Asus' First AMD-Based ROG Motherboard Is Coming Soon

[damric]

I am almost excite.

 

[damric]

Looks nice 8x8x pci-e is kind of disappointing on a $160 gaming oriented motherboard... I mean heck the $95 mainstream M5A99-FX Pro 2.0 I use in my rig supports full 16x16x support.

Isn't PCIE 3.0 x8 same speed as 2.0 x16?

 

[False_Dmitry_II]

It would be nice if they had a CPU made for the socket that would warrant such a fancy board.

We already know that what's coming in 2015, Excavator, is going to definitely come to FM2+. I imagine that is what this is for.

AFAIK, AM3+ is now dead with piledriver as the last thing that's on it. If this guess is true, higher end stuff would need to go somewhere.

 

[rishiswaz]

It would be nice if they had a CPU made for the socket that would warrant such a fancy board.

A lot of overclocking records are set on APUs, #3 overall on CPU-Z is an APU. Don't count them out just yet, with HSA moving rather quickly eventually the APU structure will be much more dominant in the market, with ARM moving quickly and x86 not really advancing as fast HSA and technologies like it are the future for x86 if Intel and AMD want it to stay relevant in the future. Sure to get rid of the decades of antiquated instruction sets there could be a replacement for x86 built without older legacy instruction sets. This would be like Intel's Itanium processor, 64 bit without backwards compatibility, and we see that Intel licenses AMD64 and IA64 is pretty much being kept alive by HP through money from Intel to keep offering Itanium servers. Maybe hybrid x86+ARM processors with onboard graphics will be the future, AMD also seems to be betting pretty heavily on that; having the ARM cores running with light loads but when the going gets tough x86 gets going. Add HSA to the mix and you have some serious potential.

 

[icemunk]

I wish someone would produce a dirt-cheap mini-ITX FM2 board. I refuse to pay $130 for one, they should be $60 like the cheap MATX/ATX ones.

 

[Novuake]

I wish someone would produce a dirt-cheap mini-ITX FM2 board. I refuse to pay $130 for one, they should be $60 like the cheap MATX/ATX ones.

Completely agree. this is the only reason I have not bought into mITX yet.

 

[HiTechObsessed]

I can think of a good reason for this motherboard - high speed ram. We know that AMD's APUs love fast ram. What are we up to now, 3200mhz or so? Not going to do that on a el cheapo board.

But why spend all that money for a poor APU system? Why not by an AM3+ board at half the price of this, RAM that is just 1600, a 6300 and a dedicated GPU and get FAR better performance than any APU will ever give, in both normal computing and gaming? APUs are about the worst price/performance ever.

 

[RedJaron]

I can think of a good reason for this motherboard - high speed ram. We know that AMD's APUs love fast ram. What are we up to now, 3200mhz or so? Not going to do that on a el cheapo board.

But why spend all that money for a poor APU system? Why not by an AM3+ board at half the price of this, RAM that is just 1600, a 6300 and a dedicated GPU and get FAR better performance than any APU will ever give, in both normal computing and gaming? APUs are about the worst price/performance ever.

My point exactly. The money spent on such a setup just doesn't make sense compared to what you can get for the same amount. I get that people want premium boards ( I like them as well, to an extent. ) I get that tinkers like to tweak, tune, and OC every aspect of their system. But I don't know anyone that wants to do all those things based around an Athlon or A10 chip right now. It's like buying a VW Beetle then dropping thousands on aftermarket tuner parts. Sure, a custom turbo, clutch, transmission, and exhaust will make it a better performing car, but for that same money, why not get a car that's already a little sporty in stock trim?

The existing FM2 chips are great for daily drivers and gaming on a tight budget, but they quickly get surpassed by others once you consider pricier parts. If you're on a tight budget, a $160 board isn't in the cards. If you need a daily driver office PC, why do you care about such a premium board?

Maybe Asus is just filling out every nook and cranny in its offerings "just in case." But I hope Dmitry's right, and that Excavator brings some exciting things to FM2.

 

[damric]

I can think of a good reason for this motherboard - high speed ram. We know that AMD's APUs love fast ram. What are we up to now, 3200mhz or so? Not going to do that on a el cheapo board.

But why spend all that money for a poor APU system? Why not by an AM3+ board at half the price of this, RAM that is just 1600, a 6300 and a dedicated GPU and get FAR better performance than any APU will ever give, in both normal computing and gaming? APUs are about the worst price/performance ever.

I'll put my Quad FM2 Athlon against any quad AM3+ CPU in a bench off.

 

[HiTechObsessed]

I can think of a good reason for this motherboard - high speed ram. We know that AMD's APUs love fast ram. What are we up to now, 3200mhz or so? Not going to do that on a el cheapo board.

But why spend all that money for a poor APU system? Why not by an AM3+ board at half the price of this, RAM that is just 1600, a 6300 and a dedicated GPU and get FAR better performance than any APU will ever give, in both normal computing and gaming? APUs are about the worst price/performance ever.

I'll put my Quad FM2 Athlon against any quad AM3+ CPU in a bench off.

lol

The point isn't about benchmarks, it's about actual performance. Buying a $160 motherboard, a $160 A10, and $80 high-speed RAM will lose MAJORLY (and majorly is an understatement) to a $110 FX-6300, $60 RAM, a $75 motherboard, and a $150 R9 270.

You can have your overclocked APU getting you medium graphics at 720p/maybe 900p at 30fps, I would much rather have High in 1080p at 60fps.

 

[damric]

I can think of a good reason for this motherboard - high speed ram. We know that AMD's APUs love fast ram. What are we up to now, 3200mhz or so? Not going to do that on a el cheapo board.

But why spend all that money for a poor APU system? Why not by an AM3+ board at half the price of this, RAM that is just 1600, a 6300 and a dedicated GPU and get FAR better performance than any APU will ever give, in both normal computing and gaming? APUs are about the worst price/performance ever.

I'll put my Quad FM2 Athlon against any quad AM3+ CPU in a bench off.

lol

The point isn't about benchmarks, it's about actual performance. Buying a $160 motherboard, a $160 A10, and $80 high-speed RAM will lose MAJORLY (and majorly is an understatement) to a $110 FX-6300, $60 RAM, a $75 motherboard, and a $150 R9 270.

You can have your overclocked APU getting you medium graphics at 720p/maybe 900p at 30fps, I would much rather have High in 1080p at 60fps.

In games that utilize only 4 cores or less (over 99% of all games) my Athlon 760K is faster than any FX-6300. An 860K will be even FASTER. You are very confused if you think resolution is affected by CPU. But since you mention resolution, only FM2+ APU/CPU has PCIE 3.0. So an r9 295 will actually run better on the Kaveri in games that utilize 4 cores or less than on an AM3+ CPU (again, that's most games). AMD knows this, motherboard manufacturers know this, and now you know this

 

[HiTechObsessed]

My bad, we're on two completely different subjects. I'm referring to APUs vs CPU and dedicated GPU lol

And by the way, you're the only person I've ever seen say that Athlon's are better than the newest FX series. Especially considering a dual-core Pentium (the G3258) beats the 750k pretty well.

 

[damric]

My bad, we're on two completely different subjects. I'm referring to APUs vs CPU and dedicated GPU lol

And by the way, you're the only person I've ever seen say that Athlon's are better than the newest FX series. Especially considering a dual-core Pentium (the G3258) beats the 750k pretty well.

I'm yet to be out benched by a G3258, on air at least with my 760K. I honestly thought I would be by now, but I think its being crippled somehow. Instruction sets, maybe?

 

[rolli59]

Well people tend to forget that there is data available showing that no Athlon is going to beat an FX63xx core on level terms http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/piledriver-k10-cpu-overclocking,3584-12.html

 

[Novuake]

My bad, we're on two completely different subjects. I'm referring to APUs vs CPU and dedicated GPU lol

And by the way, you're the only person I've ever seen say that Athlon's are better than the newest FX series. Especially considering a dual-core Pentium (the G3258) beats the 750k pretty well.

I'm yet to be out benched by a G3258, on air at least with my 760K. I honestly thought I would be by now, but I think its being crippled somehow. Instruction sets, maybe?

You are not making much sense

Anyway, Richland has lower IPC than a Piledriver, so clock for clock, your 750K can not beat a 6300. not to mention that Richland also lacks l3 cache, although that has a less immediate impact.

 

[HiTechObsessed]

And here's Tom's test between the Athlon (overclocked) and newly unlocked Pentium (overclocked) showing the Pentium winning easily in a lot, and tying in others:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,3849.html

I'm not sure what all you're including in your 'bench', but everything I've seen between Athlon vs FX or Athlon vs unlocked Pentium shows the Athlon losing. The FM2/FM2+ has never been regarded as best for gaming

 

[damric]

My bad, we're on two completely different subjects. I'm referring to APUs vs CPU and dedicated GPU lol

And by the way, you're the only person I've ever seen say that Athlon's are better than the newest FX series. Especially considering a dual-core Pentium (the G3258) beats the 750k pretty well.

I'm yet to be out benched by a G3258, on air at least with my 760K. I honestly thought I would be by now, but I think its being crippled somehow. Instruction sets, maybe?

You are not making much sense

Anyway, Richland has lower IPC than a Piledriver, so clock for clock, your 750K can not beat a 6300. not to mention that Richland also lacks l3 cache, although that has a less immediate impact.

Athlon is piledriver, same IPC. Richland has superior memory controller. My RAM is faster than the pitifully slow L3 cache on FX.

 

[rolli59]

And there is a reason the Athlon has now disappeared as the recommended entry level purchase http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-2.html

 

[damric]

And here's Tom's test between the Athlon (overclocked) and newly unlocked Pentium (overclocked) showing the Pentium winning easily in a lot, and tying in others:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,3849.html

I'm not sure what all you're including in your 'bench', but everything I've seen between Athlon vs FX or Athlon vs unlocked Pentium shows the Athlon losing. The FM2/FM2+ has never been regarded as best for gaming

I'll be happy to bench with you if you own any of those. I have a 3.7GHz Haswell i3 and an Athlon 760K ready to go.

Basically it's like this:

Single threaded:

Pentium >Athlon > FX

Heavy threaded:

FX (only 6/8 core) > Athlon > Pentium

 

[damric]

And there is a reason the Athlon has now disappeared as the recommended entry level purchase http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-2.html

THW never benched the 760K. They only have one sample of an old 750K which is just about as sucky as the FX-4300.

 

[rolli59]

And there is a reason the Athlon has now disappeared as the recommended entry level purchase http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-2.html

THW never benched the 760K. They only have one sample of an old 750K which is just about as sucky as the FX-4300.

750K at 4.3GHz betters a 760K it is the same CPU only difference is clock speed.

 

[damric]

And there is a reason the Athlon has now disappeared as the recommended entry level purchase http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-2.html

THW never benched the 760K. They only have one sample of an old 750K which is just about as sucky as the FX-4300.

750K at 4.3GHz betters a 760K it is the same CPU only difference is clock speed.

That is incorrect. Athlon 750K is based on Trinity, which is the first edition of piledriver. FX was the second piledriver with added L3. Richland (760K) is 3rd revision with resonant clock mesh and improved IMC.

 

[damric]

I'll tell you what. I'll run 3 benches with you. OC to whatever you want on air/water.

1) Cinebench R15 single threaded.

2) 3D Mark Skydiver Physics test.

3) IBT with AVX w/ 4 threads.

Before I bench, I'll go ahead and estimate that

Test 1) Pentium > Athlon > FX-6300

Test 2) FX-6300 > Athlon > Pentium

Test 3) Athlon > FX > Pentium

 

[damric]

Prove me wrong fellas.

Cinebench R15 Single Threaded: 110

Sky Diver Physics: 5599 (BTW my 3.7GHz Haswell i3 only scored 5742 with HT ON)

IBT AVX-4 Threads: 50GFLOPS

 

[Calculatron]

Before this gets a bit too out of hand (a benchmark-off!), I'd like to point out that the Athlon 750K (4.3 ghz overclock) performed roughly on par with the FX-4350 (stock 4.2 ghz). Also, I'd like to (re-)point out that the Athlon 760K is the updated, Richland-based variant, with all the changes already listed.

I love data; I would enjoy seeing a benchmark comparison.