Question Which of these two motherboards for a 14700K ?

[SparkyPC]

Hi, I am between these two boards and cant decide easily:

1) Gigabyte Z790 D AX rev. 1.0 Wi-Fi

2) Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Elite AX rev. 1.0 Wi-Fi

I'm pretty budget oriented and really want to get the best bang for my buck available.
I know the prices vary between country to country but i found the D AX for 170 euros while the AORUS one is 230 euros.

Is the 60 euro price difference worth it for what im getting? I wont have too much stuff hooked up on the mobo anyway, only one NVME for example I just care a lot about my CPU and want it to get powered on and work properly. It will be cooled with a 240 AIO and im pretty positive ill be able to overclock it at least to 5.8 with good enough VRM control and a good paste. Right now in my b760 mobo it doesnt pass 60 Celcius on max load.

For any more info please dont hesitate to ask

 

[Lutfij]

I know the prices vary between country to country but i found the D AX for 170 euros while the AORUS one is 230 euros.
You're paying for a higher quality VRM area on the Z790 AORUS ELITE AX (rev. 1.0)

Is the 60 euro price difference worth it for what im getting?
IMHO, yes.

I wont have too much stuff hooked up on the mobo anyway, only one NVME for example I just care a lot about my CPU and want it to get powered on and work properly.
What sort of tasks are you looking to tax the system with? What about upgrading your storage with more drives?

Right now in my b760 mobo it doesnt pass 60 Celcius on max load.
Hang on, what's the make and model of your current board and why are you swapping to the Z series chipset?

For any more info please dont hesitate to ask
On second thoughts, please list the specs to your build like so:
CPU:
CPU cooler:
Motherboard:
Ram:
SSD/HDD:
GPU:
PSU:
Chassis:
OS:
Monitor:
include the age of the PSU apart from it's make and model. BIOS version for your motherboard at this moment of time.

 

[Aeacus]

Diff here, comparison: https://www.gigabyte.com/Comparison/Consumer/Result/2?pids=9167,9488

Aorus Elite AX has better VRM (more phases), one extra M.2 slot, more USB ports, faster USB ports etc. Your call if all that is worth the price diff.

 

[ak47jar3d]

The vrm will be better on elite. The i7 14700k is pretty hard to overclock without hitting a thermal wall. I would still get the better elite if you can afford it as that processor can pull 250w and even more when overclocked.

 

[geofelt]

Overclocking is no longer worth it for modern processors,
They are binned and the better chips are used in higher priced versions.
There is very little headroom.
Overclocking anything to 5.8 on all cores is unlikely. Possible, perhaps on a good 14900KS.

 

[SparkyPC]

Overclocking is no longer worth it for modern processors,
They are binned and the better chips are used in higher priced versions.
There is very little headroom.
Overclocking anything to 5.8 on all cores is unlikely. Possible, perhaps on a good 14900KS.

I'm pretty sure i can overclock it based on this video:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB0IatLZBqE&list=LL&index=1

 

[Aeacus]

I'm pretty sure i can overclock it based on this video:

Well, 5.8 Ghz on P-core and 4.5 Ghz on E-core is a mere 200 Mhz over max boost clocks. So, 0 difference in actual performance.
But "technically", it is still considered OC since it's more than turbo clocks.


Back in the day, with older CPUs, CPU OC was worthwhile.
E.g i have i5-6600K with 3.5 GHz base and 3.9 Ghz boost. With CPU OC, i could get it 4.5 Ghz all core (increase of 600 Mhz over boost), or with delid, ~4.7 Ghz all core (800 Mhz over boost). And there have been some delidded i5-6600K CPUs, that can hold 5 Ghz all core.

Essentially from Intel 12th gen and onwards, most chips out there can only hold all core stable 100-300 Mhz over max boost. That gain is so little, that CPU OC with current, highly efficient chips, isn't worthwhile. There won't be any meaningful performance increase.
If the headroom would be bigger, like it is with my 6th gen CPU, where on minimum, i look towards 600 Mhz increase over boost clocks (or up to 1.1 Ghz over boost, if very lucky with delidded chip), then CPU OC makes sense.

All-in-all, CPU OC is dying niche and outside of record breaking, isn't worth the effort anymore. Better to run stock clocks and let CPU to decide when to turbo up. Less energy waste and less heat production this way also. Not to mention CPU lifespan, since when running stock clocks, CPU lifespan is easy 10+ years. Running all core OC 24/7 will reduce CPU lifespan considerably. E.g if i were to run 4.5 Ghz on my i5-6600K, i could cut the CPU lifespan in half. And when running CPU at high OC levels, the absolute maximum CPU is able to run at (e.g ~4.7 Ghz on my i5-6600K), you can burn out the chip in 1-2 years.

 

[SparkyPC]

Well, 5.8 Ghz on P-core and 4.5 Ghz on E-core is a mere 200 Mhz over max boost clocks. So, 0 difference in actual performance.
But "technically", it is still considered OC since it's more than turbo clocks.


Back in the day, with older CPUs, CPU OC was worthwhile.
E.g i have i5-6600K with 3.5 GHz base and 3.9 Ghz boost. With CPU OC, i could get it 4.5 Ghz all core (increase of 600 Mhz over boost), or with delid, ~4.7 Ghz all core (800 Mhz over boost). And there have been some delidded i5-6600K CPUs, that can hold 5 Ghz all core.

Essentially from Intel 12th gen and onwards, most chips out there can only hold all core stable 100-300 Mhz over max boost. That gain is so little, that CPU OC with current, highly efficient chips, isn't worthwhile. There won't be any meaningful performance increase.
If the headroom would be bigger, like it is with my 6th gen CPU, where on minimum, i look towards 600 Mhz increase over boost clocks (or up to 1.1 Ghz over boost, if very lucky with delidded chip), then CPU OC makes sense.

All-in-all, CPU OC is dying niche and outside of record breaking, isn't worth the effort anymore. Better to run stock clocks and let CPU to decide when to turbo up. Less energy waste and less heat production this way also. Not to mention CPU lifespan, since when running stock clocks, CPU lifespan is easy 10+ years. Running all core OC 24/7 will reduce CPU lifespan considerably. E.g if i were to run 4.5 Ghz on my i5-6600K, i could cut the CPU lifespan in half. And when running CPU at high OC levels, the absolute maximum CPU is able to run at (e.g ~4.7 Ghz on my i5-6600K), you can burn out the chip in 1-2 years.

You are exactly right.
The only reason i disagreed is because technically I can OC negating the comment above. And the guy in the video didnt over voltage the CPU i think it will still have its 10+ lifespan with those settings.

As i stated before, my B760 Motherboard only has 4+1+1 VRM'S and I get a massive 30-40% decrease in max performance with no option in BIOS to increase further. Hence why I opted for a better motherboard since its wasted money running it like that.

I remember back in 3770k era the OC was much better, but indeed these chips today are so fast that theres practically no reason to overclock, however since i got the K model i can just try for fun to see what lottery results I got

 

[DSzymborski]

What do you mean by "30-40% decrease in max performance?" What exactly are you measuring and what are the actual numbers? Neither upgrade is bang for the buck since you already have a functioning build, so the first thing is to gauge what the actual problem is that you're trying to solve. As Luftij asked above, what exactly is your current b750 motherboard?

 

[SparkyPC]

What do you mean by "30-40% decrease in max performance?" What exactly are you measuring and what are the actual numbers? Neither upgrade is bang for the buck since you already have a functioning build, so the first thing is to gauge what the actual problem is that you're trying to solve. As Luftij asked above, what exactly is your current b750 motherboard?

It's a gigabyte b760m D3HP.
The reason i didnt comment further was because i already made another thread in the CPU section that kinda went viral. All the answers are in there if you wanna take a look:

[SOLVED] - 14700K is fine at 5.6ghz under no load, but once i stress test it, it drops to 5ghz or even less ?

Hi guys, I tried everything. CPU temps don't go above 60C but as soon as I try to stress test it, the frequency drops sometimes even below 5ghz. My XTU score is only 9k where other people at 5.6ghz with AIO cooler like me reach around 13k. It must be something with the voltage or a blockage that...

forums.tomshardware.com

 

[Aeacus]

And the guy in the video didnt over voltage the CPU i think it will still have its 10+ lifespan with those settings.

That bloke in the vid only sat in BIOS, without exiting, booting to OS and validating stable CPU OC with CPU bench.
Anyone can set high multiplier in BIOS and show off high core frequencies. But it matters 0 when PC fails to boot once exiting BIOS.

however since i got the K model i can just try for fun to see what lottery results I got

I don't get much why to OC CPU in the 1st place. It's like running car's engine at 7000 RPM at all times, just because. While wasting fuel and wearing out engine faster. Same with all core CPU OC. Pointless to let cores run at 5.8 Ghz just because. Better to run low clocks on idle and let CPU to increase clocks when need be (aka default settings).

 

[SparkyPC]

That bloke in the vid only sat in BIOS, without exiting, booting to OS and validating stable CPU OC with CPU bench.
Anyone can set high multiplier in BIOS and show off high core frequencies. But it matters 0 when PC fails to boot once exiting BIOS.


I don't get much why to OC CPU in the 1st place. It's like running car's engine at 7000 RPM at all times, just because. While wasting fuel and wearing out engine faster. Same with all core CPU OC. Pointless to let cores run at 5.8 Ghz just because. Better to run low clocks on idle and let CPU to increase clocks when need be (aka default settings).

Isn't it suppose to behave normally, but when under load it can reach the 5.8ghz? I dont want it to always run at 5.8Ghz

 

[thestryker]

Gigabyte hadn't changed memory topology on their Z790 boards when those two were released so the only differences between them are power delivery and the slot layouts.

ASRock tends to have better features vs cost at the budget end and sometimes MSI can as well (not as much with Z790 as I recall) so it might be worth looking at what else is available to you.

 

[SparkyPC]

Gigabyte hadn't changed memory topology on their Z790 boards when those two were released so the only differences between them are power delivery and the slot layouts.

ASRock tends to have better features vs cost at the budget end and sometimes MSI can as well (not as much with Z790 as I recall) so it might be worth looking at what else is available to you.

MSI was reported to have buggy software and Asrock is awesome however the budget ones all lack wifi module for some reason and buying that extra makes it a better option to get the gigabyte ones

 

[thestryker]

MSI was reported to have buggy software

What are you talking about? If it's motherboard control software every manufacturer's are a mess and should only be used if necessary.

Asrock is awesome however the budget ones all lack wifi module for some reason

These are low cost models here and even though WiFi is in the name there aren't non-WiFi versions:
ASRock Z790 Lightning WiFi
ASRock Z790 Steel Legend WiFi

Asus introduced the AYW series with Z790 which are good value, but have had wildly varying worldwide availability so I have no idea if any of those would be a possibility.

 

[SparkyPC]

What are you talking about? If it's motherboard control software every manufacturer's are a mess and should only be used if necessary.

These are low cost models here and even though WiFi is in the name there aren't non-WiFi versions:
ASRock Z790 Lightning WiFi
ASRock Z790 Steel Legend WiFi

Asus introduced the AYW series with Z790 which are good value, but have had wildly varying worldwide availability so I have no idea if any of those would be a possibility.

why do you suggest i dont go with gigabyte exactly? Every product was top notch so far that I bought from them

 

[thestryker]

why do you suggest i dont go with gigabyte exactly? Every product was top notch so far that I bought from them

There's nothing necessarily wrong with Gigabyte, but you shouldn't lock yourself into a single brand. In the budget area quality varies widely so getting the best quality part for your money should be far more important than which brand it comes from.

 

[Aeacus]

Isn't it suppose to behave normally, but when under load it can reach the 5.8ghz? I dont want it to always run at 5.8Ghz

For i7-14700K, it's P-core base clock is 3.4 Ghz and E-core base clock is 2.5 Ghz.

CPU turbo clocks are essentially built-in OC, whereby when load on CPU increases, the CPU itself (thanks to Intel Turbo Boost technology) overclocks the cores to a certain limit. For P-core, that's up to 5.5 Ghz (2.1 Ghz over base clocks) and for E-core, that's up to 4.3 Ghz (1.8 Ghz over base clocks), while single core can boost up to 5.6 Ghz.

Any higher than that and CPU itself isn't stable with default settings anymore. Hence why there's max turbo speeds of 5.5 Ghz for P-core and not 5.8 Ghz.

Now, in BIOS with CPU settings fiddle, you may get 5.8 Ghz stable or you may not. Also, manual tweaks usually disable CPU power saving features, whereby CPU won't downclock itself anymore (below base clocks) during idle. Wasting power and generating heat needlessly.

On default settings, you already are getting up to 2.1 Ghz overclock on your P-cores and up to 1.8 Ghz overclock on E-cores automatically (given that there aren't power or thermal restrictions). So, i don't quite get, why do you want that overclock to be 2.3 Ghz over base clock for P-cores and 2.0 Ghz over base clock for E-cores (200 Mhz extra). 🤔


In your previous topic, you stated that you want your CPU to operate at it's advertised speeds. Well, it does that. P-cores at 3.4 Ghz and E-cores at 2.5 Ghz. But do note that turbo clocks are "up to" and not "fixed" speeds. So, even when your P-cores doesn't turbo up to 5.5 Ghz and only at 5 Ghz, you are still getting advertised speeds.

If there aren't any limits (power and/or thermal), then your CPU should turbo up to 5.5 Ghz on P-cores. But when limits are in place (e.g too few VRM main phases, setting power limit), then CPU can't turbo as high. But would otherwise still work at advertised speeds of: 3.4 Ghz P-cores and 2.5 Ghz E-cores.