The motherboard that never was?

[Thelosouvlakia]

Hey guys, I was wondering whether anyone of you can find the asus 990fx sabertooth with the pcie3.0 slots at your retaliers? http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/SABERTOOTH_990FXGEN3_R20/
I can't find it anywhere in Greece, which makes me wonder whether asus actually made any of these boards

 

[Dicehunter]

Hey guys, I was wondering whether anyone of you can find the asus 990fx sabertooth with the pcie3.0 slots at your retaliers? http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/SABERTOOTH_990FXGEN3_R20/
I can't find it anywhere in Greece, which makes me wonder whether asus actually made any of these boards

My friend at work has a Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 with a 9590 in it also OCUK stock it but not sure if they do internationall shiping -

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-576-AS

 

[Thelosouvlakia]

I can find that board in greece for a good price around 150Euros but that's not the board I'm looking for. (If you were kind enough to click on my link .-.)

 

[Tripp]

you really wont see a difference between PCI-e 3 and 2

 

[shambles1980]

umm i thought amd didnt do pci-e 3 instead had more lanes for pci-e 2
which works out the same..
2 pci-e 3 at x8 has the same bandwidth as 2x pci-e 2 x16
but nothing will utilize the bandwidth of 1x pci-e 3 x16
so its all the same really..

id venture a guess here that any amd cpu based board that says it has pci-e 3.0 is really just using 32 lanes pci-e 2 rather than 16 lanes of pci-e 3.

its all just bandwidth in the end of the day, and like i said pci-e 3 would have 2 cards running at 8x each because of the ammount of lanes available and achieve the exact same bandwidth as 2 cards on amd running at 16x each because of the 32 lanes..

for single cards it makes no diference because nothing can fully utilize all the bandwidth of pci-e 2.. and untill a single card that works well can fully saturate 16 lanes of pci-e 2, pci-e 3 is just a bit of a gimick
If a single card does come that can start to eat in to x16 pci-e 3's bandwidth then intels pci-e 3 would need to come with more lanes or running those cards in xfire/sli would be a bottle neck.

so really pci-e 3.0 as it is now would only really be an improvment for a single card setup IF a single card could use more bandwidth than 16x pci-e 2 can provide. untill then its prety much exactly the same as pci-e 2 in terms of the amount of bandwidth that can be fully utilized.

 

[SUPERFLY013]

Hey guys, I was wondering whether anyone of you can find the asus 990fx sabertooth with the pcie3.0 slots at your retaliers? http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/SABERTOOTH_990FXGEN3_R20/
I can't find it anywhere in Greece, which makes me wonder whether asus actually made any of these boards

To answer your question they did make them, but not for very long. I was only for around 3 months here in the states. Ever since then, I haven't been able to find them anywhere, and if I do find one its marked up to $600... for a $180 board.. If you find one at a good price, don't hesitate.

 

[Thelosouvlakia]

@superfly013 that's all I needed to know! Thanks

 

[Phenakism]

It was a basically a limited edition board.

 

[SUPERFLY013]

@superfly013 that's all I needed to know! Thanks

Your welcome

 

[Dicehunter]

Just save up some extra cash and go the Intel route, Less heat output, Less wattage, More performance.

It's a no brainer unless you like throwing away your money on an AMD chip.

 

[SUPERFLY013]

Just save up some extra cash and go the Intel route, Less heat output, Less wattage, More performance.

It's a no brainer unless you like throwing away your money on an AMD chip.

No reason to be biased here.. My chip runs pretty good at 4.7 for what it cost. I'm not saying one is better than the other but to each their own and I see a benefit to both sides.

 

[Dicehunter]

No reason to be biased here.. My chip runs pretty good at 4.7 for what it cost. I'm not saying one is better than the other but to each their own and I see a benefit to both sides.

An AMD chip at 4.70GHZ, Even the 8350 or even the 9590 is beaten by an i5, You cannot compare clock speed of AMD to Intel, Different ball parks.

I really shouldn't have to point out the benefits of going Intel over AMD again, Less heat, Less power draw, Much better performance.

I personally don't give a hoot about AMD or Intel, But getting AMD right now is a bit of silly choice.

AMD was good, They are not anymore, I was an AMD fanboy but their whole FX line is a joke, Their actual FX line doesn't even support PCI-E 3.0 properly, I hope they bring something out that can actually compete soon.

 

[SUPERFLY013]

An AMD chip at 4.70GHZ is beaten by an i5.

I really shouldn't have to point out the benefits of going Intel over AMD again, Less heat, Less power draw, Much better performance.

I work with what I already have. No sense for anyone to have to put out more money than necessary. It's one thing to be starting from stratch and another to work off of something. At the time of getting the chip fx had just came out and I was not making enough to afford intel so I I just upgraded what I had and it has worked ever since. I like it and that is all that matters. besides 32c doesn't seem very hot to me anyways and I have plenty of headroom on my psu. So I really don't see any point as of now.
They have also gone over gaming performance again and again and the gpu bottlenecks before a real performance difference is really seen.
Unless you want to send me an i7 4790k and a z97 mk1 I suggest we leave it at that.
This conversation is now really off topic

 

[Dicehunter]

I work with what I already have. No sense for anyone to have to put out more money than necessary. It's one thing to be starting from stratch and another to work off of something. At the time of getting the chip fx had just came out and I was not making enough to afford intel so I I just upgraded what I had and it has worked ever since. I like it and that is all that matters. besides 32c doesn't seem very hot to me anyways and I have plenty of headroom on my psu. So I really don't see any point as of now.
They have also gone over gaming performance again and again and the gpu bottlenecks before a real performance difference is really seen.
Unless you want to send me an i7 4790k and a z97 mk1 I suggest we leave it at that.
This conversation is now really off topic

This isn't about what you want so please keep it on topic

We are trying to help the man make an intelligent decision, He has the choice to get Intel he said so himself so I hope he takes that route, AMD as of this moment in time is a waste of money.

*Edit* or not, guess he edited that out.

Anyway lets leave it at that.

 

[SUPERFLY013]

We're not going off topic we are trying to help the man make an intelligent decision, He has the choice to get Intel he said so himself so I hope he takes that route, AMD as of this moment in time is a waste of money.

I agree with you there as they haven't came out with anything new worth really spending money on but if he already had a good chip and was looking to just upgrade his board then there wouldn't make sense to spend another $230 on a chip. I myself wouldn't anyways. I'd only switch with my board took my cpu down with it (which it just might I don't trust my board lol)

Ed. Yea I don't remember him saying anything about intel but oh well. I will make the switch one day. Just not yet.... When the time is right...

 

[shambles1980]

the 8350 isnt that bad. its reputation is worse than it actually is. amd shouldnt have shared fpu and they cut some corners wit the manufaturing using automated tools to do/design stuff they normaly would have done by hand "which intel still do by hand"
and those 2 points imo is where it mostly went wrong..
but with scheduling fixes for windows 7 and later. an 8350 really inst bad at all. id prefer a 3770k personally. but there is nothing really wrong with a gaming build with a 8350 cpu..

the 81xx cpus i really disslike and you can say what you want about those. you can say a core 2 quad is better and i would'nt put up much of an argument. (if the quad was oc'd and the 81xx was at stock)

but i dont think that an i5 can out perform a 8350 by enough in the tasks that it does out perform it in for any one to say that its just so much better.
between an i5 and a 8350 id get which ever setup is cheapest "whole system not just cpu. including a board that has the right pwm's"

and a 9590 is just a pointless cpu really, its just a over clocked 8350 and really if any one over clocked their 8350 and hit the temps of a 9590.. they would have said well lets just back that oc down a bit.

any way thought id but in here play abit of devils advocate, and generally spout some of my opinions that no one wants to hear

 

[SUPERFLY013]

the 8350 isnt that bad. its reputation is worse than it actually is. amd shouldnt have shared fpu and they cut some corners wit the manufaturing using automated tools to do/design stuff they normaly would have done by hand "which intel still do by hand"
and those 2 points imo is where it mostly went wrong..
but with scheduling fixes for windows 7 and later. an 8350 really inst bad at all. id prefer a 3770k personally. but there is nothing really wrong with a gaming build with a 8350 cpu..

the 81xx cpus i really disslike and you can say what you want about those. you can say a core 2 quad is better and i would'nt put up much of an argument. (if the quad was oc'd and the 81xx was at stock)

but i dont think that an i5 can out perform a 8350 by enough in the tasks that it does out perform it in for any one to say that its just so much better.
between an i5 and a 8350 id get which ever setup is cheapest "whole system not just cpu. including a board that has the right pwm's"

and a 9590 is just a pointless cpu really, its just a over clocked 8350 and really if any one over clocked their 8350 and hit the temps of a 9590.. they would have said well lets just back that oc down a bit.

any way thought id but in here play abit of devils advocate, and generally spout some of my opinions that no one wants to hear

Haha, but yea this is what I was trying to get at somewhat I really don't know what I'm talking about over here, quite tired (I know that's not an excuse) but you basically have my thinking. BTW if a board is all Thelosouvlakia is looking for, msi just came out with a really nice 970 gaming series board and around £55. Real solid board for the price might pick one up for myself before this gigabyte board takes down everything in a hot and fiery mess

 

[Dicehunter]

I could honestly not recommend an AMD cpu at this point in time, Best and most logical route is to save up a while longer and go Intel.

I'm by no means an Intel fan boy I've had AMD going back before the Core 2 Duos came out, My file server has an 8350 because I got it dirt cheap and undervolted it but for my main rig I would never put AMD in there at least not until they come out with something good.

Too much heat, Too much power consumption and not enough performance for the heat and power it uses.

 

[SUPERFLY013]

I could honestly not recommend an AMD cpu at this point in time, Best and most logical route is to save up a while longer and go Intel.

I'm by no means an Intel fan boy I've had AMD going back before the Core 2 Duos came out, My file server has an 8350 because I got it dirt cheap and undervolted it but for my main rig I would never put AMD in there at least not until they come out with something good.

Too much heat, Too much power consumption and not enough performance for the heat and power it uses.

Hmmmm.... Cheap and dirty...sound familiar hahaha

 

[RamboOC]

Just save up some extra cash and go the Intel route, Less heat output, Less wattage, More performance.

It's a no brainer unless you like throwing away your money on an AMD chip.

+1 ^^^
Futhermore The clock speed:ipc ratio is just terrible

3.5 GHZ i5-4690 beats "8 core" 5 ghz AMD in ~90% of benchmarks, and all game benchmarks i have seen