System Builder Marathon, Q3 2013: $2550 Performance PC

[Crashman]

pretty much what i expected from the deficiencies in the the GPU's, the M/B, PSU, Case. and CPU Cooler
asrock= well known for riddled bios

Wrong, BIOS problems were limited to this board in our reviews. The lower-model Extreme4 also comes from ASRock without those issues

and driver problems

Wrong, the board uses standard drivers supplied by the component manufacturers. ASRock doesn't have its own subcomponents or drivers.

and poor GPU slot layout

Wrong, the slot issue is prevalent across most products EXCEPT for a handful such as the Extreme4

not to mention lack of 32 PCIE lanes (8,4,4 really?

Wrong, the board has a 16-8-8 configuration

come on guy you can get that on a 1366/1156/1155/1150 socket)

Wrong, 1366 has 36 lanes, the 11's have 16

1 of the GPU's back so tight it sucks air thru a 1CM crack

Then you can't complain about the bottom card hanging one space beyond the of the bottom slot. ATX has only 7 slots

Case that is poorly ventilated air flow design considering the CPU and 3 GPU's planned for it, was sucking out more air than the front fan could ever hope to provide, that's a serious problem considering the parts and what was being attempted.

That's why I opened the case and still found the CPU reaching its thermal limit

over priced PSU lacking sufficient power for TRI SLI from 3 of the higher end of the spectrum of mid-range cards.

And your choice would have been?

AIR COOLED CPU COOLER, over sized, and over priced compared to a lighter cheap better regulated thick radiator boxed closed loop water cooler for one of the highest and hotter Intel CPU's

Read some of our closed-loop liquid cooling comparisons. A closed loop would have just made the PWM hotter.

i knew just the parts alone it was going to over heat and have driver bios problems.

That's funny, because we've been doing this for a long time, have used several similar builds in past System Builder Marathons, and never had these problems in the past

I already admitted that the Extreme4 would have been a better choice than the Extreme6. The CPU unexpectedly ran hotter and with more current use than past samples, and that makes sense since more current = more heat. On the other hand, I'm willing to entertain ANY suggestions you might have for a reduced-price power supply upgrade.

 

[slomo4sho]

Wrong, the slot issue is prevalent across most products EXCEPT for a handful such as the Extreme4

I always did wonder why a slot 1,4, and 7 configuration on boards that had the capacity for a three-way Crossfire/SLI was seldom seen. I am only aware of less than half a dozen such cases and I think only the ASRock X79 Champion is capable of such a configuration from any of the X79 boards.

 

[Crashman]

Wrong, the slot issue is prevalent across most products EXCEPT for a handful such as the Extreme4

I always did wonder why a slot 1,4, and 7 configuration on boards that had the capacity for a three-way Crossfire/SLI was seldom seen. I am only aware of less than half a dozen such cases and I think only the ASRock X79 Champion is capable of such a configuration from any of the X79 boards.

It's the fault of other reviewers. Remember when everyone complained about crowded DIMM latches?

Because of mounting screw locations, the two ways to "fix" the "serious issue" of crowded DIMM latches was to either make boards "deep" enough (front to back) to put the DIMMs on the "other side" (from the socket) of the second top screw and move them to the top edge, or move the graphics card down. Since Socket 370 and Socket 462 didn't usually need to be very deep to fit all the components, we got stuck with the graphics slot moved down and hundreds of reviewers praising the design. Except for me of course, because I usually think about this stuff before commenting on design.

That's also what killed most of the riser-card case designs that gave us slim gaming towers and short HTPC cases with big graphics. Those cases are beginning to gain acceptance now thanks to mini ITX, because mini ITX doesn't have a "wrong" place to put its single slot.

 

[slomo4sho]

It's the fault of other reviewers. Remember when everyone complained about crowded DIMM latches?

Because of mounting screw locations, the two ways to "fix" the "serious issue" of crowded DIMM latches was to either make boards "deep" enough (front to back) to put the DIMMs on the "other side" (from the socket) of the second top screw and move them to the top edge, or move the graphics card down. Since Socket 370 and Socket 462 didn't usually need to be very deep to fit all the components, we got stuck with the graphics slot moved down and hundreds of reviewers praising the design. Except for me of course, because I usually think about this stuff before commenting on design.

That's also what killed most of the riser-card case designs that gave us slim gaming towers and short HTPC cases with big graphics. Those cases are beginning to gain acceptance now thanks to mini ITX, because mini ITX doesn't have a "wrong" place to put its single slot.

Granted, but all boards that are capable of quad gpu configurations use the 1st slot so it is no longer about the inability to fit DIMMs so I am unsure why any manufacturer would adhere to design adaptation based around a decade+ old issue. Even models without a x16 expansion in the 1st slot now typically has a x1 or x4 available which can accommodate long sound cards. What bugs me is the fact that boards that use the 1st and 4th or 5th slot for for two way Srossfire/SLI configurations but still decide to place a optional 3rd card slot on the 6th(with 4th slot) or 7th slot (with 5th slot). It is stupid design decisions like this that make me question the design teams.

Examples of such design:
ASRock X79 Extreme4
L337 Gaming GANK MACHINE

Also, have you head of L337 Gaming? I am starting to spot their boards but have never heard of the company.

 

[InvalidError]

but still decide to place a optional 3rd card slot on the 6th(with 4th slot) or 7th slot (with 5th slot). It is stupid design decisions like this that make me question the design teams.

I can think of one simple reason why many board designers decide not to put the 3rd GPU slot in 7th position: several cases only have 7 IO slots so there is no room for the 8th position a double-slot GPU would require. In those 7-slot cases, the motherboard's bottom edge may also butt straight against the PSU so there is no physical space to fit a 7-8th position double-slot GPU.

This makes 1/3/6, 1/4/6 and 2/4/6 the only three possible triple-GPU dual-slot configurations guaranteed to fit in the standard 7-slots ATX footprint.

 

[Crashman]

It's the fault of other reviewers. Remember when everyone complained about crowded DIMM latches?

Because of mounting screw locations, the two ways to "fix" the "serious issue" of crowded DIMM latches was to either make boards "deep" enough (front to back) to put the DIMMs on the "other side" (from the socket) of the second top screw and move them to the top edge, or move the graphics card down. Since Socket 370 and Socket 462 didn't usually need to be very deep to fit all the components, we got stuck with the graphics slot moved down and hundreds of reviewers praising the design. Except for me of course, because I usually think about this stuff before commenting on design.

That's also what killed most of the riser-card case designs that gave us slim gaming towers and short HTPC cases with big graphics. Those cases are beginning to gain acceptance now thanks to mini ITX, because mini ITX doesn't have a "wrong" place to put its single slot.

Granted, but all boards that are capable of quad gpu configurations use the 1st slot so it is no longer about the inability to fit DIMMs so I am unsure why any manufacturer would adhere to design adaptation based around a decade+ old issue. Even models without a x16 expansion in the 1st slot now typically has a x1 or x4 available which can accommodate long sound cards. What bugs me is the fact that boards that use the 1st and 4th or 5th slot for for two way Srossfire/SLI configurations but still decide to place a optional 3rd card slot on the 6th(with 4th slot) or 7th slot (with 5th slot). It is stupid design decisions like this that make me question the design teams.

Examples of such design:
ASRock X79 Extreme4
L337 Gaming GANK MACHINE

Also, have you head of L337 Gaming? I am starting to spot their boards but have never heard of the company.

I can easily explain the rationale behind the layout of those two boards: They're made to fit 3-way SLI in a 7-slot case.

8-slot cases are still not very common, particularly in the sub-$100 market. And when you do find them, well, compare the quality of the Three Hundred to the One Hundred, the seven slot case is vastly superior.

Anyway, some graphics cards have a vent hole in the PCB. That means you can stack two cards together, but not three, without causing heat issues. Looking at the two boards you showed, the middle card can draw air from above if the card's PCB has a vent above the fan.

So the two boards you showed try to make the best cooling situation out of a 7-slot case.

 

[slomo4sho]

I can think of one simple reason why many board designers decide not to put the 3rd GPU slot in 7th position: several cases only have 7 IO slots so there is no room for the 8th position a double-slot GPU would require. In those 7-slot cases, the motherboard's bottom edge may also butt straight against the PSU so there is no physical space to fit a 7-8th position double-slot GPU.

This makes 1/3/6, 1/4/6 and 2/4/6 the only three possible triple-GPU dual-slot configurations guaranteed to fit in the standard 7-slots ATX footprint.

Yet a majority of the motherboards that support a 3rd card have the board setup to accommodate the card in the 7th slot. Anyone that wants a 3 card setup needs to research such cases in advance unless they plan on running the cards under water. The examples I gave earlier are a minority when it comes to 3+ card boards.

 

[Crashman]

I can think of one simple reason why many board designers decide not to put the 3rd GPU slot in 7th position: several cases only have 7 IO slots so there is no room for the 8th position a double-slot GPU would require. In those 7-slot cases, the motherboard's bottom edge may also butt straight against the PSU so there is no physical space to fit a 7-8th position double-slot GPU.

This makes 1/3/6, 1/4/6 and 2/4/6 the only three possible triple-GPU dual-slot configurations guaranteed to fit in the standard 7-slots ATX footprint.

Yet a majority of the motherboards that support a 3rd card have the board setup to accommodate the card in the 7th slot. Anyone that wants a 3 card setup needs to research such cases in advance unless they plan on running the cards under water. The examples I gave earlier are a minority when it comes to 3+ card boards.

Of course. My preferred slot layout for 3-way SLI in a seven-slot case is 1-4-6. My preferred slot layout for 3-way SLI in an eight-slot case is 1-4-7. Case availability is the only issue there.

As for 2-5-7 slot layout, it's the worst of both AND the most common.

 

[de5_Roy]

L337 Gaming GANK MACHINE

Also, have you head of L337 Gaming? I am starting to spot their boards but have never heard of the company.

that is ECS' gaming division. ecs' email address is at the bottom of the newegg page.

 

[Crashman]

L337 Gaming GANK MACHINE

Also, have you head of L337 Gaming? I am starting to spot their boards but have never heard of the company.

that is ECS' gaming division. ecs' email address is at the bottom of the newegg page.

LOL, I was wondering when someone would realize the board had already been reviewed:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/z87-haswell-motherboard-review,3524-10.html

 

[slomo4sho]

LOL, I was wondering when someone would realize the board had already been reviewed:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/z87-haswell-motherboard-review,3524-10.html

I did read that review but I skipped over the motherboard details and went into the benchmarks. I recall that the ECS board was the most power hungry, ran the hottest, had the lowest CPU overclock of the lot, and to top it off was the most expensive model in the review. Needless to say, there was no compelling reason to go back and read the details of the ECS board and discover the details of their new branding efforts.

Thank you both for the clarification

 

[Onus]

I no longer dismiss ECS out of hand any more. While I wouldn't put them in the same league as Asus or ASRock, most of their boards seem to be using the same high-quality components the major manufacturers do.
I still won't touch a low-mid range MSI board, but after reviewing and being impressed by their Z77A-GD65 Gaming board, I'd consider their high-end products now too.

 

[slomo4sho]

I no longer dismiss ECS out of hand any more.

I only dismiss boards that perform sub-par when compared to similar products. The ECS board fit that bill in that previous review

 

[larsoncc]

Hi, I was the winner of this machine, thanks so much to Tom's. One of the cards had to be RMA'ed - I do wonder if results here were affected by a less than ideal card. I wanted to say thanks SO MUCH to Tom's and to mention that I've placed the guts of this machine into a Corsair Carbide Air 540. Likewise, I've added some SSD drives. I'll be sticking with the 760s until NVidia's next lineup comes out. If you're interested, I can say that due to improved airflow I was able to bench this machine on 3DMark11 at 19,100, using the same overclocking settings that Tom's used.

http://imgur.com/a/eEHNx#0 - some images of the rebuild and comparison to my old machine in an Antec 300.

http://forums.evga.com/tm.aspx?m=2049092 - I started posting in the EVGA forums. Those guys are great.

The cable management in this box when it arrived was great, given the case!