ATX vs MATX

[ihsus]

Are MATX / ITX boards worse than ATX in anything else than having less PCI-e and M.2 (and other) slots? Is there any performance/overclocking potential decrease with these boards? What is the difference in full size Intel Z790, AMD X670 ATX boards vs smaller sized Intel B760M and AMD B650M MATX boards?

 

CPU: 13700K or 7800X3D

[Alex Atkin UK]

4 minutes ago, sushi456 said:

Are MATX / ITX boards worse than ATX in anything else than having less PCI-e and M.2 (and other) slots? Is there any performance/overclocking potential decrease with these boards? What is the difference in full size Intel Z790, AMD X670 ATX boards vs smaller sized Intel B760M and AMD B650M MATX boards?

It depends, but ITX boards especially can have more limited overclocking as there isn't as much space to fit beefy VRMs.  But just like ATX, it varies between boards, some are good, some are bad.

I personally just switched my NAS/Server build from ITX to mATX as I found the lack of PCIe slots, M.2 and SATA ports very limiting.

[Applefreak]

2 minutes ago, sushi456 said:

Are MATX / ITX boards worse than ATX in anything else than having less PCI-e and M.2 (and other) slots? Is there any performance/overclocking potential decrease with these boards? What is the difference in full size Intel Z790, AMD X670 ATX boards vs smaller sized Intel B760M and AMD B650M MATX boards?

OC depends entirely on the board. There is no simple answer here. There are optimized OC boards in pretty much every shape and size. As for general performance, if you do not need the extra PCI-e slots and ports that full size ATX board may or may not have, generally µATX board load faster because of fewer components the OS will have to load. Other than that, it again comes down to what each model is specced with. The Z and X boards usually but not always have more ports and a more stable (more oversized) power delivery layout best suited for 8+ core CPUs and a decent amount of OC.

[ihsus]

4 minutes ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

It depends, but ITX boards especially can have more limited overclocking as there isn't as much space to fit beefy VRMs.  But just like ATX, it varies between boards, some are good, some are bad.

I personally just switched my NAS/Server build from ITX to mATX as I found the lack of PCIe slots, M.2 and SATA ports very limiting.

I am only going to populate 1 PCIe and one M.2. I don't need the slots, I am curious about the overclocking potential or other performance limiting factors.

[ihsus]

2 minutes ago, Applefreak said:

OC depends entirely on the board. There is no simple answer here. There are optimized OC boards in pretty much every shape and size. As for general performance, if you do not need the extra PCI-e slots and ports that full size ATX board may or may not have, generally µATX board load faster because of fewer components the OS will have to load. Other than that, it again comes down to what each model is specced with. The Z and X boards usually but not always have more ports and a more stable (more oversized) power delivery layout best suited for 8+ core CPUs and a decent amount of OC.

I am planning on getting 13700K or 7800X3D and don't know if it's possible to bottleneck the CPU by motherboard.

[Poinkachu]

6 minutes ago, sushi456 said:

I am only going to populate 1 of each. I don't need the slots, I am curious about the overclocking potential or other performance limiting factors.

it differs from board to board. And depends on what level of overclocking you want to do on it.

There are ATXes that suck for overclocking too.

 

If you are unsure of the board, just make a post on "New Builds & Planning" sub-forum, be specific of what you want and the peoples here will gladly be of help & share insight.

[Applefreak]

Just now, sushi456 said:

I am planning on getting 13700K or 7800X3D and don't know if it's possible to bottleneck the CPU by motherboard.

Not possible unless you get some weird branded one that no one has ever heard of. Any ASUS, MSI, GigaByte, EVGA, etc. board will do fine with those processors. Just make sure to get the one that fits your needs in terms of layout, ports and connectors. I do recommend investing some some into board reviews to get an idea what the board you are looking for is capable off, if you plan on more than mild overclocking.

[Supersonicwolfe]

24 minutes ago, sushi456 said:

Are MATX / ITX boards worse than ATX in anything else than having less PCI-e and M.2 (and other) slots? Is there any performance/overclocking potential decrease with these boards? What is the difference in full size Intel Z790, AMD X670 ATX boards vs smaller sized Intel B760M and AMD B650M MATX boards?

 

CPU: 13700K or 7800X3D

Advise against ITX due to density and cost, unless you need to use ITX boards.

 

But on the other hand, ITX is actually preferred for competitive memory overclocking.

 

Most full ATX boards only have 1 full x16 PCIe slot anyway, the other slots are only x8 or x4, unless you go for the top of the line.

[Alex Atkin UK]

32 minutes ago, Supersonicwolfe said:

Most full ATX boards only have 1 full x16 PCIe slot anyway, the other slots are only x8 or x4, unless you go for the top of the line.

You make that sound like they're useless.  If you end up stuck with a board with only Gigabit ethernet ports, or have problems with the on-board NIC, then having a x4 slot you can put a fast NIC into is very useful.  Also if you have a none-WiFi board, adding WiFi is easy, and easier to upgrade when WiFi 7 comes out than integrated WiFi that might be limited to CNVi or just hard to get to the M.2 slot as they like to hide it under the VRM heatsink/shield which is daunting and generally requires dismantling the entire PC to get to.

[Mister Woof]

The main issue with mATX isn't really the stardard itself, it's just that more often than not that is the standard used for more budget boards.

Full ATX for higher end enthusiast boards, and mini ITX for compact forms. Both options have their share of low end offerings and super high end offerings, but mATX tends to mostly be low to mid-range only.

[mariushm]

mATX is just vertically smaller, fewer pci-e slots at the bottom. 

Motherboard makers have the same "real estate" in both mATX and ATX to put the same chips and same cooling solutions. 

There can be arguments made for mATX being better for overclocking but there's also arguments against it.

For example, one could argue that using only 2 memory slots is better for overclocking memory, and people buying mATX are not as stubborn as people buying ATX motherboards, they'd be more willing to buy a mATX board with only 2 ram slots. So, motherboard makers could make a mATX board aimed at overclocking.

 

However, there's the other side of the coin, where a lot of people see mATX motherboards as a way for the motherboard manufacturer to reduce the costs and produce cheaper boards - historically motherboards circuit boards are made from big fiber glass panels and you could cut only let's say 3 ATX motherboards out of a big panel and have a bunch of pcb that's waste ... with mATX they can cut more boards (let's say 4-5), by arranging the boards differently on the big panel, and they end up with less waste, so it's cheaper for the motherboard maker to make the base circuit boards. 

 

In the end, it's the motherboard manufacturer's choice if it uses the chips suitable to achieve good overclocking and if they add those features in the firmware / bios

 

With ITX it's a slightly different story - with ITX often you have fewer phases in the VRM and there's a limit to how big heatsinks can be, so they either go for high end VRMs with high efficiency but expensive, or the boards may have undersized VRMs so they have less potential for overclocking. 

Also, the smaller size of ITX means it's harder to route all the wires (traces) between components, so often ITX motherboards had to be made with more layers, which made the base circuit board more expensive... for example, where they could make a 4 layer mATX motherboard, you may need 6 or 8 layers for an ITX motherboard...so it's a bit counter intuitive for a end user - it's a much smaller product with fewer components but more expensive?  Yes, the circuit board costs more , the higher end power phases in the VRM cost more, it costs more to put the components on the motherboard because much more components will be installed on the bottom of the motherboard where there's space available...