FX-8350 Motherboard

[food158]

If you have any other suggestions just list them.

Alright main comparison question. Should I shell out the extra money for the MSI 970 Gaming motherboard or is the ASUS M5A97 R2.0 just fine?

[Gravemind]

Well, what size do you need?

Standard?

Mini?

Micro?

Sooper-XXLL?

[food158]

1 minute ago, Gravemind said:

Well, what size do you need?

Standard?

Mini?

Micro?

Sooper-XXLL?

I have an ATX case. I don't really care what size the mobo is. Unless it's Extra ATX(obviously)

[DarkEnergy]

Shell out money on an upgrade tbh. I'm waiting to see if Zen is any good. If it is or isn't doesn't matter because that's when I'm upgrading from my 8350. Cheaping out on a motherboard for the 8350 isn't a great idea. Make sure it has more than enough TDP for the CPU. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 minute ago, Gravemind said:

Well, what size do you need?

Standard?

Mini?

Micro?

Sooper-XXLL?

We are talking AM3+ here, so it's either ASRock 970M, or full ATX. No other choice.

 

@food158: it's up to what features you are looking for. I have my own set of "favorite AM3+ boards", but the Asus M5A97 is a capable board which will host your 8350 just fine.

If you have additional information on the intended use (you want to overclock, you want M.2 SSDs, etc), we can add some other choices.

[Gravemind]

Just now, SpaceGhostC2C said:

We are talking AM3+ here, so it's either ASRock 970M, or full ATX. No other choice.

 

@food158: it's up to what features you are looking for. I have my own set of "favorite AM3+ boards", but the Asus M5A97 is a capable board which will host your 8350 just fine.

If you have additional information on the intended use (you want to overclock, you want M.2 SSDs, etc), we can add some other choices.

Ive actually got an Asrock 970m Pro3.

Just wanted to get an actual size out of OP before I said anything.

[food158]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

We are talking AM3+ here, so it's either ASRock 970M, or full ATX. No other choice.

 

@food158: it's up to what features you are looking for. I have my own set of "favorite AM3+ boards", but the Asus M5A97 is a capable board which will host your 8350 just fine.

If you have additional information on the intended use (you want to overclock, you want M.2 SSDs, etc), we can add some other choices.

I don't know about overclocking my cpu. Maybe just a teensy bit because I'm only get a 212 EVO.

[food158]

Just now, Gravemind said:

Ive actually got an Asrock 970m Pro3.

Just wanted to get an actual size out of OP before I said anything.

I've heard that Asrock quality isn't exactly too consistent. My motherboard right now is an Asrock. I think my mobo might be causing the problems in my system, so I'm kind of biased against Asrock.

[Gravemind]

Just now, food158 said:

I've heard that Asrock quality isn't exactly too consistent. My motherboard right now is an Asrock. I think my mobo might be causing the problems in my system, so I'm kind of biased against Asrock.

This is my first time having an Asrock board, and I can't say there's anything wrong with it.

The front USB 3.0 header was in an awkward place but I blame that more on the case maker.

I've got nothing particularly bad about it I found.

But I completely understand your hesitance if you've had bad experiences in the past. I'm the same way with Toshiba HDD's

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Just now, food158 said:

I've heard that Asrock quality isn't exactly too consistent. My motherboard right now is an Asrock. I think my mobo might be causing the problems in my system, so I'm kind of biased against Asrock.

ASRock has both the cheapest, lower end AM3+ boards together with Biostar, and the best OC motherboard of them all. So it's true about consistency: they span the whole range  I personally have a mixed but overall positive with their 970 Performance, which claims to handle 220W CPUs, although not really, but in the end it does to some extent 

 

If you will only do limited overclocking, the M597 will be fine. The MSI Gaming will just add somewhat fancier onboard audio, maybe a different network card, and other gimmicks. An Asus 990FX R2 will give you more room to overclock, but I don't know which prices you face. 

[food158]

Just now, SpaceGhostC2C said:

ASRock has both the cheapest, lower end AM3+ boards together with Biostar, and the best OC motherboard of them all. So it's true about consistency: they span the whole range  I personally have a mixed but overall positive with their 970 Performance, which claims to handle 220W CPUs, although not really, but in the end it does to some extent 

 

If you will only do limited overclocking, the M597 will be fine. The MSI Gaming will just add somewhat fancier onboard audio, maybe a different network card, and other gimmicks. An Asus 990FX R2 will give you more room to overclock, but I don't know which prices you face. 

Asus 990fX R2? Uh way too expensive for me. How much overclocking do you think that the m5a97 will handle? I might go for it since i use a dedicated network card asus card anyway.

[food158]

I'm going to get the Asus. It's better for my budget and has enough features for me.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 minute ago, food158 said:

Asus 990fX R2? Uh way too expensive for me. How much overclocking do you think that the m5a97 will handle? I might go for it since i use a dedicated network card asus card anyway.

It's hard to tell, because it depends on the chip itself. The main reason why it can limit you are the VRMs and their heatsink. It has 4+2 power phases, which I won't pretend to know all the details about, but essentially limit the maximum power the board can supply to the CPU, and it's ability to do so at stable voltages. Moreover, VRMs get warmer the more power the CPU draws, and if you push them too far they will burn (best case scenario, you will hit a wall trying to push your computer further, because the motherboard won't deliver the extra power, or shut down due to VRM heat).

 

Now, power draw will increase not only by increasing the frequency, but especially by increasing the voltage. That's where your CPU enters the picture, as how far it can overclock before needing additional voltage is a matter of luck. I wouldn't expect to get too far, and if you try it, get a way to measure temps on the VRM heatsink or their back at the other side of the motherboard, to make sure it doesn't get to 100C or close.

 

How much is "not too far"? Typically, you can get to run all 8 cores at the turbo speed without issues in motherboards that take FX-8xxx CPUs. The FX-8350 has a turbo of 4.2GHz, which you can maybe attain at stock voltages. Maybe 4.3 is not too ambitious either.

[food158]

12 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

It's hard to tell, because it depends on the chip itself. The main reason why it can limit you are the VRMs and their heatsink. It has 4+2 power phases, which I won't pretend to know all the details about, but essentially limit the maximum power the board can supply to the CPU, and it's ability to do so at stable voltages. Moreover, VRMs get warmer the more power the CPU draws, and if you push them too far they will burn (best case scenario, you will hit a wall trying to push your computer further, because the motherboard won't deliver the extra power, or shut down due to VRM heat).

 

Now, power draw will increase not only by increasing the frequency, but especially by increasing the voltage. That's where your CPU enters the picture, as how far it can overclock before needing additional voltage is a matter of luck. I wouldn't expect to get too far, and if you try it, get a way to measure temps on the VRM heatsink or their back at the other side of the motherboard, to make sure it doesn't get to 100C or close.

 

How much is "not too far"? Typically, you can get to run all 8 cores at the turbo speed without issues in motherboards that take FX-8xxx CPUs. The FX-8350 has a turbo of 4.2GHz, which you can maybe attain at stock voltages. Maybe 4.3 is not too ambitious either.

WOW what a helpful post! I'll probably just make a thread on overclocking on this mobo when I actually have the board.

[food158]

3 minutes ago, food158 said:

WOW what a helpful post! I'll probably just make a thread on overclocking on this mobo when I actually have the board.

 

16 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

It's hard to tell, because it depends on the chip itself. The main reason why it can limit you are the VRMs and their heatsink. It has 4+2 power phases, which I won't pretend to know all the details about, but essentially limit the maximum power the board can supply to the CPU, and it's ability to do so at stable voltages. Moreover, VRMs get warmer the more power the CPU draws, and if you push them too far they will burn (best case scenario, you will hit a wall trying to push your computer further, because the motherboard won't deliver the extra power, or shut down due to VRM heat).

 

Now, power draw will increase not only by increasing the frequency, but especially by increasing the voltage. That's where your CPU enters the picture, as how far it can overclock before needing additional voltage is a matter of luck. I wouldn't expect to get too far, and if you try it, get a way to measure temps on the VRM heatsink or their back at the other side of the motherboard, to make sure it doesn't get to 100C or close.

 

How much is "not too far"? Typically, you can get to run all 8 cores at the turbo speed without issues in motherboards that take FX-8xxx CPUs. The FX-8350 has a turbo of 4.2GHz, which you can maybe attain at stock voltages. Maybe 4.3 is not too ambitious either.

Well, I fed myself some more research. Some are saying that the 8350 is kind of a beast so I probably shouldn't OC it.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

4 minutes ago, food158 said:

 

Well, I fed myself some more research. Some are saying that the 8350 is kind of a beast so I probably shouldn't OC it.

It's not that bad  But yes, to put it differently: that board is fine to run it "as is", and taking OC as some extra benefit that may or may not happen, and if it does, you are happy with any Hz you get. It should be good value in that role.

 

If OC is part of the plan from the onset, and you want sizable gains, go with an 8+2 power phases motherboard with hefty VRM heatsinks (in that sense the MSI 970 Gaming will give you some more room I think, my ASRock 970 Performance certainly does - hosting a slightly undervolted FX 9370 right now).

[food158]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

It's not that bad  But yes, to put it differently: that board is fine to run it "as is", and taking OC as some extra benefit that may or may not happen, and if it does, you are happy with any Hz you get. It should be good value in that role.

 

If OC is part of the plan from the onset, and you want sizable gains, go with an 8+2 power phases motherboard with hefty VRM heatsinks (in that sense the MSI 970 Gaming will give you some more room I think, my ASRock 970 Performance certainly does - hosting a slightly undervolted FX 9370 right now).

Mmm. I'm gonna cross the OC bridge(hah puns) when I get to it. Since, I am considering OC yes I might consider 970 Gaming again. I'm kind of bleh on the price that it gives me(including me buying other stuff). It's close to 200 dollars.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

6 minutes ago, food158 said:

Mmm. I'm gonna cross the OC bridge(hah puns) when I get to it. Since, I am considering OC yes I might consider 970 Gaming again. I'm kind of bleh on the price that it gives me(including me buying other stuff). It's close to 200 dollars.

The only cheaper board I could consider for some OC in this list is the GA-970A-UD3P and then comes the MSI, so unless you get access to other prices, it boils down to the Asus for non-OC and the MSI for OC. Good luck either way!