Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro vs Asrock Z390 Extreme4, My Experience!

[Wmblalock]

First off, I am using a delided i7-8700K + Noctua NH-D15. I have overclocked everything I've owned for the last 17 years, so I've got a pretty good handle on how it works.

First, I bought the Asrock Z390 Extreme4 motherboard.
After a week, the best I could get was a 4.9GHz (no avx) stable overclock at 1.376v load and an average CPU Package Power draw of 186W. I tried all the way up to 1.420v and could not get 5.0GHz stable no matter how hard I tried. At 5.0GHz, no matter the voltage, the system would freeze in a matter of minutes and fail P95 (no avx) immediately. Max temps never reached over 82C, and the Extreme4 is supposed to have good VRMs, so I figured I just lost the silicon lottery and 4.9GHz was all my chip would do.

One thing I did notice with this motherboard is that I could never eliminate Vdroop no matter what LLC I used. I always left it on LLC1, the highest. At a vcore setting of 1.400 in the bios, I would get 1.392v idle, 1.376v load. I even had a fan blowing directly on the VRM heatsinks to make sure they were always cool.

Second, I bought the Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro motherboard.
After reading some good reviews, and seeing that it had more vrms, I figured it couldn't hurt to give it a try. After a few hours of tinkering, I am now 2+ hours into Prime95 (no avx) at 5.10GHz, 1.380v load, with an average CPU Package Power draw of 162W!
With a setting of 1.390v in the bios, LLC at "turbo", I get a solid 1.380v idle and load.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have used HWiNFO64 primarily for sensor readings, but double checked with many other programs and they are all reading about the same. Both boards have the most current bios versions.

Is the Gigabyte really that much better of a board for the same price??
I've been a big fan of Asrock for years, and a lot of people highly recommend the Z390 Extreme4 as being great for overclocking the i7-8700K, but it seems like a dud to me... or maybe I just got a bad board?

How is it that with the Asrock, the cpu was drawing 186W on average at 1.376v / 4.9GHz, but with the Gigabyte, the cpu is drawing 162W on average at 1.380v / 5.1GHz? I've checked all the power settings and many software programs, there is no power throttling of any type going on. Is the Gigabyte board really that much more efficient?

Does anyone know if the Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro has voltage check points that I could use with a multimeter to manually check the vcore? I just want to make sure the sensors aren't lying, and that I am not putting more voltage to the CPU than motherboard is reporting. Though, temps are great with 78C max on any core, and average around 75C between cores.

This post is partially informative, as I would now highly recommend the Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro over the Asrock Z390 Extreme4 by far to anyone who is shopping for the best value in an overclocking Z390 board. I am also curious as to why I am having such different results between these boards, as the Asrock seems to be highly regarded. I am only using a 6-core i7-8700k, not the 8-Core i9s that it's rated for.

 

[vMax]

I appreciate the feedback!!!! I have a delidded 8700K and was contemplating a move to a Z390 motherboard as in the future when and if the 9900K ever drops in price I could easily upgrade.. The Gigabyte motherboards were on my list as they have been reviewed very well...surprised at the ASRock but it looks like that is the same feedback as the online reviewer Hardware Unboxed...

Great to get some real world information from another person who has actually used the 2 motherboards...

 

[Wmblalock]

Glad I could help. I know it was hard finding info when I was trying to decide, that's why I ended up with the Asrock at first. I also went Asrock because I have had pretty good luck with them in the value department, and the Z370 Extreme4 was pretty good. I posted this in another forum, and a guy on there is having the same problem with the Asrock Z390 Extreme4 as I did. I also always look for the a good value overclocking board instead of just buying an $250-350 board that would be a waste of money. Gigabyte Aorus has definitely taken the overclock value crown with their Z390 boards.

Also, FYI, today Amazon has a $20 coupon on the Gigabyte Aorus Z390 Pro, making it $160, which is a steal!

 

[vMax]

Glad I could help. I know it was hard finding info when I was trying to decide, that's why I ended up with the Asrock at first. I also went Asrock because I have had pretty good luck with them in the value department, and the Z370 Extreme4 was pretty good. I posted this in another forum, and a guy on there is having the same problem with the Asrock Z390 Extreme4 as I did. I also always look for the a good value overclocking board instead of just buying an $250-350 board that would be a waste of money. Gigabyte Aorus has definitely taken the overclock value crown with their Z390 boards.

Also, FYI, today Amazon has a $20 coupon on the Gigabyte Aorus Z390 Pro, making it $160, which is a steal!

Oh how I sometimes wish I lived in the US of A....as the hardware prices always seem to be so much better than here over the pond in the UK....

 

[josh283407]

ive heard that the extreme4 z370 is actually better than the z390 model. dont know how true that is but i was mainly going for around 5ghz and if i got that i was going to go for lowest possible voltage. i can run it at a negative 10 offset which comes to about 1.28-1.31 vcore on normal loads and maybe 1.344 on avx loads. i took the silly plastic io shield off like i do all these mobos. put 2 40mm fans on the left vrm heatsink with zip ties and have a side panel that has a mount for 2 120mm fans blowing on the back of the mobo where the vrms are. im confident that if a 9900k will do 5ghz or more this board will support it. dont have experience with the z390 version but the z370 version is great and i got mine for 134 on sale. their cheap now and thats what i would get. the 9th gen work on z370 just as well.

the only difference in performance is because of higher power and temp limits. but you say that tests show the z390 boards being faster? well turn up the power limit. but even with the power limit turned off they are faster? yeah because some boards allow a tjmax of 115. the cpu doesnt stay at 115 probalby but it does bump up against it and i dont want the performance that much.

for anybody that is wondering about how to oc the 9900k and to a certain extent the 8700k and 9700k while balancing power concerns and the like heres my advice.

just oc to as high as you can normally with a voltage limit that you are happy with. but this will overheat the cpu because of how much power they draw especially with the 8700k being pasted and the 9900k being 8 cores 16 threads. so people drop there ocs so that video rendering or whatever doesnt fry their systems.

but that is what power limits are for. for the extreme4 and an 8700k i would probalby set the maintained limit to 160 and the short limit to 180-190. if you delid then i would raise that up to 190 for the maintained and 210 for the short. for the 9900k i would set about the same limit as a delidded 8700k. maybe a touch more.

but if i do that then my 9900k wont be any faster than an 8700k right? no. when you have less cores you clock higher to use a power budget to get more perforamnce but when you have more cores you can clock lower to get the same or more performace. and since you get diminishing returns the higher you clock you will get more performance from the 9900k and more cores at slightyly lower speeds. for instance if you have your 8700k set to maintained limit of 160 then it will run something like cinebench at maybe 4.9-50 as cinebench at 5ghz at 1.32 volts or so will use about 170w maybe. on the 9900k that it would clock down to 4.6-4.7 maybe but still be much faster. if you go with 190 w then the 8700k will run 5ghz-5.1 in cinebecnh with no throttling while the 9900k will probalby throttle. but just barely. maybe down to 4.9 which isnt a big deal and it will be much faster with the extra cores.

also i recommend using offset mode or otherwise you will have to use the amount of voltage necessary for avx loads while running normal non avx loads. also keep hyour power plan in windows on balanced as this will allow the cores to throttle down when not loaded. they will stay at about 800mghz and mahybe .7 volts when not being used. if you dont do this that means that 24/7 ( or however long you leave your pc running) you will be blasting the pc with much higher than necessary voltage which leads to aging and degradation fo the chip. it will also make the computer quiter because fans will run lower