ASRock Z690 Phantom Gaming-ITX/TB4

[ir_cow]

ASRock once again brings the popular Phantom Gaming line to the ITX sector. Including Thunderbolt 4, WiFi 6E, DDR5, PCIe Gen5, and a powerful VRM solution, the ASRock Z690 Phantom Gaming-ITX/TB4 is rich in features, and hopefully a worthy successor. Join me as we take a closer look at the ASRock Z690 ITX offering.

Show full review

 

[The King]

Nice to see BenchMate being used. Lots of info in one screenshot.

 

[Voodoo Rufus]

Poor audio quality and VRM cooling. I was really looking forward to this one. Oh well.

 

[Sabishii Hito]

A 10-layer PCB and 1 DIMM per channel and it can't do DDR5-6600? The heck did Asrock do to gimp that hardware??

 

[ir_cow]

A 10-layer PCB and 1 DIMM per channel and it can't do DDR5-6600? The heck did Asrock do to gimp that hardware?

No idea lol. I should clarify that I do not have a 6600 kit, but I use a 6400 one that can do 6600 just fine. In fact the ASRock PG Velocita* runs 6600 and passes all stability tests. Same memory kit.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

That fan is useless

 

[tabascosauz]

A 10-layer PCB and 1 DIMM per channel and it can't do DDR5-6600? The heck did Asrock do to gimp that hardware??

No idea lol. I should clarify that I do not have a 6600 kit, but I use a 6400 one that can do 6600 just fine. In fact the ASRock PG Velocity runs 6600 and passes all stability tests. Same memory kit.

@ir_cow did you find out what the tiny 1-phase VRM on the back in the middle of the memory trace plane is for? Whenever they interfere with the memory topology by placing random crap in the middle of it, memory OC suffers. It happened last time with their X570 ITX/TB3, where it was just as if not more egregious as the random components were smack in the middle on the front side of the board instead.

But then again, the Z690I Unify is QVL'd for 6800 with the same TB4 and lots of crap on the back (but not a whole-ass VRM back there), so maybe it's just another case of ASRock PCB design strikes again. Strix looks like it's in the same boat as the ASRock. The PG Velocita obviously has none of the clutter.

As for the VRM, ASRock has been needing a refresher course in thermodynamics for a number of generations now. Bigger fins + passive airflow, or smaller fins + fan. Giant useless slab + fan = still a giant useless slab.

 

[ir_cow]

@ir_cow did you find out what the tiny 1-phase VRM on the back in the middle of the memory trace plane is for? Whenever they interfere with the memory topology by placing random crap in the middle of it, memory OC suffers. It happened last time with their X570 ITX/TB3, where it was just as if not more egregious as the random components were smack in the middle on the front side of the board instead.

I was thinking that is the 5v power rail feeding the PMIC on the DIMMS. I'm trying to think of a easy way to take a measurement from the coil without soldering a wire to it. Its a little hard to reach being underneath. But I don't actually know it is without probing it to find out.

 

[Vayra86]

Oh AsRock... you design a board and every aspect that matters for something you'd use an ITX box for, fails.
Its hot ergo noisy to keep cool, the audio sucks, and if you like fancy lights, you have the most lackluster support in the business.

And then you have the audacity to price it at 350?! This is worth half the amount at best, and even that is pushing it. Nothing is high end here, except the marketing. These are the 'almost great' aspects you'd expect on a budget board that competes on price; the functions are there, just don't ask how. Except it doesn't compete on price.

At least its small, I guess?

As for the VRM, ASRock has been needing a refresher course in thermodynamics for a number of generations now. Bigger fins + passive airflow, or smaller fins + fan. Giant useless slab + fan = still a giant useless slab.

This, like numerous other products in consumer range just screams like a team of designers that HAD to change things to change things to make something look new. I mean... they already knew how to do it right, right? I've seen so many proper boards from this company.

Diminishing returns is one thing, but this is just taking strides back while increasing price for something that was never special to begin with. I don't get it. It all screams 'waste of energy' to me.

 

[tabascosauz]

Oh AsRock... you design a board and every aspect that matters for something you'd use an ITX box for, fails.
Its hot ergo noisy to keep cool, the audio sucks, and if you like fancy lights, you have the most lackluster support in the business.

And then you have the audacity to price it at 350?! This is worth half the amount at best, and even that is pushing it. Nothing is high end here, except the marketing. These are the 'almost great' aspects you'd expect on a budget board that competes on price; the functions are there, just don't ask how. Except it doesn't compete on price.

At least its small, I guess?

I distinctly remember their Z390 PG ITX board, because it was essentially the only ITX robust enough to truly stand up to the 9900K @ 5.0. While allowing for some warm VRM temps and a bit of airflow of course. Look at the heatsink on that beauty.

X570, Z490, Z590, and now Z690......new ASRock goes with the philosophy that "small fan can fix any shitty garbage" despite doubling the phase count and now having access to 70A, 90A and 105A SPS

TB is nice to have, and the Z690 board finally has decent I/O, but stuff needs to change

 

[thelawnet]

What a crappy board, it's hard to imagine anyone in the market for $350 board, plus $350 DDR5 RAM, plus $350 CPU, deciding this is a good idea.

BTW Asrock have a bunch of other terrible ITX boards:

* H610M ITX/ac - this one sucks but should be cheap and the VRM while still terrible is actually slightly better than Asrock's terrible mATX H610 boards
* B660M ITX/ac - this one is an abomination playing the same trick as the B660M HDV, and is just the H610 board with a different logo, and the same obsolete wifi/bluetooh card
* H670M ITX/ax - this has a stupid-ass giant heatsink over the M.2 but they forgot to cover the VRMs.
* Z690M ITX/ax - this is basically anyone else's H610 board, but Asrock put a Z690 in it, and charged $230 just to be a hilarious joke for such a low-quality motherboard, it still has the M.2 heatsink idiocy but no heatsink on half the VRMs.

The present board should be a B660 and around $170 with DDR4, but as it is Asrock made a clean sweep of 5 out of 5 bad ITX boards.

Congratulations Assrock for this achievement of crappiness.

BTW only Gigabyte and Biostar apart from Asrock have DDR4 ITX boards. The Gigabyte Aorus Pro or Aorus Ultra, and the Biostar Racing GTN both look like reasonable choices, just avoid the Asrock's (Ok, if the H610 is like $100 cheaper than the competent boards from other brands, and you only have an i3, then its fine).

 

[ExcuseMeWtf]

Asrock is not to be trusted. They put out crappy mobos over and over. Even if they score reasonably in review, their long-term use is suspect IMO. Hardware Unboxed exposed them multiple times by now BTW.

 

[thelawnet]

Asrock is not to be trusted. They put out crappy mobos over and over. Even if they score reasonably in review, their long-term use is suspect IMO. Hardware Unboxed exposed them multiple times by now BTW.

exposed how? they sell boards with underspecced vrms. that much is clear from the photos on their website, no exposure really necessary

 

[ExcuseMeWtf]

exposed how? they sell boards with underspecced vrms. that much is clear from the photos on their website, no exposure really necessary

How about basically fraudulent claims of supporting CPUs at TDPs it actually doesn't?

And no, it's not wise to rely on photos alone to make final judgements about the product lmao. You can make reasonable guesses, but if it's so "clear" just from photos, why bother with reviewing stuff to begin with lmao.

 

[thelawnet]

How about basically fraudulent claims of supporting CPUs at TDPs it actually doesn't?

And no, it's not wise to rely on photos alone to make final judgements about the product lmao. You can make reasonable guesses, but if it's so "clear" just from photos, why bother with reviewing stuff to begin with lmao.

Meh, they are low spec vrms they either meet your needs or not, plenty of 20*105A boards out there and plenty of users who don't care about their board running an i7 at 8 x 4.9 GHz for 1 hour solid

Reviews can tell you an apparently good board is bad, but it's clear without needing to review them that cheap, naked VRMs are going to perform poorly.

a lot of people watch these reviews and go 'asrock sucks reeee' but a 12600k is like 150W and a 12400F only around 80W, so the fact that the performance is poor with CPUs that are beyond the requirements and budgets of most users doesnt mean that the cheap boards are unusable (obviously expensive and poor is just trash, but the cheaper boards do great servixe for many users)

that b660m hdv is just an h610m hdv/m.2 with an extra m.2 slot. i would highly recommend the h610m hdv/m.2 in my market (it's $30 cheaper than any other board), and as I understand it in the US the b660m hdv is the same price as the h610m, so you'd obviously choose the b660 version rather than the h610 (or some other board entirely)

if you're building an i3 system on a budget then spending $$$$$ on a board that would power an i9 is just a waste of limited funds

 

[ExcuseMeWtf]

None of that matters.
If your mobo can't support CPU at said TDP, how about... not advertising that it does?
Since you recommend specific motherboard from this shady company, do you have evidence that it's actually able to support turbo properly on CPUs in specific configurations you mention? Because even giving them benefit of the doubt at that point is iffy. Since other motherboards clearly are shown to work fine with higher TDPs, it's safe to assume they will with lower TDPs too. Asrock does not. So it's not an open and shut case that lower CPUs bring TDP low enough for it to work properly.

 

[thelawnet]

None of that matters.
If your mobo can't support CPU at said TDP, how about... not advertising that it does?
Since you recommend specific motherboard from this shady company, do you have evidence that it's actually able to support turbo properly on CPUs you mentioned?

Sure

This Indonesian video (it won't be cold!) shows the i3-12100F working well. The i5-12400F is throttled to 4 GHz. They resolve this by reducing the CPU voltage, whereupon it delivers the same performance as more expensive boards.

Note that the i5-12400F has TDP of 65W, the turbo power is quoted as 117W, though I believe it's more like 85W. It works fine at 65W, and goes a little over that with tweaking.

So.

(I would note that as an Indonesian video then the context is quite different from an Australian or American video; in the Indonesian context you typically in everyday life use poor quality goods for cost-saving reasons, and have to make do with them, whereas Western consumers would just throw it in the trash. So here it makes no sense for the viewer to say that the board is useless trash, because it is a better solution for most of the buyers than spending money they don't have on more expensive boards.)

 

[ExcuseMeWtf]

So they had to reduce voltage for i5 12400F to start working properly lmao.
It doesn't work properly out of the box.
You call that a pass? Okay bud.

And no, you can't assume that just because they're in Indonesia, it must have been hot in the office they used for test. I don't see them testing outside in scorching sun lmao. Also what about case airflow? Can you assure it will work the same in more restrictive cases? Doubt it.
And since it's marginal at best with i5 12400F we can't even be sure that in less favorable conditions it won't become marginal in i3 12100F as well.
Sooooo... thanks for proving my point I guess? Have a nice day

 

[thelawnet]

So they had to reduce voltage for i5 12400F to start working properly lmao.
It doesn't work properly out of the box.
You call that a pass? Okay bud.

And no, you can't assume that just because they're in Indonesia, it must have been hot in the office they used for test. I don't see them testing outside in scorching sun lmao. Also what about case airflow? Can you assure it will work the same in more restrictive cases? Doubt it.
And since it's marginal at best with i5 12400F we can't even be sure that in less favorable conditions it won't become marginal in i3 12100F as well.
Sooooo... thanks for proving my point I guess? Have a nice day

You are mistaken.

The TDP out of the box is 65W, which it complies with. Anything else is, per Intel's spec, time-limited.

Disabling power limits and reducing voltage to 0.95V are both outside the standard spec.

It is what it is, like I said, you can see the VRMs on their website, nobody forces you to buy it, if you're in the market for a cheap board then you are responsible to check how well the different options perform and buy based on that.

 

[ExcuseMeWtf]

TDP is 65W, but maximum turbo power is 117W, and clearly that's a little too much for that little board

It is what it is, like I said, you can see the VRMs on their website, nobody forces you to buy it, if you're in the market for a cheap board then you are responsible to check how well the different options perform and buy based on that.

And that's exactly what I did lmao. Went with Gigabyte Gaming B660M, which was just slightly more expensive, and yet HWUB proved it is adequate for my application, unlike that Asrock. Not sure what offends you so much about it, again, you're the one that replied to me and felt the need to defend Asrock's good name apparently, when we have tests showing to the contrary. If those fails don't bother you, so be it, your money, your choice, but:

1)Let others make purchases that are not in line with what you personally recommend.
2)I suggest you qualify your recommendaton for that board with what you just said about potential throttling even with i5 12400F, so people are not misled.

 

[seth1911]

Z Boards are useless since comet lake, if i want a high clock cpu then i go with maybe an 12700 all core boost tweak = 4,9 GHz.


Yeah .... ones buy a Z Board to OC the cpu to 5,4 GHz, yeah pay 100$ + for the K and 60$+ for the Z Board,
for 10% higher Performance.




A friend of me is such of an dumb human, he bought an 12600K + Z Board,
for this price he would get an 12700 with B Board.

 

[ir_cow]

A friend of me is such of an dumb human, he bought an 12600K + Z Board,
for this price he would get an 12700 with B Board.

Here I am about to delid my personal12700K and go all-in haha. To each his own I guess right?

 

[owen10578]

That is the most idiotic VRM fan placement yet...

 

[thelawnet]

TDP is 65W, but maximum turbo power is 117W, and clearly that's a little too much for that little board

And that's exactly what I did lmao. Went with Gigabyte Gaming B660M, which was just slightly more expensive, and yet HWUB proved it is adequate for my application, unlike that Asrock. Not sure what offends you so much about it, again, you're the one that replied to me and felt the need to defend Asrock's good name apparently, when we have tests showing to the contrary. If those fails don't bother you, so be it, your money, your choice, but:

1)Let others make purchases that are not in line with what you personally recommend.
2)I suggest you qualify your recommendaton for that board with what you just said about potential throttling even with i5 12400F, so people are not misled.

I wasn't defending their good name, I already said that 100% of their ITX boards are crappy, I was just clarifying that when the board is clearly photographed on the manufacturer's website as having a small number of totally naked VRMs, then it's going to perform poorly, and there is no need for a hysterical review to prove that, especially when said review makes no attempt to address the actually useful questions for potential buyers about CPUs they might actually use with the board, because clearly you don't buy a 12700 with the cheapest H610 board with a B660 soldered on to it.


OTOH something like the present review of this $350 motherboard is more useful in that it's non-obvious that the board is poor and more than a 2-second glance at the website is required.

 

[Voodoo Rufus]

I distinctly remember their Z390 PG ITX board, because it was essentially the only ITX robust enough to truly stand up to the 9900K @ 5.0. While allowing for some warm VRM temps and a bit of airflow of course. Look at the heatsink on that beauty.

I have a Z390 PG ITX. It's a nice little board and my first ITX. No complaints at all, except no integrated I/O shield. I might put my 9900KS in it someday, but it runs the 8086K I have just fine. Looking at what Asrock did on the Z490/590 wasn't as impressive from a board layout perspective as I don't want daughterboards. The Z690 went away from the daughterboards, but then has the issues we're all noting. I shouldn't have to consider getting a monoblock or hacking the VRM cooling to get it where it should be. And I want the option of good onboard audio.

The Asus DTX X570 is the only one that went further with an ESS Sabre DAC given the little extra space it had available to use for the audio section.