# ASUS M5A99X EVO AM3+



## cadaveca (Jun 3, 2011)

The brand-new ASUS M5A99X EVO, sports AMD's 990X and SB950 chipset. It is one of the first boards to offer full support for NVIDIA SLI and is also optimized for CrossFire configurations with its three PCI-E x16 slots.

*Show full review*


----------



## Assimilator (Jun 16, 2011)

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but this review is essentially a copypasta of the M5A97 EVO review with a few bits tweaked. Also, the phrase "hit the next page" gets really annoying really quickly when it's used on EVERY PAGE OF THE REVIEW.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 16, 2011)

Yeah, the board is almost identical to the M5A970 EVO, so of course the review is near identical. Only so much can be said about the little bits that go on the board.

I still had to put in near 25 hours of testing, and I do a review every week, which amounts to near 40 hours per board, with writing, pictures, graphs, and getting it on the site.

You'll also find no fluff, no marketing speak, or anything like that.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jun 16, 2011)

First off thank you for the awesome review.

Second a quick question;
I was looking through your review of this board particularly & was pondering purchasing one of these. Would it be possible to do any core unlocking on it? Under Advanced CPU Configuration in bios maybe?


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 16, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> First off thank you for the awesome review.
> 
> Second a quick question;
> I was looking through your review of this board particularly & was pondering purchasing one of these. Would it be possible to do any core unlocking on it? Under Advanced CPU Configuration in bios maybe?



You bet there is, as well as the option to individually enable/disable cores. I checked to see if this screws with the temp sensors, and of course, it does.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 16, 2011)

The whole 970/990X/990FX pci-e bandwidth thing made me wonder if a NF200 chip could be put on a 970 board to get you 2x 16. And if so, would a board like that be cheaper than a 990FX board? If so maybe that'd make a good Asrock product or something.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 16, 2011)

Ok, os here's my take on it:

970 = Singlecard use.
990X = medium-performance MultiGPU, Crossfire or SLi
990FX = MultiGPU(highend), up to 4 cards.

From what I know, NF200 introduces some latency that leaves it's x16/x16 connectivity a bit under-performing comapred to x8/x8, and can even point out that sometimes, P55 even, gets better performance than X58, with x16/x16.

If X58 shows some performance deficits on occasion, then taking NF200, and turning a x8 connection into a x16 connection, doesn't really offer anything, except another chip "in the pipeline". The only time I could excuse the NF200 is when it is paired to chipset, not to make x8 lanes into x16, but when it add a completly whole new slot, offering 4-card connectivity to a chipset that doesn't natively support such configurations.

As to costs, i cannot comment on that one. To me, it seems that just simply using 990FX instead of 990X would be the cheaper option, but I'm not privy to such pricing information.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Jun 16, 2011)

My thoughts on the NF200, if your planning on tri-sli get a board with one. To me SLI is almost a waste on its own, let alone tri SLI. That's just my personal opinion though and not many people listen to what I got to say 

@cadaveca
Thank you for looking into that for me & answering that question! Now I can move on and look into this board as an option.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 16, 2011)

JrRacinFan said:


> Thank you for looking into that for me & answering that question! Now I can move on and look into this board as an option.



No problem! 


I typically check out everything a board offers, BIOS and software included, so really, I already knew the answer before you even asked. ASUS has both of those things done really well(software and BIOS), but I've spouted enough love about that in other threads, for sure. Being able to capture screenshots of the BIOS by just pushing F12 saved me tonnes of time in taking pics of the BIOS and editing them to size, which is something I really really appreciate.

I cannot think of how many times people have asked me for subtimings for memory, and usually the first thing I ask for is such screen shots, and getting them can be a pain, but ASUS fixed that problem, 100%.


----------



## devguy (Jun 17, 2011)

> Enabling the EPU switch did also show a significant drop in power consumption, with the higher quality components on the M5A99X EVO drawing less power than the M5A97 EVO's parts, even when the EPU function was disabled on the M5A99X EVO.



I don't see where in your review you list the parts on the M5A99X that are higher quality than the M5A97.  As far as I can tell, the only differences are slot configuration, two JSATA ports, and crossfire/sli 8x/8x.  Can you be more specific?  I see you also got a nicer overclock on the IMC, processor, and memory.  Were those not attainable on the M5A97?


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 17, 2011)

devguy said:


> I see you also got a nicer overclock on the IMC, processor, and memory.  Were those not attainable on the M5A97?



No, they were not, and partially because power consumption was higher on the M5A99X, IMHO. I can only place that as being better VRM components, even though they are of the same brand and type.



> I don't see where in your review you list the parts on the M5A99X that are higher quality than the M5A97.  As far as I can tell, the only differences are slot configuration, two JSATA ports, and crossfire/sli 8x/8x.  Can you be more specific?


Yes, the only differences between the two are the extra JMB362 controller (and associated parts), the slot config (and associated board parts), the addition of the power-eSATA port, and the SLi support.

The only explanation for the better clocks, because my CPU hits the VRM's limit for power, is that *somehow the VRM is built with a higher bin of parts*. The VRM is so customizable, it's hard for them to pull off some weird BIOS mojo to pull this sort of stuff off.

I actually wrote this review a bit over a week ago, and since then, Newegg has a video up with  "JJ" from ASUS showing the 4 boards, and he mentioned that the parts were a bit better too, so I do beleive this to be the case.

Even the auto-clock utility ended up with better clocks on the M5A990X EVO.


----------



## fullinfusion (Jun 17, 2011)

Assimilator said:


> Also, the phrase "hit the next page" gets really annoying really quickly when it's used on EVERY PAGE OF THE REVIEW.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> Oh get over yourself already, whats the big deal?  Any ways nice review Cad! Just too bad they didnt send ya a Bulldozer to review along with the mobo's


----------



## _JP_ (Jun 18, 2011)

Awesome review. I'm loving your reviews on the new (AMD 9x0) motherboards.
Any chance you'll be reviewing a Sabertooth eventually?
Because that's the one I'm eye-balling and I trust your reviews.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 18, 2011)

Lots of people likin' ASUS, I see. More interesting to see who likes what.

I guess I should just tell ASUS to send me one of everything.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jun 18, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Lots of people likin' ASUS, I see. More interesting to see who likes what.
> 
> I guess I should just tell ASUS to send me one of everything.



I really do love your reviews and am still hoping to see a Crosshair V review from you someday.

Your reviews of the lower end boards have cemented the fact that I am going Asus for my next board though.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jun 18, 2011)

Glad to see they are going full UEFI!!!


----------



## TheGrapist (Jun 18, 2011)

cadaveca could you include the 7XX-8XX chipset boards in your next review so we can see the difference in performance 
also i can't wait to have TPU in my rig


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 18, 2011)

TheGrapist said:


> cadaveca could you include the 7XX-8XX chipset boards in your next review so we can see the difference in performance



Not unless someone sends me some. They'd be in there if I had them. Currently every board I've got for review, and at least one I bought myself is there.




> also i can't wait to have TPU in my rig :laugh




Yeah, there's some TPU in each and every board.


----------



## TheGrapist (Jun 18, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Not unless someone sends me some. They'd be in there if I had them.



someone send this man a mobo


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 18, 2011)

TheGrapist said:


> someone send this man a mobo





To be completely honest, I do not think ther would be much difference...maybe a bit in drive and USB performance, but really, the rest is only BIOS-level timing tweaks, as the CPU is just the same. The chipset isn't going to influence performance very much, unless there is something wrong.

So i expect little-to-no difference.

There is several ahrdware features that are focused for upcoming BUlldozer CPU, and BIOSes will be tuned specifically for that platform. 7-series for AM3 quads, 8-series for Thuban 6-cores, 9-series for Bulldozer.


I had to buy CPUs for these reviews; i think I'm going to get rid of the 970 board to recoup some of that cost, and maybe the older 11556 boards I reviewed, and the CPUs....but I have to be ready to purchase Bulldozer @ launch. I'll 100% for sure be keeping this 990X board, and will revisit it with Bulldozer in the near future.

As it is, I'm not too concerned with performance, no matter the platform, and would almost like to remove that from my reviews, but I know you guys like to see the numbers, so I've got a few tests there. The way things are going, boards really are going to ahve little-to-no perforamcne impact at all, like I said, unless something is wrong...what's mostly left on boards nowadays, is basically all "dumb logic".

Other reviewers will cover a wide variety of benchmarks, multiple instances of the same type of benchmark, etc, but I'd much rather show you guys WHY there might be a performance difference.


I think ASUS need to send me the highend boards, the ROG expander, 4 Nvidia GPUs, and 4 AMD GPUs. The next thing I'm going to spend some time working on is having a board fully populated...all drive plugs and slots filled...seee how it goes. I'm currently looking at boot times and such, trying to find an effective method of showing some differences there.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jun 20, 2011)

Ive got the M4A79XTD EVO so im guess this is the spiritual successor to that?


----------



## Neo4 (Jun 22, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> Ive got the M4A79XTD EVO so im guess this is the spiritual successor to that?



That's the board I've got in my game box that I'm going to replace with this new board I just bought from NewEgg. And thats based upon this review. Perfect timing on this review Cadaveca.


----------



## Halk (Jun 23, 2011)

Cadaveca, are you going to come out with more 9 series reviews? 

I'm still interested in fan control, and what seems to be glossed over in almost all reviews is comparisons between different boards.

I was thinking that the 990x was pretty much the 990fx with less PCIe lanes, and unless you were running more than one card there was no difference. I'm now seeing there's power consumption differences... so I'd love some kind of comparison between the different boards once you've reviewed em. It'd also be fantastic if you could compare MSI, Gigabyte and Asus board families against each other so that us consumers could pick a manufacturer and board that does what we want, without paying for stuff we don't need.

And yeah, I know, it's a lot to ask!


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 23, 2011)

Halk said:


> Cadaveca, are you going to come out with more 9 series reviews?
> 
> I'm still interested in fan control, and what seems to be glossed over in almost all reviews is comparisons between different boards.
> 
> ...



You know what..It's not alot to ask, at least not of me.

I live in Canada. Right now there is a postal strike. FedEX, UPS, DHL, still all delivering. That may have thrown a wringer into the works here.

I was expecting some products from other OEMs, but nothing has arrived on my doorstep.

However, I do have another review done, for Z68, which will be live soon. Other than that, I have nothing waiting to be done, so it's up to the OEMs.

It takes me a week to do a review, and then another few days for W1zz to do his editting part, and other things, while he has his own stuff to do as well. So, my next review has been done for a while, but at the same time, with me doing basically a review a week for the last little while, I haven't had much time for myself, so I've been enjoying the time off.

I guess tomorrow I'll have to work on getting more product to review for you guys, but today, I'm spending some time with my kids.

ASUS seems "on-board" with my reviews, MSI was supposed to send product a month ago, but nothing has arrived, and I think Gigabyte is afraid of my reviews.

I'd very much like to add more boards, as with only ASUS 9-series boards, the picture painted by the results doesn't offer much, does it? I mean, I could just tell you, these two boards are cookie-cutter copies of each other, with some functional differences, and that's a very good thing...these boards have left me fairly impressed. I'm going to be playing with this board, the M5A99X EVO, for the next week or so, even.


----------



## Halk (Jun 24, 2011)

Hmm. I realise you spend a great deal of time on the reviews, but some of what you review is at least to me of little or no interest. 

For example the CPU performance isn't of interest to me, because I know CPU performance across different boards is identical and any differences in benchmarks are both statistically insignificant, and likely to be unrelated to the boards. Thus I'd prefer if you put a section in saying "After testing with WinRAR, wPrime and CineBench I confirmed CPU performance was what it should have been." That might save you a bit of time? 

If you're testing the board and not the CPU then you, I think, need to confirm when it meets expected performance, and report in detail where it is below or above performance. Power consumption is something you'd need to go into in detail on each board... I think... as it's likely to be different.  And of course overclocking is where boards do differ.

How does that sound?


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 24, 2011)

Halk said:


> That might save you a bit of time?



Unfortunately, stuff like that really isn't going to save much time.

So, like, i get a board, I open the package it comes in, and the box gets stuck in my photo box. I take pictures of the packaging, and the contents. I install CPU, memory, cooler, VGA, connect PSU, and then fire it up. I'll check temps, poke around with a multimeter to check voltages, then I install a fresh copy of windows.

I then update windows, and install all the apps and games I use. Then I defrag.

I'll pop off stock tests, capture software screens, after verifying stability. Then I go into the bios, take screenshots, and then I start clocking things up, with memory up first. Then I need to verify stability of the OC; fortunately because I've used my test CPUs alot, I know roughly where they should end up. Then i need to do OC tests. then I reset the BIOS using a CMOS clear, and re-run the stocks tests.

As you said, I have to run these tests not only to be able to show numbers, but also to verify that things are working as they should be.

Actually running tests takes very little time. Picture edits take very little time, maybe a couple of hours with graph generation. Maybe I need to go back and re-shoot a pic or two...but I can't tell with that until I get the pics online.

So I get all the images online, then arrange them, then I write.

I could do all of that in about three 8-hour days. But at the same time, I like to use the board for a couple of days at least, to get a good feel for it, look or any odd behavior, etc...

I really have "streamlined" my testing "protocols".

The CPU and memory tests are done because BIOS tweaks can affect things there. While all tests are going to have slight variations, because identical hardware is used each time, except for the CPU for the given platform, the tests should highlight any of these differences in the BIOS, which is part of the board. The tests I used have been used for years to make minute compares, besides the games, so the differences in results that are shown sometimes really aren't "statistical variations"...there's a real difference.


----------



## Halk (Jun 24, 2011)

Hmm. Ok. I'll take you at your word there then.  I se your point as well, it doesn't take much more to do a couple of benchmarks when you have everything set up, that's right enough indeed.

Perhaps steal a leaf from Wizzard's book and try for more metadata? Something I like in his reviews is performance per watt and performance per dollar. Those help you find the sweet spot on graphics cards - or at least see where your money is just being wasted.

I don't suggest the same thing for motherboards... you'd need to work out how exactly to produce figures that are useful. But I don't think I'm alone in wondering how much difference spending 2+ x as much on a motherboard has on performance in terms of percentages.

I'm also still very keen on direct comparisons between boards. For example on your latest Asus 9xx board review a section that listed just the differences between the two boards. E.g.

- Lower power consumption
- 2 extra USB2 ports
- Additional overclocking headroom

Etc.

Again these are just ideas for discussion, I don't think I'm entirely certain about them - and I'm very aware that I don't want to sound ungrateful or offend you.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 24, 2011)

No, this feedback is good!

When it comes to motherboards, because so mcuh of the actual logic, other than I/O, is now integrated into the CPU, increases in price are directly related to the onboard components(which I take pics of), and included features, such as things like SLI and LUCID's Hydra/Virtu, all of which I do mention.

one of the biggest time consumers is the OS install, and re-using an OS from a different board can lead to many issues, as was my displeasure to discover.

I've been shooting video of the board booting, looking for a way to show is this has any impact, even, and in some instances, there is a slight difference, but actually presenting it in a way that shows that difference is really had, as soemtimes it's just fractions of a second.

Quantifying features into cost isn't all that easy. I do know what are quality components, and what aren't, and I can mention this, but actualyl translating this to a number that the end user can make use of has presented another difficult situation...maybe one OEM buys 100x more fo the same component, and gets deal on them...

I do make direct compares in the boards, via audio, and HDD performance, as well as software and BIOS. I show what you get in the box, and then I do show power consumption numbers for what the boarde pulls through the 8-pin. Then the data is presented in agraph, that shows the difference. UAdio data is one specific area I will be changing on upcoming reviews.

The CPU and memory numbers are compared across all platforms, which doesn't really serve much purpose other than within platforms, as differences in CPU tech affect those numbers. I am hoping that over time, with enough reviews giving data, that we might see a trend between OEMs, regardless of paltform, but there just isn't enough data there at this point.


----------



## Raphael (Jul 9, 2011)

Great reviews, for both the m5a97 evo and the m5a99x.
I'm just going to use a single gpu setup, so my choice between the two should be easy, though one single thing (well, appart from the lower power consumtion in the 99x) swings my prefered choice to the €40ish more exspensive 99x board. But is it justified?
According to the specs on Asus' site, the 97 has a system bus of up to 4.8 GT/s HyperTransport™ 3.0,whilst the 99x boasts speeds of up to 5.2 GT/s.
So I wonder: do the (up to) 400 MT/s extra have a noticeable affect in, say, anything just above mainstream gaming, or is this kind of difference only really visible in synthetic benchmarking?

Keep up the good work,
R


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 9, 2011)

HT is the bus between the CPU and the 9XX chipset. I have yet to see much of any applications that actually benefit from such increases, except with some multi-GPU setups.


----------



## Halk (Jul 9, 2011)

Any more 9xx reviews coming soon?


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 9, 2011)

Hopefully soon!


----------



## Raphael (Jul 9, 2011)

That's good to hear! It'll make the choice just that much easier to make.
That'll just leave me to decide between the energy efficiency of the two boards...
I'd imagine what the tests showed for cpu power draw would apply to every other component installed, yes? Hmm... a few W/h more on my energy bill or a saving of some € 40 now...
ROFL, if I had exact numbers, I could calculate the time one would have to use a given setup with the 990x chipset board vs. the 970, but I guesstimate which board would be best for my needs / budget right now 

Thanks a bunch!
R


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 9, 2011)

Just don't forget that variations in parts could also lead to a M5A97 EVO having the smae power consumption. It's not like there was a huge, drastic difference, to me. I do use non-typical loads in an effort to stress the VRM.


----------



## Raphael (Jul 9, 2011)

Oh, aye, I agree with you that's it not a drastic difference, but the 16% difference under full load with EPU on - (20 / 123) * 100% = 16,ish % - made me pause and wonder about the payback-ratio (the time it takes an investment to 'pay itself back'), and even under full load, 24/7 running, I estimated the ratio would be longer than it's (economical) lifetime.
So I'll go with the M5A97 EVO and the extra few W/h will show on my electricity bill, and a few extra is no biggie: it's charged per kW/h


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Jul 9, 2011)

cadaveca, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PUT A CUSTOM TITLE!


----------



## Halk (Jul 9, 2011)

Raphael said:


> Oh, aye, I agree with you that's it not a drastic difference, but the 16% difference under full load with EPU on - (20 / 123) * 100% = 16,ish % - made me pause and wonder about the payback-ratio (the time it takes an investment to 'pay itself back'), and even under full load, 24/7 running, I estimated the ratio would be longer than it's (economical) lifetime.
> So I'll go with the M5A97 EVO and the extra few W/h will show on my electricity bill, and a few extra is no biggie: it's charged per kW/h



If it's any help I was calculating roughly the other day that 1W is about £1 per year at UK electricity costs. That's based on about 12.5p per unit - I don't know how much Americans pay, but if it's roughly that then you can translate that to dollars.

So 20W more efficient is £20 per year - or £40 if you assume 2 years life from it.

But if that's under load and the difference is at idle then it's much much smaller.

Cadaveca - there's a nice article for you to do if you fancy it. Investigate possible power savings, and efficiencies based on enabling things like C&Q, and using efficient parts where possible..... but still with the same amount of thump available. A lot of work though!


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 9, 2011)

To be honest, I could do more reviews/articles, but it's really a lack of hardware that prevents me from doing more, as well as time.

I'm working on updating the test rig, and what I want to do is gonna cost a fair bit. I've given some products away, but still have a couple of P67/Z68/9-series boards to redo the HDD testing with, and I'm gonna put a bit more info into the overclocking, adding in OC power consumption, and OC efficiency.

I'd like more rams to check compaitbility issues, and more VGAs to load the boards up. I'd eventually liek to directly compare multi-GPU supporting boards with multiple GPUs, and those that only have one x16 slot with others with jsut one, in order to directly compare and benfits in BIOS to 3D efficiency.

I've had alot of requests for some of the higher-end boards too.


----------



## Raphael (Jul 10, 2011)

Halk said:


> If it's any help I was calculating roughly the other day that 1W is about £1 per year at UK electricity costs. That's based on about 12.5p per unit - I don't know how much Americans pay, but if it's roughly that then you can translate that to dollars.
> 
> So 20W more efficient is £20 per year - or £40 if you assume 2 years life from it.
> 
> ...



Halk, thanks for your 2cts.,  but are you sure about your calculations?
I don't know the going rates in the US either, seeing I'm from the Netherlands (howdie, neighbour!  ), but the going rate for me is about € 0,22 _per unit_.
To check, I took out the bill I got over last years use (1626kWh (not kW/h,... I always get the 2 mixed up)) at the rate of the 22 eurocents mentioned.
I do believe you made a slight mistake in the calculation you made. The unit by which dutch companies charge is 1 kWh. A rise in 20 Wh (or 0,02  kWh) does not seem to rime with your 1W = 1 Gbp...
Argh, I thought I had it all figured out and now I'm doubting again, lol! I'm even doubting the unit they use: kWh... kW/h seems to make much more sense!!!!
Just ignore the last bit; just the ramblings of a madman


----------



## Halk (Jul 10, 2011)

My calculation is as follows.

12.5p per unit for electricity - this is approx what I pay.
1watt running for one year is 1*24*365=8760 watt hours. Kilowatt hours is 8.76, and at 12.5p it comes out at £1.095.


----------



## Raphael (Jul 10, 2011)

Halk said:


> My calculation is as follows.
> 
> 12.5p per unit for electricity - this is approx what I pay.
> 1watt running for one year is 1*24*365=8760 watt hours. Kilowatt hours is 8.76, and at 12.5p it comes out at £1.095.



Aye, it makes sense. If I ran what I'm planning to be my gaming rig 24/7, for more than 2 years full load, it might be wise to consider the M5A99X Evo (which I still do, btw: the 4 sata on the 970 chipset will do, but I'll use them all, so no room for possible apgrades).
I didn't metion as much in my conclusion, but since it'll be my gaming rig, so even taking an unrealistic estimate of 8h a day, the 970 would be the cheaper investment for a (lsight) enthousiast like me,... Except if I'd use it as a gaming rig board for more than 5 years, which I doubt with my starting-to-seem-like-hardware-addiction 
Actually, the main reason I'm thinking of upgrading my gaming kit is because my HTPC upgrade I made this year (Core i3-2100T) in all but some ways beats the Athlon II 250 I have for my gaming. I've checked with my HD5750 stuck to the lga155 board, and it equals the Athlon setup in all save in the memory department.
I'm starting to be too much of a harwareophile to let a thing like that happen, So hence my desire for a new board, and a Phenom to begin with.

Thanks for your thoughts and ari verdeci,
R


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Just don't forget that variations in parts could also lead to a M5A97 EVO having the smae power consumption. It's not like there was a huge, drastic difference, to me. I do use non-typical loads in an effort to stress the VRM.



With my M5A97 EVO, I'm finding there's so much in the menu that can affect power consumption without ever touching base voltage values, and alot of it I don't even know what it does.  I just know that the BIOS says "this will help stability when overclocking" and apparently ti's right - 4GHz on my Phenom II was not possible on my K9A2-CF, even with a higher CPU voltage.  I can "get by" on 1.45v on the ASUS where the MSI wasn't stable even with 1.5v.  And all of that will affect power consumption.  Exactly how much I don't know, I don't have anything beyond my kill-a-watt, which shows an 8-10W difference between high efficiency and high performance.


----------



## Ren7on (Jul 29, 2011)

*First of all: Great review.*

I just bought the M5A99X today and I was amazed with the amount of options for setup and OC. The BIOS is simply outstanding. I have it paired with a 1055T (now at 3.6GHz), G.Skill 2x4GB 1600 CL9 (1766MHz), MSI GTX 560Ti TFII (925/1100), X-Fi Fatal1ty and a CoolIt ECO ALC.

I bought this mother mostly because I found someone to sell my old one (M4A785G-V EVO), to be ready for the future Zambezi X8 and to have the option to put another 560. This last thing is wich ultimately let me decide for the 990X over the 970 chipset.

If anyone else is thinking about buying this baby, stop thinking about it and just do it.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 29, 2011)

I agree, ASUS really knocked it out of the park with this series.


----------



## Athlonite (Aug 22, 2011)

The only thing I can see that lets this mobo down is the x8x8x4 PCIe I would have prefered 2 x16x16 slots and 1 or 2 x1 slots and 1 PCI slot over the x8x8x4 limited tri/sli/CF config this offers


----------



## ioni31 (Nov 12, 2011)

Hello,
I intend to buy this mainboard M5A99X EVO but I'm not sure if using a single PCi Express video card, it will work at 16X or 8X? 
In the future I will not use a SLI or a crossfire video cards. Would you recommend me in this case buying the model M5A97 istead? (sorry for my english).
Cheers.


----------



## Neo4 (Nov 12, 2011)

ioni31 said:


> Hello,
> I intend to buy this mainboard M5A99X EVO but I'm not sure if using a single PCi Express video card, it will work at 16X or 8X?
> In the future I will not use a SLI or a crossfire video cards. Would you recommend me in this case buying the model M5A97 istead? (sorry for my english).
> Cheers.



The board has SLI and CrossfireX capability at X16 for a single card or X8 X8 for dual. It's a great board.


----------



## Mordecai Walfish (Jun 8, 2012)

I know this is a bit necro but I just read the review and then the comments and would like to agree with Neo4 at the end here..

There truly is *very* little difference between PCI-e x16 in both slots for SLI/CF or having x8 in both slots while in SLI.  Look it up, I cant find the link off hand but tests of this have proven that this difference is minimal, and I sure as heck would prefer x8 in both slots to a x16/x4 setup.


----------



## okto (Oct 15, 2012)

*power/reset onboard*

hello,
i know its kinda old thread/review (i get the old thread warning)
but i think it doesn matter,
the 990x suit me, but i cant find the onboard power/reset button (i just looking at the picture)
is there power/reset button onboard?

because my old case is like test rack transparant case (so theres no front pannel and other things)
its little bit troublesome  if theres no onboard power/reset button,

sorry for my bad english i hope you got the point


----------



## Athlonite (Oct 15, 2012)

No there isn't an onboard Power/reset button this isn't an High end Asus mobo so little things like that get left out in order to save the punter money


----------

