X58 To The Max: Three New Flagship LGA 1366 Motherboards

[Crashman]

Supporting Intel’s highest-performance processors with twice the bandwidth of its mainstream counterpart, the X58 chipset proves the staying power of good ideas. We take a closer look at what makes the latest generation of premium motherboards special.

X58 To The Max: Three New Flagship LGA 1366 Motherboards : Read more

 

[one-shot]

No EVGA SR-2?

Ok, Hold on. Three Flagship LGA 1366 Boards and no overclocked power consumption results? These boards are obviously made for overclocking and those results would be very interesting to see.

 

[Tamz_msc]

A good 250$ X58 board is enough for most people.

 

[Lmeow]

No EVGA SR-2?

The EVGA Classified SR-2 is based on the Intel 5520 chipset and uses Xeons, so it's not an X58 board technically speaking which is why it doesn't qualify.

If I could spend that much on a motherboard I'd have chosen the Rampage III Extreme, not only does it have good features it also has the best colour scheme. ^^

Does anyone know why I try to submit a comment it doesn't show up, and I have to use the forums instead to post a comment instead?

 

[lashabane]

I want more.

 

[sudeshc]

I am totally impressed by ASUS they always come up with best solution in every category, but the price is a killer for me

 

[rottingsheep]

IMO, the only interesting part about motherboard reviews is the overclocking and power consumption portion.

 

[avatar_raq]

Nice article..I have only catch: Of all the mobos tested, Quad SLI is not possible on the ASUS R3E, courtesy of nVIDIA's drivers
http://www.guru3d.com/news/quad-sli-on-asus-rampage-iii-extreme-is-not-possible/

 

[dragonfang18]

Whats the point when Intel will come out with new processors with different sockets next year?

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]avatar_raq[/nom]Nice article..I have only catch: Of all the mobos tested, Quad SLI is not possible on the ASUS R3E, courtesy of nVIDIA's drivershttp://www.guru3d.com/news/quad-sl [...] -possible/[/citation]
Awesome, thanks. Manufacturers don't actually discuss this stuff.
[citation][nom]dragonfang18[/nom]Whats the point when Intel will come out with new processors with different sockets next year?[/citation]That's what people like you were saying months before LGA 1156 was released. We see which direction that went.

 

[dragonfang18]

That's what people like you were saying months before LGA 1156 was released. We see which direction that went.

Yeah... they are changing 1366 to some socket R... Well... At least I can look forward to these motherboards going down in price by next year when they go to Socket R's for performance than 1366's. I guess ill be happy with 1366's. Hopefully they go down by at least $100.

 

[lenoxlv]

2 FPS difference in games. They should have shown what would be the difference if the boards would be OCed.

 

[digitalrazoe]

What irritates me is the fact that you have a 6+ PCIe 16 board ( with the exception of the ASUS ) and you still cant get full 16 all the way through with out either a bunch of glue chips or "lopping it off" at the legs - 16x/8x ok .. but 16/8/4 ? c'mon .. can someone develop a chipset that will give the USER the option of lopping off legs reassigning resources where needed ? Granted for TRUE quad SLI 72 lanes is desirable (48 is ok in a 16/8/16/8 fashion .. ) but enough is enough .. Intel, nVida, AMD make a chipset that when we plug in .. we get what we want how we want it .. it would mean return customers and money in your pocket and a smile on a system builders face .. (96 lane board should do it ... )

 

[falchard]

I think MSI won here not ASUS. More features on less power with cooler temperatures at a negligible performance hit of half a percent that can be attributed to the error with Vantage.

I don't like any of the motherboards PCI-e layouts. Its a top range board but only assumes to run 2 cards well. Then confuses the user by placing a bunch of half/quarter speed PCI-e slots. X8 on x16 lane is fine, but x4 is not.

 

[Emperus]

MSI is the winner in this clearly though i personally would end up getting the R3E.. I've always felt two video cards as the max needed in the real world (never mind the synthetics and folding@home) so on that account, both the MSI and the Asus boards scope a homerun whereas the Gigabyte model may just end up as the company's trojan horse to showcase their engineering strengths at overclock events.. I feel the EVGA 4X SLI classified should've been included in the showdown.. The absence of USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gbps should not be the criteria to leave out such a lovely board (oh! May be the price and absence of crossfire support disqualify it)..

 

[mrhoshos96]

why get a x58a ud9 and you can get the evga sr2 for less

 

[anamaniac]

[citation][nom]mrhoshos96[/nom]why get a x58a ud9 and you can get the evga sr2 for less[/citation]
While the SR2 is nice, I have no need for dual socket. As nice as it would be.

The only thing the UD9 is missing is three more DIMMs (9 total). I know some server boards have 9 DIMMs per CPU, why not any enthusiast boards?

I want the UD9, put 12GB RAM in it, two 5870's, a nice sound card and a nice NIC (when going extreme, may as well go the full way right?).
Too bad I quit my job and can't afford it now. :/

Can we ever expect 7/8 way SLI/CF drivers? I, for one, would love to use 7 single slot 5770's.

 

[Hupiscratch]

I'd rather wait for PCI-E 3.0

 

[voicu83]

what's the use of testing ultra expensive motherboards without the best processor it could fit on it and with a 4 or more array of the most powerfull video cards on earth? this review is like reading the features on the mb's box ... nothing exceptional

 

[scook9]

An EVGA board should have been included (and they DO support crossfire)

Also, no mention was made of the superior Intel Ethernet adapter in the R3E vs the crappy realtek ones in the other boards

 

[squallypie]

gosh, why are there no amd chipset mobos :-(! i really want something that compares the chipsets atleast

 

[RADIO_ACTIVE]

I want all three of the!!!

 

[ares1214]

How did they name Asus the winner here??? in all the performance tests, asus won by less than 1% at best, and then in efficiency and power consumption, MSI destroyed. It also costs 70$ less, so how exactly isnt MSI the winner here?

 

[bjrobert]

I know it's not part of your guys' normal testing setup, but you really should consider adding some form of water cooling for these flagship mobo comparisons. Right now all the scores bunch together because the bottleneck is not the boards, but rather the heat.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]lenoxlv[/nom]2 FPS difference in games. They should have shown what would be the difference if the boards would be OCed.[/citation]
Same thing, it's the same chipset and all the boards overclocked to nearly the same speed![citation][nom]ares1214[/nom]How did they name Asus the winner here??? in all the performance tests, asus won by less than 1% at best, and then in efficiency and power consumption, MSI destroyed. It also costs 70$ less, so how exactly isnt MSI the winner here?[/citation]The slot order is all screwed up so there goes any gaming win. It doesn't offer as many overclocking features so there goes any extreme-O/C win.
[citation][nom]bjrobert[/nom]I know it's not part of your guys' normal testing setup, but you really should consider adding some form of water cooling for these flagship mobo comparisons. Right now all the scores bunch together because the bottleneck is not the boards, but rather the heat.[/citation]
Actually it's not the heat, it's the voltage. Really, cooling the lab down brought lower CPU temperatures, but not higher overclocks. If you think 1.45V is too little for this core, well, there's a reason this CPU has lasted through many months of reviews!