# ASUS Unveils World's First PCI-Express 3.0 Motherboard for AMD Processors



## btarunr (Jan 9, 2013)

ASUS did the unthinkable yet simple, by innovating the first AMD platform motherboard that features PCI-Express 3.0 x16 slots, the Sabertooth 990FX/GEN3.0 R2.0. Long naming aside, the board provides you a couple of gen 3.0 slots by using PLX-made 48-lane PCI-Express Gen 3.0 bridge chip. 

While the board features four PCI-Express x16 slots, only two similarly-colored slots can be used at a time, of which two are PCI-Express 2.0 x16, wired to the 990FX northbridge, and two slots being x16/NC or x8/x8-capable, being wired to a PLX 48-lane PCI-Express Gen 3.0 switch, which in turn takes two PCI-Express 2.0 x16 links from the northbridge. 






Apart from this unique feature the socket AM3+ Sabertooth 990FX/GEN3.0 R2.0 features AMD SB950 southbridge, eight SATA 6 Gb/s ports, two eSATA 6 Gb/s, 8-channel HD audio, six USB 3.0 ports, and a zesty ASUS-exclusive feature-set. The new board could be released to the market very soon.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jan 9, 2013)

To be honest I didn't know that AMD can't do PCIex 3.0...Or this is what I am understanding from article..


----------



## btarunr (Jan 9, 2013)

My explanation of the PCIe clusterfoo on this board.


----------



## seronx (Jan 9, 2013)

I'll just wait for the new LGA platforms next year from AMD with native PCI-E 3.0.


----------



## Maban (Jan 9, 2013)

According to the manual, the first and third PCIe are 3.0 x16, the third switches to x8/x8 with the fourth, and the second is 2.0 x16. It may not exactly be as Tarun diagrammed but it's still some kind of voodoo. I think they just used a single 2.0 x16 link from northbridge to the switch, and the rest is just marketing.


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 9, 2013)

btarunr said:


> My explanation of the PCIe clusterfoo on this board.
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/130109/bta234dsf.jpg



Is that a robot named 990FX or Cluterfoo?


----------



## btarunr (Jan 9, 2013)

Maban said:


> According to the manual, the first and third PCIe are 3.0 x16, the third switches to x8/x8 with the fourth, and the second is 2.0 x16. It may not exactly be as Tarun diagrammed but it's still some kind of voodoo. I think they just used a single 2.0 x16 link from northbridge to the switch, and the rest is just marketing.
> 
> http://content.screencast.com/users...1b-4d5c-8e2e-4117004a2025/2013-01-09_1223.png



In that case it's a supermassive marketing fail. Just one 2.0 x16 link between the NB and x48 bridge.


----------



## seronx (Jan 9, 2013)

btarunr said:


> In that case it's a supermassive marketing fail. Just one 2.0 x16 link between the NB and x48 bridge.


It is the same for Intel, supermassive marketing fail.  How dare ASUS use Intel tech on AMD boards. 

Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge = 1 x PCI-E 2.0 x16 lane to a 48-lane PCI-E 2.0/3.0 switch.


----------



## Maban (Jan 9, 2013)

seronx said:


> It is the same for Intel, supermassive marketing fail.  How dare ASUS use Intel tech on AMD boards.
> 
> Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge = 1 x PCI-E 2.0 x16 lane to a 48-lane PCI-E 2.0/3.0 switch.



Ivy Bridge is native 3.0, so 3.0 x16 to 48 lane switch.


----------



## seronx (Jan 9, 2013)

Maban said:


> Ivy Bridge is native 3.0, so 3.0 x16 to 48 lane switch.


Actually, if you read into the fine print the PCI-E lanes in Ivy Bridge are 2.0 lanes.

There is a reason why Ivy Bridge is only 200 MB/s faster than 990FX with a 680 GTX in bandwidth.


----------



## Maban (Jan 9, 2013)

seronx said:


> Actually, if you read into the fine print the PCI-E lanes in Ivy Bridge are 2.0 lanes.



Actually if you read the datasheet, any review, any Z77 motherboard manual or spec sheet, any news site, and any Internet site anywhere with any info on Ivy Bridge, yes, they are indeed 3.0.


----------



## seronx (Jan 9, 2013)

Maban said:


> Actually if you read the datasheet, any review, any Z77 motherboard manual or spec sheet, any news site, and any Internet site anywhere with any info on Ivy Bridge, yes, they are indeed 3.0.


Nope.





The IC on the motherboard is PCI-E 3.0 but Ivy Bridge is indeed PCI-E 2.0 connected to PCI-E 3.0.  How you can tell actual native PCI-E 3.0 from fake PCI-E 3.0, PLX Switches.


----------



## Maban (Jan 9, 2013)

seronx said:


> Nope.
> http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3081/hardwareheaven.jpg
> 
> The IC on the motherboard is PCI-E 3.0 but Ivy Bridge is indeed PCI-E 2.0 connected to PCI-E 3.0.  How you can tell actual native PCI-E 3.0 from fake PCI-E 3.0, PLX Switches.



That chart doesn't mean anything in the context of this discussion. That simply shows that the Revodrive 3 X2 they were using for that specific test maxes out at about 1640MB/s with the parameters they tested it with. That card is PCIe 2.0. It is in no way going to show any dramatic difference when connected to a PCIe 3.0 host.


----------



## seronx (Jan 9, 2013)

Maban said:


> That chart doesn't mean anything in the context of this discussion. That simply shows that the Revodrive 3 X2 they were using for that specific test maxes out at about 1640MB/s with the parameters they tested it with. That card is PCIe 2.0. It is in no way going to show any dramatic difference when connected to a PCIe 3.0 host.


That is a 680 GTX.  You have the right to believe anything you want...though.  It doesn't mean sound will move faster than light anytime soon.


----------



## Maban (Jan 9, 2013)

seronx said:


> That is a 680 GTX. You have the right to believe anything you want...though. It doesn't mean sound will move faster than light anytime soon.



No it's not. If you go back one page to the Test System and Methodology, it quite clearly states that a Revodrive 3 X2 was used for that test.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 9, 2013)

seronx said:


> That is a 680 GTX.  You have the right to believe anything you want...though.  It doesn't mean sound will move faster than light anytime soon.



Intel SAYS:











BTW, it's not just the switches, SLI support in BIOS also plays a role in PCIe 3.0 support. Boards without SLI, all support PCIe 3.0; P67, H67, Z68, Z75, H77, Z77 all inclusive.


----------



## Disparia (Jan 9, 2013)

Asus, this is just silly and wasteful. Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.


----------



## neliz (Jan 9, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> BTW, it's not just the switches, SLI support in BIOS also plays a role in PCIe 3.0 support. Boards without SLI, all support PCIe 3.0; P67, H67, Z68, Z75, H77, Z77 all inclusive.



Actually, SLI doesn't have too much to do with this.

If there are no PCIe switches between the CPU and the card, the card will run at it's maximum speed, in that case GEN3.

I think you're referring to the fact that SLI *NEEDS* switches on 1155 to operate (it requires x8 traffic, for both GEN2 and GEN3), otherwise you'd be stuck with a fixed configuration 8x8 board. The switches are there to redirect the traffic to the first card in case the clockgen in the PCH doesn't detect a card in the second slot.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 9, 2013)

neliz said:


> Actually, SLI doesn't have too much to do with this.
> 
> If there are no PCIe switches between the CPU and the card, the card will run at it's maximum speed, in that case GEN3.
> 
> I think you're referring to the fact that SLI *NEEDS* switches on 1155 to operate, otherwise you'd be stuck with a fixed configuration 8x8. The switches are there to redirect the traffic to the first card in case the clockgen in the PCH doesn't detect a card in the second slot.



Seems to be some Crossfire-only boards that run 3.0 on 2.0 bridges(Biostar). WTF is going on or why, whatever, I am not sure.

It's like when adding IVB support to BIOS, something weird happened.

I almost want to say that AMD allows PCIe 3.0 for VGA on PCIe 2.0 bus, regardless of bridges or what have you. If it's just encoding or whatever, I don't know. X79 is why I want to say that..you get PCIe 3.0 with AMD on any X79, NVidia on X79..not so much.

Don't forget x16/x4 boards, too.(support Crossfire, but not SLi, no bridges)

Not MSi products, but as you know, I've used very few MSi boards. 

Thanks very much for the input though, when it comes to MSi, of course your word is king.


----------



## neliz (Jan 9, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> Seems to be some Crossfire-only boards that run 3.0 on 2.0 bridges(Biostar). WTF is going on or why, whatever, I am not sure.
> 
> It's like when adding IVB support to BIOS, something weird happened.
> 
> I almost want to say that AMD allows PCIe 3.0 for VGA on PCIe 2.0 bus, regardless of bridges or what have you. If it's just encoding or whatever, I don't know.



Are they running Full x16? in case of Gen2 switches, the card can run  GEN3 x8 (bypassing the switches) or GEN2 x16. In that case there's a minimal difference in latency and bandwidth that would prefer GEN3 x8 over GEN2 x16 when initializing.



cadaveca said:


> Thanks very much for the input though, when it comes to *MSI*, of course your word is king.


I can't bend Intel's rules 



> Don't forget x16/x4 boards, too.(support Crossfire, but not SLi, no bridges)


In this case the first slot is routed straight to the CPU and it will always init in x16, the x4 traffic will come from the PCH.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 9, 2013)

neliz said:


> I can't bend Intel's rules




I know, but as you know already, this has been something that has played out very weird on P67/Z68.

None of you OEMs really agree as to what's what, so I can only hold you to MSi products.


----------



## neliz (Jan 9, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> I know, but as you know already, this has been something that has played out very weird on P67/Z68.



the straight facts became too cluttered with marketing FUD with everyone falling over another to support "GEN3".



cadaveca said:


> I know, but as you know already, this has been something that has played out very weird on P67/Z68.
> 
> None of you OEMs really agree as to what's what



Just some brands wanted you to believe that x8 GEN3 is the same as X16 GEN3 (saves a lot of money on the PCI Express switches!) 
That's why I said, Intel is leading in this. Follow Intel's guidelines and you're good, skimp on them and you're bad. I just wish there was a mandatory certification for GEN3


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 9, 2013)

neliz said:


> the straight facts became too cluttered with marketing FUD with everyone falling over another to support "GEN3".
> Just some brands wanted you to believe that x8 GEN3 is the same as X16 GEN3 (saves a lot of money on the PCI Express switches!)



Ah, but otherwise, I got this PCIe 3.0 thing down right?


----------



## neliz (Jan 9, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> Ah, but otherwise, I got this PCIe 3.0 thing down right?



Yes. 

RE: The X79 part, It has everything to do with time spent validating and certificating, but after a while it was fixed: http://www.techpowerup.com/168027/N...g-Patch-for-Sandy-Bridge-E-HEDT-Platform.html


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 9, 2013)

We've had a few users now wondering about PCIe 3.0 on P67/Z68, and sometimes when using SB CPUs. This has not helped with the confusion. 


And yes, a real standard would be great.


----------



## neliz (Jan 9, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> We've had a few users now wondering about PCIe 3.0 on P67/Z68, and sometimes when using SB CPUs. This has not helped with the confusion.
> 
> 
> And yes, a real standard would be great.



Yap, As discussed before, there's no GEN3 on Sandy Bridge (the logic simply isn't in the CPU! Trust me, we've tried!) or in any of the AM3+ CPUs.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 9, 2013)

So why are there these users with SB showing PCIe 3.0? Nearly all are using boards without bridges, too. I've seen both ASRock and Biostar with that now in the past few months.

That's the weirdness that gets me. I understand all the stuff about switches.

What made sense to me si that PCIe 3.0 encoding was used, but like you say, SB shouldn't be able. Yet...


----------



## neliz (Jan 9, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> So why are there these users with SB showing PCIe 3.0? Nearly all are using boards without bridges, too. I've seen both ASRock and Biostar with that now in the past few months.
> 
> That's the weirdness that gets me. I understand all the stuff about switches.
> 
> What made sense to me si that PCIe 3.0 encoding was used, but like you say, SB shouldn't be able. Yet...



Are those are software readings? I can't even trust those for measuring voltages.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 9, 2013)

Honestly, I dunno. I just try to keep an ear to the ground on all things motherboard, and this has been an issue that's popping more often now, and I have no idea why. Not just here on TPU, either.

I mean, we can generally say, that if IVB is used, no matter the board, PCIe 3.0 is possible, link width is questionable though, and dependant on switches used. No problem there, of course, very straight forward.

Using PLX PEX8747, on PCIe 2.0, giving PCIe 3.0, does add some boost to multi-GPU, even though to the CPU is still just PCIe 2.0. So this ASUS board, to me, makes sense for multi GPU users. 

Those PCIe 3.0 cards on this board, they'll show up as PCIe 3.0, I am almost willing to bet.

Are they really running 3.0? I guess the PLX PEX8747 makes this possible...or does it?

 products like this one don't make this any easier.


----------



## fusionblu (Jan 10, 2013)

Hi everyone this  motherboard is nice that it is the only other alternative to have to run PCI-E 3.0 opposed to fully shelling out for either a new Ivybridge system which isn't a great improvement over Sandybridge in terms of processing power alone or a Sandybridge-E system which is generally pricy (although prices are coming down now) and fairly inefficient for the normal tasks that most desktop users do (gaming included, but there probably is a significant improvement though).

I can see there is some sort of argument here. Put simply a normal Z68 or Z77 won't run Gen 3 without a Ivybridge CPU, that is simply fact. There is only one motherboard which is an exception to this rule and it is a ECS Z77H2-AX which has an additional chipset which allows Gen 3 with the use of a Sandybridge CPU; however, the motherboard in question is expensive and hard to get and you are looking to pay around £280 for it on ebay. There is a review of this particular motherboard on here for that.

Also to add, yes this particular ECS motherboard does make use of a PLX PEX8487 chipset.

Here is the review I mentioned: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ECS/Z77H2-AX_review/13.html

There are other Z77 motherboards with the PLX PEX8487 chipset


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 10, 2013)

fusionblu said:


> Also to add, yes this particular ECS motherboard does make use of a PLX PEX8487 chipset.
> 
> Here is the review I mentioned: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ECS/Z77H2-AX_review/13.html




Yes, I wrote that review. There are boards from every brand with PLX PEX8747 on Z77 that'll do that, the last review I did, the Z77X-UP7, is just the same.


----------



## Disparia (Jan 10, 2013)

fusionblu said:


> Hi everyone this  motherboard is nice that it is the only other alternative to have to run PCI-E 3.0 opposed to fully shelling out for either a new Ivybridge system which isn't a great improvement over Sandybridge in terms of processing power alone or a Sandybridge-E system which is generally pricy (although prices are coming down now) and fairly inefficient for the normal tasks that most desktop users do (gaming included, but there probably is a significant improvement though).



I can't think of any situation that would make this the preferred choice, is there one?

The current Sabertooth 990FX is around $180. Due to the PCIe switch, the new model is going to cost more and it's questionable at this point if there will be anything gained by it's use. Shelling out less for a better performing Ivy Bridge system is looking really good right now.


----------



## fusionblu (Jan 10, 2013)

Jizzler said:


> I can't think of any situation that would make this the preferred choice, is there one?
> 
> The current Sabertooth 990FX is around $180. Due to the PCIe switch, the new model is going to cost more and it's questionable at this point if there will be anything gained by it's use. Shelling out less for a better performing Ivy Bridge system is looking really good right now.



That is true and maybe only a AMD diehard user would go for this as their preferred choice, but the idea is that it is an option that will be available and that Intel isn't the only choice if you want PCI-E 3.0.


----------



## Bp_968 (Jan 13, 2013)

*Question pertaining to this discussion*

I noticed a MSI hardware guy on here and had a question similar to this discussion.  I've been looking at a device that will (passively) switch a single x16 slot to two x8 slots using a flexible cable and a PCB with two x16 slots on it.  It requires support for pci-e bifurcation but doesn't explain if thats a chipset, MB, or CPU feature or if it requires the BIOS to allow it (or if it just automatically splits the first port into whatever the other two ports need).

Any ideas?  It would make it possible to turn my mATX board into something with a bit more expansion possibilities with lower bandwidth cards (stuff thats plenty happy with a couple lanes or less).


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 13, 2013)

I wish they'd offer this in a microATX form with the same color scheme. And for god sake without the prehistoric PCI slot... It seems there are no proper high end boards for AMD processors in a microATX form, which i need for my tiny box...


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jan 13, 2013)

Why so much hate for the old PCI slot?? I have an old Leadtek tuner on PCI, I also have an USB 2.0 adapter for PCI with 4 ports, also an old X-FI PCI sound card, still better than any integrated...


----------



## seronx (Jan 15, 2013)

http://ark.intel.com/compare/65693,65694,65692,65690,66168
http://ark.intel.com/compare/63696,70845

I don't know, I'm not going to bother with benchmarks I'll be back with more information with Ivy Bridge being PCI-E 2.0.  Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge-E have the same thing they have PCI-E 2.0 that can run at 8 GB/s.  Sandy Bridge-E has 40 lanes of PCI-E 2.0(@3.0 Speed) while Ivy Bridge has 16 lanes of PCI-E 2.0(@3.0 Speed) going through one PLX switch or several PLX switches. (variations: 16x/16x/16x or 8x/8x/8x) 

True native PCI-E 3.0 won't be supported till Haswell, hopefully.  PCI-E 3.0 isn't just speed.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 15, 2013)

seronx said:


> I'll just wait for the new LGA platforms next year from AMD with native PCI-E 3.0.



AMD isn't releasing anything, but it's server chips on LGA. Everything in normal desktop is sticking with a socket.


----------



## seronx (Jan 15, 2013)

cdawall said:


> AMD isn't releasing anything, but it's server chips on LGA. Everything in normal desktop is sticking with a socket.


AM3+ is the last socket for consumer/performance desktop of this generation.

The next generation is either Socket GC36 or this unknown socket which is based on Socket F and Socket G3.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 15, 2013)

seronx said:


> AM3+ is the last socket for consumer/performance desktop of this generation.
> 
> The next generation is either Socket GC36 or this unknown socket which is based on Socket F and Socket G3.



Not according to the last batch of roadmaps that put steamroller on a new socket supporting ddr4 with am3+ backwards compatibility.


----------



## seronx (Jan 15, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Not according to the last batch of roadmaps that put steamroller on a new socket supporting ddr4 with am3+ backwards compatibility.


Show me this roadmap.

I've only seen the APU one and the server one.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 15, 2013)

seronx said:


> Show me this roadmap.
> 
> I've only seen the APU one and the server one.



Google it and remember amd servers are not amd desktops. G34 and C36 along with LGA1207 are server sockets something AMD will not release desktop parts onto. G3 was abandoned in 2008, GC36 does not exist nor is it on any roadmap. So wtf are you talking about.


----------



## seronx (Jan 15, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Google it and remember amd servers are not amd desktops. G34 and C36 along with LGA1207 are server sockets something AMD will not release desktop parts onto. G3 was abandoned in 2008, GC36 does not exist nor is it on any roadmap. So wtf are you talking about.


I did google it.

28-nm FMx = Bolton <-- Socket (Mainstream)
28-nm LGA1 = Riverside <-- Socket (Performance)
28-nm LGA2 = Riverside <-- Socket GC36 (Server)
^(Only the FMx socket is compatible with the previous chipset since the infrastructure for LGA1/2 is substantially different than Socket C32/G34 and AM3+)


----------



## cdawall (Jan 15, 2013)

seronx said:


> I did google it.
> 
> 28-nm FMx = Bolton <-- Socket (Mainstream)
> 28-nm LGA1 = Riverside <-- Socket (Performance)
> ...



I have seen nothing about LGA1/LGA2 and LGA1 is an Intel Xeon socket.







Server side still shows a split 2P and 4P side through 2015 along with AM3+ through mid 2014.

Like I said before



> What wasn't known up until recently, however, *was that AMD intends to stick by the AM3+ socket for at least one more major processor iteration, which is highly likely to be Steamroller*. One of the compelling reasons to stand by AMD is typically cost, knowing that an investment in an AM3+ motherboard will most likely survive an extra processor generation is a compelling cash saver and, in fact, a portion of users running AMD computers are likely to already have AM3+ motherboards, as the socket has been available since mid-2011.



They also mention AMD moving to a unified socket after FM2+ and AM3+ run there course.

source


----------

