Review ASRock X570 Taichi Review: Jumping Into PCIe 4.0 With Ryzen 3000

hannibal

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
2,140
3
19,815
14
Yeah. 470 boards Are definitely better bang for the buck!
Is there coming bigger 570 motherboard comparison? The sound of the botherboard cooler is a big thing. What board have the quitest options and settings?
 

alextheblue

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2001
2,883
24
20,795
2
Yeah. 470 boards Are definitely better bang for the buck!
Is there coming bigger 570 motherboard comparison? The sound of the botherboard cooler is a big thing. What board have the quitest options and settings?
For the most part I agree, we definitely need more X570 comparisons. I know the BIOS is still early but man, the chipset fan should have a proper ramp. That's a basic feature these days - for their sake I hope that was a bug in the shipping BIOS they didn't catch. However, to my surprise there are quite a few somewhat affordable X570 boards in the $150-160 range. Based on what we were hearing pre-launch I thought that the 400 series chipsets would be handling the sub-$200 range until B550 was ready. I'd like to see more overviews/comparisons done on the entry-level X570 boards.
 

splave

Contributing Writer
Editor
Jan 4, 2019
6
2
15
0
"Finally, a test that really stands out! ASRock’s X570 Taichi consumed far more power at full load, and a quick search for the cause revealed that this board, and only this board, was running the 3700X at 1.31V and 4.1GHz under Prime95 small-FFTs. The other boards were running less than 1.2V, at 3.9 to 4.0 GHz in this test"

So the asrock is running 200mhz more by default? Why do you consider this a bad thing. 😀😀
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Editor
"Finally, a test that really stands out! ASRock’s X570 Taichi consumed far more power at full load, and a quick search for the cause revealed that this board, and only this board, was running the 3700X at 1.31V and 4.1GHz under Prime95 small-FFTs. The other boards were running less than 1.2V, at 3.9 to 4.0 GHz in this test"

So the asrock is running 200mhz more by default? Why do you consider this a bad thing. 😀😀
Because the peak power difference appears to have a negligible impact on real-world performance.
 

ocer9999

Reputable
Oct 28, 2014
466
24
4,965
49
I would say most users would be happier with higher clocks speeds than lower.
You could always have spined like "The motherboard is the fastest of all the motherboards we have tested, but at energy efficency loss".
I'm pretty sure I want the fastest one :)
 
Reactions: splave

tyr_antilles

Prominent
May 25, 2018
17
0
510
0
So the asrock is running 200mhz more by default? Why do you consider this a bad thing. 😀😀
Because this causes the board to run hotter, consumes sensibly more power and at the end performance difference is not worth it. I always prefer a honest board that runs at default values and if I want more performance I will overclock it myself. I have 35 C temperature on my room and I do not want a hot board.

Other thing that concerns me is the small chipset fan on x570 boards. I remember older boards with these kind of high rotation fans and their longevity is very bad. After some time, dust get on the fan and it will stop functioning. Being custom made they are very hard to be replaced. I will buy a motherboard with passive cooling.
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Editor
Because this causes the board to run hotter, consumes sensibly more power and at the end performance difference is not worth it. I always prefer a honest board that runs at default values and if I want more performance I will overclock it myself. I have 35 C temperature on my room and I do not want a hot board.

Other thing that concerns me is the small chipset fan on x570 boards. I remember older boards with these kind of high rotation fans and their longevity is very bad. After some time, dust get on the fan and it will stop functioning. Being custom made they are very hard to be replaced. I will buy a motherboard with passive cooling.
Good luck: The old chipset heatpipe solution often didn't work right when the board was inverted, so none of the boards I've seen are using it.
 

splave

Contributing Writer
Editor
Jan 4, 2019
6
2
15
0
So I have spoken to an asrock contact. Companies are taking different positions. Some are undervolting vid at the risk of losing mhz with the benefit of lower power consumption and temps. In this case the gigabyte. Asrock and Asus both are pushing more voltage for more clocks at the cost of more power consumption and heat. With frequency being so low on these cpus I for one would take the extra 200mhz and the expense of 5 dollars more a week on my power bill. I wouldn't call it dishonesty just different thinking by each manufacturer. I wouldn't buy an expensive overclocking motherboard to undervolt it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS