• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

ASRock X570 Phantom Gaming X

Black Haru

Black Haru

Staff member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
1,567 (0.28/day)
Location
Indiana
The top board from ASRock's excellent Phantom Gaming line, the X570 Phantom Gaming X brings the signature 2.5 Gb/s Phantom Gaming LAN as well as a powerful VRM, excellent RGB lighting, and even a metal backplate! This is the most affordable of the high-end mainstream boards, so how does it stack up to the competition?

Show full review
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Testing a 3600X on this board? Should be the 3900x!
And what king of setup was used on intel machines? No details on that.
 
Disappointed. I really wanted this board and was hoping it stood out from the Taichi. Well, hope it's on sell in a couple months when I upgrade.
 
4rk4noid said:
Testing a 3600X on this board? Should be the 3900x!
And what king of setup was used on intel machines? No details on that.
Click to expand...

If you quickly look at a Z390 review, you would see they are testing with an Intel I9-9900K.

I would agree, why there are comparative graphs of Intel and AMD kind of makes literally no sense. Especially when the platforms are using (using the Newegg pricing stick TPU utilizes) $495 vs $250 processors. This should really work both ways unless you are going to compare price points between the two products.

This would be like @W1zzard only testing multiple flavors of GTX2080 Supers and AMD 5700 XTs, and then posting comparison graphs of the two without denotation that the former is nearly double the price of the latter. Obviously this make no sense, and really looks like you are just trying to fill up graphs with more bars rather than actual usable information (since there seem to be a low amount of both X570 and Z390 reviews).
 
If board has any fans there should be noise test and information whether board supports semi passive operation. It is crucial information.
 
@Black Haru what's the default memory clocks you test Ryzen CPUs at? As 90ms latency is way higher than even AMD claims at 2666MHz.
You should be below 80ns at the very least with that kit.

dF4sjxFh6HNk7GXn.jpg
 
Hm, ASrock mobos, I liked them before I found out that their VRM is mostly just for show, most likely due inferior quality of components. In real tests, they fail just as easily as GB and others. Only thing that seems to be competitive is usually ASUS, some over-the-top MSI (usually also price is over the top) and sometimes eVGA (ofc they dont make AMD, pff..).

Which in reality usually ends with ASUS. Honestly market often seems as if all manufacturers just came to some sort of price-performance agreement and fck users.
 
Mescalamba said:
Hm, ASrock mobos, I liked them before I found out that their VRM is mostly just for show, most likely due inferior quality of components. In real tests, they fail just as easily as GB and others. Only thing that seems to be competitive is usually ASUS, some over-the-top MSI (usually also price is over the top) and sometimes eVGA (ofc they dont make AMD, pff..).

Which in reality usually ends with ASUS. Honestly market often seems as if all manufacturers just came to some sort of price-performance agreement and fck users.
Click to expand...
I've been using almost exclusively ASRock motherboards since 2014, and I've never had a single failure due to the motherboard. Never had any CPU degrading with stock settings, and I've used ASRock boards in most of my close friends and family computers (that I've built for them). What are you basing your opinion on?

Hey Nate, I have the same motherboard here and I'm finishing up my review too, but then I noticed something: my motherboard (X570 Phantom Gaming X rev 1.05, just like yours) has Vishay SiC634's, not 654's! I'm about to call ASRock to see what's the deal...

Hades said:
I've been using almost exclusively ASRock motherboards since 2014, and I've never had a single failure due to the motherboard. Never had any CPU degrading with stock settings, and I've used ASRock boards in most of my close friends and family computers (that I've built for them). What are you basing your opinion on?

Hey Nate, I have the same motherboard here and I'm finishing up my review too, but then I noticed something: my motherboard (X570 Phantom Gaming X rev 1.05, just like yours) has Vishay SiC634's, not 654's! I'm about to call ASRock to see what's the deal...
Click to expand...

I've just talked with ASRock EU, and it seems like you guys have a pre-production sample that was equipped with different VRMs than retail models. Retail models have the same VRM as the Taichi, SiC634, with much higher peak efficiency but no OCP/OTP.
 
dont see any DPC charts =\

hopefully anandtech starts doing more mobos
 
Looks like it has same stupid placement for front USB Type-C header. :mad:
 
IceShroom said:
Looks like it has same stupid placement for front USB Type-C header. :mad:
Click to expand...
huh? That is where most are... far right side, mid board....look it up. It is far from stupid, nor unusual.

where would you prefer it to reach the front of the chassis?????
 
EarthDog said:
huh? That is where most are... far right side, mid board....look it up. It is far from stupid, nor unusual.

where would you prefer it to reach the front of the chassis?????
Click to expand...
It is directly under the First PCI-e slot. If you install a 2 Fan GPU, the GPU will block the header. The header needs to few milimeter up, so it dont interfere with 1st PCI-e slot.
 
IceShroom said:
It is directly under the First PCI-e slot. If you install a 2 Fan GPU, the GPU will block the header. The header needs to few milimeter up, so it dont interfere with 1st PCI-e slot.
Click to expand...
Do you mean m.2 slot?

The front panel usb 3.1 g2 header you mentioned is where I said it was.... look at the board. :)
 

Attachments

  • AsRock X570 Phantom Gaming X 001.jpg
    AsRock X570 Phantom Gaming X 001.jpg
    162.5 KB · Views: 429
Ok, I see now what you are saying and you are correct.

But sweet lord man, your words versus where it actually is.... yikes.
 
EarthDog said:
Ok, I see now what you are saying and you are correct.

But sweet lord man, your words versus where it actually is.... yikes.
Click to expand...
English is not my native language. I am learning it.
 
IceShroom said:
English is not my native language. I am learning it.
Click to expand...
No problem!! Just sourcing the reason for my confusion. :)

Perhaps saying that the 'FP USB 3.1 header is inline with the first PCIe slot and when using a large GPU (anything over 11" basically) will cover it' would have done it for me, LOL!
 
EarthDog said:
On this board?
Click to expand...

No, on an MSI board.

ChaoticG8R said:
If you quickly look at a Z390 review, you would see they are testing with an Intel I9-9900K.

I would agree, why there are comparative graphs of Intel and AMD kind of makes literally no sense. Especially when the platforms are using (using the Newegg pricing stick TPU utilizes) $495 vs $250 processors. This should really work both ways unless you are going to compare price points between the two products.

This would be like @W1zzard only testing multiple flavors of GTX2080 Supers and AMD 5700 XTs, and then posting comparison graphs of the two without denotation that the former is nearly double the price of the latter. Obviously this make no sense, and really looks like you are just trying to fill up graphs with more bars rather than actual usable information (since there seem to be a low amount of both X570 and Z390 reviews).
Click to expand...

There is no real fair comparison for boards across platforms. I leave other boards in the graphs as a reference and trust the community to understand it can't be apples to apples. If this is a point of confusion, I can separate the platforms out.

As for the CPU used, I use the best sample that is available. In this case a 3600X, with the last Intel release it was a 9900k. I would love to move to a 3900X or at this point a 3950X.

TheLostSwede said:
@Black Haru what's the default memory clocks you test Ryzen CPUs at? As 90ms latency is way higher than even AMD claims at 2666MHz.
You should be below 80ns at the very least with that kit.

dF4sjxFh6HNk7GXn.jpg
Click to expand...

Memory speed defaults at 2400 Mhz for the kit I use in my tests.

Hades said:
I've been using almost exclusively ASRock motherboards since 2014, and I've never had a single failure due to the motherboard. Never had any CPU degrading with stock settings, and I've used ASRock boards in most of my close friends and family computers (that I've built for them). What are you basing your opinion on?

Hey Nate, I have the same motherboard here and I'm finishing up my review too, but then I noticed something: my motherboard (X570 Phantom Gaming X rev 1.05, just like yours) has Vishay SiC634's, not 654's! I'm about to call ASRock to see what's the deal...



I've just talked with ASRock EU, and it seems like you guys have a pre-production sample that was equipped with different VRMs than retail models. Retail models have the same VRM as the Taichi, SiC634, with much higher peak efficiency but no OCP/OTP.
Click to expand...

That is interesting. I'll edit the review to reflect that.
 
First thing: yes, the header conflicts with the first PCIe slot. To solve that, you can contact ASRock and they'll send free of charge an adapter to solve this issue. That is only for PCB rev1.05. Starting from the current revision, R1.06, the header is "tilted" 90°, mirroring what you can see on the Z390 Phantom Gaming X.

For Nate: your board is a preproduction sample, that's why it's equipped with SiC654, I got a confirm from ASRock :)
 
Hades said:
First thing: yes, the header conflicts with the first PCIe slot. To solve that, you can contact ASRock and they'll send free of charge an adapter to solve this issue. That is only for PCB rev1.05. Starting from the current revision, R1.06, the header is "tilted" 90°, mirroring what you can see on the Z390 Phantom Gaming X.

For Nate: your board is a preproduction sample, that's why it's equipped with SiC654, I got a confirm from ASRock :)
Click to expand...
Good to hear that AsRock addressed the Type-C header. But 90° 'Tilt' is still not that convenient.
 
Black Haru said:
Memory speed defaults at 2400 Mhz for the kit I use in my tests.
Click to expand...

Right, so why not set it to the recommended 3,200MHz at least? I don't think running the RAM at 2,400MHz accurately reflects the performance user will see from their setup, as I can't see anyone running X570 boards with that slow RAM. It also unfairly reduces the performance of the CPU by a couple of percent for no reason.
 
TheLostSwede said:
Right, so why not set it to the recommended 3,200MHz at least? I don't think running the RAM at 2,400MHz accurately reflects the performance user will see from their setup, as I can't see anyone running X570 boards with that slow RAM. It also unfairly reduces the performance of the CPU by a couple of percent for no reason.
Click to expand...
AMD does support 3200MT/s at JEDEC Voltage and Timing, but the problem is there are not memory kit with that data rate at JEDEC Voltage and Timing. Heck even 2933MT/s and 2666MT/s at JEDEC specs is hard to find. All those 3600/4000+MT/s kits default at 2133MT/s or 2400MT/s. Any speed above those is considered a overclock.
 
IceShroom said:
AMD does support 3200MT/s at JEDEC Voltage and Timing, but the problem is there are not memory kit with that data rate at JEDEC Voltage and Timing. Heck even 2933MT/s and 2666MT/s at JEDEC specs is hard to find. All those 3600/4000+MT/s kits default at 2133MT/s or 2400MT/s. Any speed above those is considered a overclock.
Click to expand...
And how many people use JEDEC rated RAM at JEDEC clocks/timings in their PC? Maybe every office PC out there, but not people reading this site.
In all fairness, it seems like @Black Haru tests the Intel boards he's reviewing at the same memory speed.
However, it feels strange to me to test boards and CPUs with memory that's slower than the highest native speed that the CPU manufacturer specifies.
Even more so in case of Ryzen 3000, as the memory latency is as we know, highly reliant on the memory speed and IF bus, much more so than on Intel CPUs.
Obviously there's an overclocking section, but it doesn't cover much in terms of benchmarks and it goes to the extreme end of what the system can manage.
 
Last edited:
TheLostSwede said:
However, it feels strange to me to test boards and CPUs with memory that's slower than the highest native speed that the CPU manufacturer specifies.
Click to expand...
This. Wow... I hadn't noticed. It's not like performance will change much, but yeah, running BELOW platform spec isn't doing the platform justice. Wow...

I mean a potato would work at those speeds on either platform. It isn't testing much and leaving a bit of performance that EVERYONE would have on the table.. yikes... yikes. :(


IceShroom said:
AMD does support 3200MT/s at JEDEC Voltage and Timing, but the problem is there are not memory kit with that data rate at JEDEC Voltage and Timing. Heck even 2933MT/s and 2666MT/s at JEDEC specs is hard to find. All those 3600/4000+MT/s kits default at 2133MT/s or 2400MT/s. Any speed above those is considered a overclock.
Click to expand...
JEDEC are simple specs/standards for the memory. It has nothing to do with the platform...just the base specs for the RAM and for compatibility. As far as the IC's under rated lower and anything above that overclocking... that is false. When I buy sticks of RAM, on the box it is rated to run at XXXX MHz, period. For 9900k, anything over 2666 is considered overclocking the IMC (not the sticks). For Zen 2, anything over 3200 MHz would be overclocking its IMC. You are only overclocking the RAM if you are going over what is rated on the box. Don't worry about JEDEC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top