«

»

ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Killer AM3+ Motherboard Review

PAGE INDEX

<< PREVIOUS            NEXT >>

AIDA 64 Benchmark

AIDA64 is a full 64-bit benchmark and test suite utilizing MMX, 3DNow! and SSE instruction set extensions, and will scale up to 32 processor cores. An enhanced 64-bit System Stability Test module is also available to stress the whole system to its limits. For legacy processors all benchmarks and the System Stability Test are available in 32-bit versions as well.FX_8370_AIDA_CPU_FP

The Queen benchmark is a simple integer benchmark focuses on the branch prediction capabilities and the misprediction penalties of the CPU. The Photoworxx benchmark performs common photo and image editing tasks. The Queen benchmark seems to be made specifically for the AMD processors. The scale right up the list, with all of them thrashing the i5-4670; including the A10 APU. The Photoworxx tests bring things back into perspective and show a good estimation of processing that is very common today. In the Photoworxx test, the FX CPUs all outpace the i5-4670, albeit by much slimmer margins than in the Queen test.

The final test on this chart is a floating point test. Julia tests single-point precision (32-bit). As you can see above, the AMD FX processors are no match for the competition when it comes to floating point performance.

FX_8370_AIDA_ZLibThis integer benchmark measures combined CPU and memory subsystem performance through the public ZLib compression library. CPU ZLib test uses only the basic x86 instructions, and it is HyperThreading, multi-processor (SMP) and multi-core (CMP) aware. AMD has made great strides in the compression test over the last few processor revisions. In this case, the AMD FX CPUs all perform very well.


SKIP TO PAGE:

<< PREVIOUS            NEXT >>

13 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. Tom J

    The FX-9590 results in AIDA might be because of throttling – I think that Fatal1ty board is only rated for the 125W CPUs, not sure if it does any downclocking or anything for the 220W FX CPUs (the 9590 and 9370 aren’t officially supported on that board). It’d be interesting to hear what the temperatures were on that 9590 during those tests.

  2. johnniedoo

    Excellent review, my thoughts were similar to TomJ on using the 9 series AMD in this board. Being a high density glass board, maybe less susceptible to the temp warping, but doubt it- not being an engineer or even close. I knew there was a board made by ASRock that was certified for the 220W processors though. that and only the Gigabyte UD7, I think.
    Seeing that the 9590 was included in the testing did catch my eye though. and for just over $100 new is an even greater eye catcher. Am needing to upgrade a couple of AM3 boards since I can not find any new Phenom II 4 or 6cores retailing anymore. Not even sure how long this AM3+ will last for my FX processors . thanks again for a great review.

  3. TourDeForce

    Interesting review, but it seemed to quickly morph into a processor comparison rather than the motherboard review indicated.

  4. Rich

    No benchmarks with an m.2 SSD installed??!! Like, what are the boot times, program load times compared to other systems with an SSD connected to SATA This is one of the few AMD boards with m.2…. come on guys!

    1. Olin Coles

      While you’re at it, rant about how car review magazines never test all the different tires available for that model. The M.2 slot on this board supports SATA 6 Gb/s M.2 cards, so it would perform pretty much the same as other SATA 6Gb/s SSDs. The only difference would be if a M.2 PCI Express Gen2 x2 card is used, which could reach 10 Gb/s. Of course, the sky is the limit for what is tested, and then it becomes an SSD review. See here: http://benchmarkreviews.com/category/comprehensive-product-reviews/computer-hardware-reviews/pc-storage/

  5. WAEL

    They are, of course, PCIe 3.0 slots???? mine is 2.0 and on ASROCK site they wrote : 3 PCIe 2.0 x16, 2 PCIe 2.0 x1 . maybe you got a new Rev ?

  6. INTESTINAL

    Fatal1ty Killer,supports processor TDP 220W? As demonstrated in the test FX9590

  7. Kennith Jay Rosenthal

    They actually are NOT, of course, PCIE Gen 3.0 slots.

  8. DJ Estioco

    I’ve been reading around and I thought the 990FX Killer isn’t compatible with the 9590 FX? I’ve bought both and it said the CPU isn’t on the Mobo Support List? Am I doing something wrong?

  9. Gemma

    Great review, great board! I like the look of the gaming series motherboards, they look better than the extreme or overclocking series.

  10. Caring1

    Still a nice board, and I happen to like the inclusion of PS2 ports on the rear for the keyboard, if you’re whining about lack of USB ports when there is that many, you are doing it wrong.

  11. Michael

    It’s not pcie 3.0 it’s only 2.0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*