Read more.An up-to-date £80 gaming motherboard for the AM3+ platform.
Read more.An up-to-date £80 gaming motherboard for the AM3+ platform.
Not really fair you compare performance of 8350FX with I7 4970k considering the huge price difference
No comments ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spZJrsssPA0&feature=youtu.be
ZEN 3700X, HeroVI | 32GB 3800MHz CL16 | RTX 3080 OC/UV | XFX 760 PSU | 10Bit 27" IIyama 1440p FS | 1TB NVMe Sammie, 2xSamie 850 512GB | SB-AE7+Audio-Technica ATH-AD1000X | DeathStalker, Roccat Nyth
Looks like a pretty good motherboard.
two point...
1- Why are you comparing it to Intel boards? not relevant...
2 - Why aren't you comparing it to different 9XX model AMD motherboards? Surely it would make sense to compare it to its predecessor, to 990 and 990FX motherboards.
Also you say "the rather dated selection of AM3+ motherboards are less compelling, pushing a lot of consumers towards Intel's newer Z97 platform that's flooded with choice." - I didn't realise you can put an AM3+ CPU in a Z97 motherboard... think about what I said and it'll make sense
I'm not sure what the market is for this board. Why would someone buy into AM3+ for gaming when it's a dead end? The compatible CPUs have gone virtually nowhere in several years. I can understand people putting a better AM3+ cpu in their machine if they already have a mobo, but surely if you were building a new system you would ditch the AM3+ socket all together? High end rig = intel, budget gamer AMD APU. Am I missing something? Is there a game where AMD's 8 cores stomps Intel?
I would actually put it more like "720p gamer = AMD APU, 1080p gamer AMD/budget Intel CPU +GPU, > 1080p gamer premium Intel CPU + GPU". It's been a while since I've seen a nice round-up looking at CPU/GPU balance over a range of systems, but common sense would dictate that it's not worth spending significantly more on a CPU and motherboard that a graphics card.
Thanks for your feedback. My response to those would be:
1) Just because things are in the same graph it doesn't mean they are being directly compared, these results are there to provide additional context and relativity so people can position the product more clearly. We fully recognise that an FX8350 and AMD 970 motherboard isn't an apples-to-apples competitor to the to Z97 + i7 4790K. A case in point is that you wouldn't criticise a GTX 960 review for including GTX 980/970 or GTX 660 results because the results are there for context.
2) Few vendors are releasing new AM3+ motherboards so the options were limited for us.
3) You can't put an AM3 CPU in a Z97 board - that isn't what we've said. We are saying the fact AM3+ motherboards are dated means people are pushed to an alternative platform and Intel's main alternative is Z97. Had the AM3+ platform been revitalised with a few more boards like this people might opt for an AM3+ system with an FX-6XXX or FX-8XXX CPU instead of a Z97 + Pentium K or i3 system.
Hope that clarifies your points.
Sumanji (03-02-2015)
Why is it that AMD haven't released updated chipsets to keep pace with newer platform developments (USB 3.0, SATA III, M.2 etc.)?
It seems short sighted of them, given that AM3+ will still be their lead platform for another year or so...
[edit] Also. that USB 3.0 performance must be driver related or something, right?! Does not seem right at all...
What would you guys recommend between this MSI board and a more feature-rich (but similarly priced) one like the ASRock Fatal1ty 970 Performance?
The MSI 970 Gaming has a better networking chip than the ASRock Fatal1ty 970, Killer/Qualcomm E2205 is better than Realtek 8111GR. The ASRock board has more USB 3.0, ASMedia & Etron compared to VIA Tech on MSI's board, the ASRock board also has an M.2 slot which is pretty cool.
On the other hand the ASRock board is about £10~ (10-15 per cent) more expensive, at least here in the UK - in the states the ASrock board is a better deal (currently $88 on Newegg compared to $99 for the 970 gaming from MSI).
Both are roughly equivalent in SATA, audio and VRM departments. ASRock have swapped one of the PCI slots that the MSI board has for an additional PCIe 16X slot as well so you can do 3-way CFX (but not SLI as the last slot will only provide X4 bandwidth).
Both are strong options so it's a tough call, I'd say let the pricing guide you if you're unsure. If you definitely need extra 2 USB3, the M.2 port and the extra PCIe X4 slot then go ASRock. If you want a better networking experience go MSI.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)