The ASRock Z170 Extreme7+ Review: When You Need Triple M.2 x4 in RAID
by Ian Cutress on November 27, 2015 11:59 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
- ASRock
- M.2
- Skylake
- Z170
ASRock Z170 Extreme7+ Conclusion
If you’ve skipped to the conclusion of the review first, answer this question: how important is data access storage to you? Is the main hump moving from a rotating platter drive to a solid state drive, and the rest is just icing on the cake? Or is there a burning need for multiple solid state drives in an array? One of the main selling points of the Z170 Extreme7+ is the ability to have three M.2/U.2 drives based on PCIe and put them into RAID, but how many users are realistically going to set out and buy three SSD 750s or three SM951s/950 Pro M.2 drives either as a JBOD or as a RAID-0? That answer is probably nearer 10 than 10-thousand, but would be a bit excessive to say zero.
ASRock historically does things a little bit differently to other motherboard manufacturers, from using an onboard LSI controller on consumer products to 10 gigabit Ethernet, a mini-ITX high-end desktop platform or using a silicone coating on a motherboard to repel moisture to name a few. In every motherboard manufacturer’s brainstorming room, dozens of ideas are suggested and fall to the floor, either by virtue of impractability, time, or lack of value. It’s that last one which matters the most, because if there is not value to the consumer then there is not much point in pursuing the idea. That what makes ASRock as a company interesting to watch, because their bar for ‘value’ seems to be set differently to everyone else, and this is seen partly in the Z170 Extreme7+.
Very few users will need three PCIe 3.0 x4 based M.2 slots that are RAID capable, but the Z170 chipset was designed to handle that configuration and required someone to actually go and build it. Alongside this, ASRock adds to the two USB 3.1 ports already on board with a USB 3.1 front panel that uses one of those obsolete SATA Express ports (and a USB 2.0 header) to provide a pair of front-facing USB 3.1 ports (A and C), which in itself heralds back 2011 and one of my first AnandTech reviews ever where ASRock bundled a USB 3.0 front panel in a similar fashion.
For features, the dual Intel network ports (I219-V and I211-AT) are joined by a mini-PCIe slot for users to add their own Wi-Fi module, and the onboard audio comes via an enhanced Realtek ALC1150 audio solution. Aside from the two USB 3.1 ports on the rear (A+C), we get four USB 3.0 ports on the rear and two USB 3.0 headers onboard for cases provided by an ASMedia controller. Another ASMedia controller also gives four extra SATA ports, bringing the total to ten which includes space for three SATA Express ports, although there is some switching involved and not all these feature will work at the same time with the M.2 slots also in play.
Benchmark wise, the Extreme7+ does not have MultiCore Turbo by default on the BIOS we tested, but this manifests in a much lower power consumption as a result. POST times for the board are currently the best we have seen on Z170, and the audio solution scores highest in our test so far. The only serious test that had issues was DPC Latency, though I am told that at the time of testing, due to the new platform, BIOSes are still to be optimized. A review is only ever a snapshot in time, meaning that users who purchase this motherboard and care enough about DPC Latency should update the firmware to the latest available when possible.
At $240, it sits above that popular mainstream segment of $140-$200 motherboards that will be the big sellers. The Extreme7+ sits on top of ASRock’s Extreme motherboard product list until an Extreme9/11 comes along, and the benefit of going above the regular extends to multiple Ultra M.2 ports, ten SATA ports, a wealth of USB 3.0 and a bundled USB 3.1 panel. Aside from a regular PC, if you wanted a storage platform with a strong networking base and space for RAID cards, the ASRock Z170 Extreme7+ might just have you covered this side of a high-end desktop arrangement.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
63 Comments
View All Comments
Idrathernotsay - Friday, November 27, 2015 - link
Dunno about the actual quality of the motherboard, but Newegg has, for example, an MSI board for $89, with USB 3.1, m.2 slot (PCIe 3.0 x4), and Realtek audio/network. I'd just like to know if a fancy network card can justify 2x the price, or if the bottom-of-the-barrel motherboards are made of literal garbage and will burst in flames if you look at them the wrong way, because, -for me specifically-, a network card just has to be there and the audio is useless (as I've a xonar for my headphones).Are there actually any stability issues with the cheaper motherboards? Weaker power delivery circuitry that limits the possible overclocks— if so, by how much? $80 dollars can be quite a bit, and either saving or spending them somewhere else on the machine might make a bigger difference than going for a pricier mobo...
Aspiring Techie - Friday, November 27, 2015 - link
The cheaper motherboards probably can't handle much of an i5 overclock. However, I own a $60 Asrock H81m DGS board, and I can maintain a stable 4.0 GHz at low temps with the stock cooler. Cheaper motherboards don't have as elaborate vrm cooling solutions, so high overclocks can bust the board. However, cheaper boards will do roughly the same as a more expensive board as long as you aren't running a PCIe SSD or a very high end graphics card with an overclocked i7.Idrathernotsay - Friday, November 27, 2015 - link
Fine, but that's a bit vague tho. The "problem" with the cheaper end of the spectrum is that you have to rely on word of mouth, or occasional reviews on stores, that might or might not actually apply to the motherboard you're considering. How does "probably can't handle much of an overclock" translate in numbers? It's obviously gonna run stock (or they wouldn't sell it), and it —does— support overclock, but how would that be affected by the power delivery with the specific Skylake architecture? If it runs 4.6 fine, I (and a bajillion other people) would be perfectly fine with that while putting $80 more onto the GPU (or back in my wallet).I'm not asking for an in-depth review (as there's not much point in a feature-light product, when the general architecture of the platform has already been analyzed in details), but I just wonder how useful reviewing pieces of hardware that are full of "gimmicks" and targeted to the smallest of niches (as the article itself states in the conclusion), and not even give a quick glance to the bottom-tier that actually moves the most units.
I'm not saying that any of the writers here —have— to, or that the reviews that are currently published aren't interesting, just that I'd like to see some Anandtech-quality numbers of shit I might actually buy. They do test cheaper SSDs and the less expensive GPUs, less pricey mobos wouldn't be that far out.
alexdi - Saturday, November 28, 2015 - link
There isn't any significant difference. You'll have fewer PCIe lanes, fewer third-party chips, and somewhat simplified voltage regulation. That stuff will matter for some edge cases and not at all for everyone else. Otherwise, IME, the manufacturer of the board is considerably more important than what it has on it. They apply the same QC, good or bad, to L the boards.JlHADJOE - Friday, November 27, 2015 - link
OC software is getting really good. In this case it looks like it actually outdid your manual OC, getting 4.7GHz stable at lower voltage and temps.extide - Monday, November 30, 2015 - link
x2, I was surprised that this was not mentioned in the article!!rallyhard - Friday, November 27, 2015 - link
The "Conclusions" link, under "Quick Links to Other Pages" actually links to page 1.Ian Cutress - Friday, November 27, 2015 - link
I'm not sure why that is. The link should work as it was.I've updated it now to include the slug, and it seems to be fixed.
Thanks for letting us know :)
ghostmuse - Friday, November 27, 2015 - link
Man, that is a bummer about the DPC latency. As someone who does a lot of pro audio work, which requires the lowest possible DPC latency, and someone who wants to build an enthusiast system for 4k gaming, Skylake thusfar is not letting me have my cake and eat it too. I was looking at this board because it looked like you'd be able to run Dual SLI and still use one of the M.2 ports, AND was hoping the DPC latency would be low, but that looks like that's not the case. My first choice, ASUS' Z170 Deluxe scored well on the DPC latency tests but if you try to use SLI you block the M.2 port. I guess I'll just save my cash until some next gen boards pop up, or hope that ASROCK manage to get that DPC latency figure down with bios updates.Byte - Saturday, November 28, 2015 - link
I just got one of these puppies running the past week and its awesome. I just got the latest BIOS update, is there an accurate way to measure DPC latency in Win10?