed. "This is quite odd. It would seem the efficiency of the MSI motherboard when overclocked is somehow stunted..." vdroop is supposed to be part of the Intel specification and load line calibration defeats it, right? So, it looks like there is your answer. Auto isn't the optimal setting.

    Also, if you tested these motherboards in the order you reviewed the overclocking results in, you may have fatigued the chip which explains why the results kept getting worse.
  • woj666 - Monday, October 6, 2014 - link

    Agreed, it seems very obvious that that Load Line Calibration setting of "auto" on this MSI board is in fact quite aggressive and applying vboost as described here http://www.anandtech.com/show/2404/5 and here http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/24019-load-lin...

    The OC section of this article is not comparing apples to apples as the default LLC settings are not the same for the different boards.
  • akula2 - Tuesday, October 14, 2014 - link

    It was a great review, appreciate it very much.

    1) why Asus X99-E WS is missing out of action?

    2) Asus X99-E WS ($510) or Asrock X99 WS ($310)?

    My ten X99 ultra Workstations will have the upcoming Maxwell based Nvidia Quadro and Tesla cards? I'm also evaluating Firepro W9100 card too. I don't know if there will be Maxwell based Titan Black (II or whatever name)?

    Five builds will have Xeon E5-2680 v3 (more like due to price/performance) or Xeon E5-2690 v3
    Five builds will have i7-5760X CPUs

    I never used Asrock WS boards earlier, but have many Asus WS boards (X79/Z97). So, what do you think of Asrock WS over Asus X99-E WS in the given configuration above?

    Yeah, all Xeon workstations will have Intel P3700 NVMe storage solution. Also, I'm pondering on Synology DiskStation DS2413+ for 48TB NAS solution using WD Red Pro HDDs for those planned ten X99 builds.

    Hence, what do you think about those two boards?

    3) Did you observe any PCI-e 3.0 limitations/bottleneck on those two boards? Asus X99-E board has 16-four lanes solution? Please clarify on this count.

    Thank you
  • eng.michael - Friday, January 23, 2015 - link

    HELLO
    PLEASE HELP ME
    I have one , and i install O.S windows server 2012R2 ,and install all drivers correctly EXCEPT LAN driver , any one can help me in this BIG Problem.
    THANKS

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now