Review Retesting The MSI MPG X570 Plus Motherboard

[Admin]

We recently received some feedback from our readership concerning our cheap X570 motherboard value award, which prompted us to reevaluate not only our recommendation, but also our test methodology. Here are our findings.

Retesting The MSI MPG X570 Plus Motherboard : Read more

 

[refillable]

ASUS TUF Gaming or Prime-P X570 deserves the editor's choice, not this one.

 

[Lutfij]

Where do you see mention of the board in the review(linked above) being awarded an Editor's Choice?

 

[refillable]

I'm pretty sure you have been following the whole story.

 

[Crashman]

ASUS TUF Gaming or Prime-P X570 deserves the editor's choice, not this one.

I wish we had tested it. The board Asus sent was priced significantly higher, and even the non-WiFi version of the board Asus sent was $15 more costly at the time of the review.

But the later board dropped $10 after the original review, so the original review's value assessment is a snapshot of bargain pricing for that specific time.

 

[refillable]

I wish we had tested it. The board Asus sent was priced significantly higher, and even the non-WiFi version of the board Asus sent was $15 more costly at the time of the review.

But the later board dropped $10 after the original review, so the original review's value assessment is a snapshot of bargain pricing for that specific time.

I see. I am really glad you decided to re-test this and removed the editor choice award for an obviously inferior board.

 

[Crashman]

I see. I am really glad you decided to re-test this and removed the editor choice award for an obviously inferior board.

The data presented here shows that the original data was correct. The new problem for the board is that it is no longer price competitive.

 

[refillable]

The data presented here shows that the original data was correct. The new problem for the board is that it is no longer price competitive.

It was correct, but it was incomplete. I feel like it takes a Ryzen 9 to show how inferior the board is to a slightly more expensive board. Now you have the full picture and different conclusions and I appreciate that (regardless of the price drop).

 

[Crashman]

It was correct, but it was incomplete. I feel like it takes a Ryzen 9 to show how inferior the board is to a slightly more expensive board. Now you have the full picture and different conclusions and I appreciate that (regardless of the price drop).

The Ryzen 9 heat estimates from the original article were shown accurate in the first chart of this article. We understand that some users would prefer to see a worst case scenario rather than a typical case, but also realize that most people building a PC have read enough to understand the basics of system cooling.

All of that is water under the bridge concerning the award, since competing boards are now cheap enough to knock this one out of contention.

 

[whisperhorse]

just imagine the amount of people who bought the Gaming Plus based on the original, or even this (by March 2020) updated, yet still too forgiving review, and are now sitting on top of a 16 or 32GB kit of DDR4 3200, good SSD, a decent graphic card, serviceable power supply.... with an ageing 3600-3700X... and this motherboard.

They could be buying a 5800X3D for 300 bucks total when accounting the sale of their CPU, and having the BEST gaming CPU on the market tied with Intel's, on a 3yo+ platform. Guess what, they are restricted to the 5700, which came out recently, while even the 5800X non-3D which was out for almost 2 years was not a drop in replacement to this board because it would overheat VRMs with PBO enabled...

I don't know what's going on here really. I think it's OK you guys addressed the criticism in a new article, but it's totally unacceptable that you didn't go the extra mile and further fixed the original article stating very clearly: this top tier chipset motherboard will not work well with over 65W TDP chips, especially in cheap cases with bad attention to proper airflow.

It baffles me that a publication which can identify serious reviewers in other fields, who have not only consistent but also visionary test methodologies, such as the amazing Aris in the PSU category, would try to save face for a really poor review with bad excuses, sarcastic subtitles arguing thermal couples are a step "up" (SIC, quotes included) because somehow having the same temperature in ONE MOTHERBOARD proves all motherboard sensors are "correctly placed" and "operated properly" (now that's good sarcasm, see?). Anyone who does multiple motherboard reviews will tell you the only way to properly validate results is using thermal couples, not just HWiNFO and/or FLIR. Only flip-chip BGA components may suffer slightly from thermal couple sensing, but then again, nothing external can sense that properly.

 

[Crashman]

just imagine the amount of people who bought the Gaming Plus based on the original, or even this (by March 2020) updated, yet still too forgiving review, and are now sitting on top of a 16 or 32GB kit of DDR4 3200, good SSD, a decent graphic card, serviceable power supply.... with an ageing 3600-3700X... and this motherboard.

They could be buying a 5800X3D for 300 bucks total when accounting the sale of their CPU, and having the BEST gaming CPU on the market tied with Intel's, on a 3yo+ platform. Guess what, they are restricted to the 5700, which came out recently, while even the 5800X non-3D which was out for almost 2 years was not a drop in replacement to this board because it would overheat VRMs with PBO enabled...

I don't know what's going on here really. I think it's OK you guys addressed the criticism in a new article, but it's totally unacceptable that you didn't go the extra mile and further fixed the original article stating very clearly: this top tier chipset motherboard will not work well with over 65W TDP chips, especially in cheap cases with bad attention to proper airflow.

It baffles me that a publication which can identify serious reviewers in other fields, who have not only consistent but also visionary test methodologies, such as the amazing Aris in the PSU category, would try to save face for a really poor review with bad excuses, sarcastic subtitles arguing thermal couples are a step "up" (SIC, quotes included) because somehow having the same temperature in ONE MOTHERBOARD proves all motherboard sensors are "correctly placed" and "operated properly" (now that's good sarcasm, see?). Anyone who does multiple motherboard reviews will tell you the only way to properly validate results is using thermal couples, not just HWiNFO and/or FLIR. Only flip-chip BGA components may suffer slightly from thermal couple sensing, but then again, nothing external can sense that properly.

Because all of the negatives you heard were a lie. The board performed fine with a 3800X in a regular case. The guys who said it overheated were testing it without airflow. And it was only recommended as the cheapest acceptable solution (ie, for value).
The truth is that when confronted by a site that didn't care about real-world ventilation, MSI decided to discard this single product to save its reputation...from unduly harsh criticism. That's why, in order to make a system that was bad-enough to justify that other group's findings, MSI built a system with no intake fans and a single-fan radiator mounted on the rear panel. MSI then said that they verified those findings under that condition. But does that even sound like a cooling configuration that someone would run with an upper-spec CPU?

The original review's test platform had been configured to produce similar voltage regulator temperatures to the site's 2010 reference PC, which had a Corsair Graphite 760T case and a Noctua NH-U12 if I recall correctly. So we automatically knew that guesses about that test system having "too much" airflow weren't realistic. The follow-up article showed that a typical closed case system with dual-fan radiator actually cools the voltage regulator far better than the platform used in the original article.

Given that follow-up article's real-world build outperformed the original test platform, it sounds to me like you're trying to make excuses for another site whose results didn't adequately represent the airflow of a real-world build.

 

[rhysiam]

I cannot believe @Crashman was still doubling-down six months ago. I realise this is a dead horse and see that @Crashman is now listed as "former staff", but just for the record, in case anyone is still following this, let's correct some issues with this reply:

Because all of the negatives you heard were a lie. The board performed fine with a 3800X in a regular case.

I don't believe anyone ever contested that with good airflow, the VRM could drive an 8 core without throttling - true. The negatives of this board were that it quickly runs into trouble with hungrier CPUs with PBO and/or limited airflow and/or hot operating environments.
The Asus TUF Gaming x570 was available in the same price range and did not have this limitation.
How is that a "lie"?

The guys who said it overheated were testing it without airflow.

KitGuru's review specifically mentions that they had "decent case airflow": https://www.kitguru.net/components/...0-vrm-temperature-analysis-luke-deep-dive/11/
While they did not see any throttling, so technically there was no loss in performance, the power delivery blew well past 100deg. Hardly acceptable!

And it was only recommended as the cheapest acceptable solution (ie, for value).

Except that it wasn't the best value, because the Asus TUF Gaming x570 existed and was priced similarly with vastly superior power delivery.

The truth is that when confronted by a site that didn't care about real-world ventilation MSI decided to discard this single product to save its reputation...from unduly harsh criticism.

MSI's entire entry level x570 line-up shared (almost?) identical power delivery. All were affected. MSI acknowledged this and released a refreshed set of products - plural - to address the issues.
Also, this wasn't just one site:
HUB:

View: https://youtu.be/xbyWKufthS4

KitGuru - linked above
Hardwareinfo: Link

Given that follow-up article's real-world build outperformed the original test platform, it sounds to me like you're trying to make excuses for another site whose results didn't adequately represent the airflow of a real-world build.

Again, there were at least three sites, not just one
Also, there were competing products at similar prices with vastly superior VRMs
Finally - how can you still not acknowledge that many of your readers value better VRMs? There are loads of good reasons for this including more flexibility in future upgrades, OCing support, likely longevity of cooler running components, more robust in hot and/or limited airflow environments, etc.

Sure, the MSI board was good enough under good conditions, but the fact that you are still dismissing legitimate differences in priorities and test methodologies as "lies" is baffling to me.

 

[Rogue Leader]

This horse is dead, lets leave it alone. Closed.