Best mother 990fx chipset?

[dragondelvalle]

well, im about to get a new high end pc, from amd, and i want to know wich mother is the best for gaming,
the asus V formula
or
the msi 990fxa-gd80

i dont want responces based on what do you like, i want proves
thx

 

[MacLeod]

I think the Sabertooth is the best. Bulletproof design and build quality and its built to handle very heavy overclocking with great VRM, NB cooling. The Crosshair V is definitely superb as well but you're paying for a lot of options and features that you wont use in all likelihood. AMD chips are power hungry and if you're gong to be overclocking you want a board that's built like a tank. The Sabertooth is just that.

Oh and in before all the AMD hate.

 

[wotevajjjj]

ud7 is best mate, but the sabertooth is also great

 

[jamesriley94]

well, im about to get a new high end pc, from amd, and i want to know wich mother is the best for gaming,
the asus V formula
or
the msi 990fxa-gd80

i dont want responces based on what do you like, i want proves
thx

Have you already bought the AMD processor?
If you really want to know what's best for gaming - it wouldn't be AMD.

Out of the two though, I'd say the Crosshair

 

[dragondelvalle]

well, i have the rest of the pc, just looking for a very high end mother for the rest
i have

amd fx 8350
32 gb ram Corsair Vengance 4x8 1866Mhz
x2 sapphire R7970 lightning
and a corsair H100 for the cpu
just need a very high end mother to put all this

 

[jamesriley94]

What do you use the PC for?

I'd still say the crosshair.

 

[dragondelvalle]

for gaming, editing video and common use, thats all

 

[Zeek]

x2 sapphire R7970 lightning

:huh:

Pretty much agree with everyone else. Out of the two I'd get the crosshair.

 

[dragondelvalle]

well, thx all, im seding the request for the crosshair

 

[rossi94]

I would prefer the Maximus over the Sabertooth, because I hate the sound of these little 40 mm fans. Whatever you want to do with this pc, AMD is the wrong choice ...

 

[jamesriley94]

I would prefer the Maximus over the Sabertooth, because I hate the sound of these little 40 mm fans.

We're on 990FX chipset.
Aren't any fans on the sabertooth.

And it's crosshair* not maximus.

 

[MacLeod]

I would prefer the Maximus over the Sabertooth, because I hate the sound of these little 40 mm fans. Whatever you want to do with this pc, AMD is the wrong choice ...

Ridiculous. Other than winning benchmark competitions, you can have a perfectly capable and very high performing rig with an AMD chip.

 

[dragondelvalle]

another intel defensor? i will not pay a LOT more for just a bit of diference, i preffer give money to another companies that can fight against the monopoly of intel

 

[Kidbest100]

I personally built a rig based on the 990FX Sabertooth board.

NO Complaints! Amazing board, rock solid design, decent looks, and great overclocking capabilities for its range.

I have not ever used the MSI one but from what I know, the Sabertooth one is better in reviews, and in real rigs.

 

[jamesriley94]

another intel defensor? i will not pay a LOT more for just a bit of diference, i preffer give money to another companies that can fight against the monopoly of intel

Tbf, I 100% back AMD. I'm not a fanboy, only been on Intel for about 6 months.

But looking at stats nowadays, there's like a 40% difference core/core between Piledriver and Ivybridge.

It's no longer the case of paying a lot more for a bit more performance. It's paying about £20 for a lot of performance in real world, low threaded applications, like games, and general tasks like internet and emails.

When it comes to rendering, there's only a little difference due to the number of cores AMD has. But you have to see that if you're building a gaming rig, when games only use maximum of 3 cores, then it's a little daft to buy an 8 core AMD processor when a quad core Intel processor does perform significantly better.

Benchmarks seem to throw people into thinking there's only a little difference because half the benchmarks will utilise all the cores. But take this for example,
On Passmark, the AMD 8350 scores 9236 whilst the 3570k scores 7143 on half as many cores.
Meaning, 1 AMD core scores 1154.5, whilst the Intel scores 1785.75 per core. That means, per core, Intel is 54% faster.
Current prices in the UK, 3570k is £161.94 on Aria, the 8350 is £143.94

Cba to work out price percentages, but I'm sure you can see that that isn't a lot more money for a bit of performance.

 

[dragondelvalle]

here in argentina is diferent, the mothers for intel cpus cost a lot more, the intel cpu cost more, thats why i go for amd, im looking for a very nice pc, but with some cost/performance

 

[MacLeod]

Nobody can deny that Intel makes a faster processor than AMD. That's just a fact. However too many people make it out like you wont even be able to boot into Windows with an AMD processor or that you'll only be getting half the frame rates with an AMD chip. This is just wrong.

HardOCP likes to showcase their Intel chips by benching Lost Planet at 800x600! That's totally meaningless and paints a very unrealistic picture of AMD chips. If you're using a single video card there is going to be very little difference in the frame rates you'll get whether its powered by a 8350, 3770 or even 3930. The truth is that any of these chips have the horsepower to feed any single video card.

A couple guys on OCN took a 8350 at 4.8 and a 3570 at 4.8 and a PAIR of 7970's and ran some benches at 1920x1080. The differences were minimal and nothing you'd notice in real world game play.

Now when you crank up the resolution to over 2560x1600 and use multiple GPU's then that is when the superior speed of the Intel chips start to show up and that's when they start to pull away.

So I'll be the first one to admit that if you're gaming at 5760x1200 and using a pair of GTX680's then you're going to be better off with a i5 or i7 at the helm. But if you're on a single card and/or at 2560x1600 or below, AMD is still more than capable.

Intel is faster. I'll never deny that but AMD is still plenty fast and perfectly capable and Ill defend that til I'm blue in the face.

 

[dragondelvalle]

Nobody can deny that Intel makes a faster processor than AMD. That's just a fact. However too many people make it out like you wont even be able to boot into Windows with an AMD processor or that you'll only be getting half the frame rates with an AMD chip. This is just wrong.

HardOCP likes to showcase their Intel chips by benching Lost Planet at 800x600! That's totally meaningless and paints a very unrealistic picture of AMD chips. If you're using a single video card there is going to be very little difference in the frame rates you'll get whether its powered by a 8350, 3770 or even 3930. The truth is that any of these chips have the horsepower to feed any single video card.

A couple guys on OCN took a 8350 at 4.8 and a 3570 at 4.8 and a PAIR of 7970's and ran some benches at 1920x1080. The differences were minimal and nothing you'd notice in real world game play.

Now when you crank up the resolution to over 2560x1600 and use multiple GPU's then that is when the superior speed of the Intel chips start to show up and that's when they start to pull away.

So I'll be the first one to admit that if you're gaming at 5760x1200 and using a pair of GTX680's then you're going to be better off with a i5 or i7 at the helm. But if you're on a single card and/or at 2560x1600 or below, AMD is still more than capable.

Intel is faster. I'll never deny that but AMD is still plenty fast and perfectly capable and Ill defend that til I'm blue in the face.

well... i have the same opinion thats why i will use amd