Monday, March 23rd 2015

GIGABYTE Intros 990XA-UD3 R5 Socket AM3+ Motherboard

GIGABYTE introduced its latest socket AM3+ motherboard, and its first in a long while, the 990XA-UD3 R5. Built in the standard ATX form-factor, the board draws power from a combination of 24-pin ATX and 8-pin EPS connectors, and conditions it using a 10-phase CPU VRM. The board, however, does not support FX-9000 series chips. Based on AMD 990X chipset, featuring AMD SB950 southbridge, expansion slots of the board include two PCI-Express 2.0 x16 (x8/x8 when both are populated), supporting NVIDIA SLI and AMD CrossFireX, a third PCIe 2.0 x16 slot (electrical x4, wired to the southbridge), and two each of PCIe 2.0 x1 and legacy PCI slots.

Storage connectivity on the 990XA-UD3 R5 include six SATA 6 Gb/s ports. The board's onboard audio solution features a Realtek ALC1150 CODEC, offering 115 dBA SNR, audio-grade electrolytic capacitors on the audio circuit, a TI-made headphones amplifier with support for headphones impedance as high as 600Ω, and PCB ground-layer isolation. Also on offer are a gigabit Ethernet connection, driven by a Realtek-made controller, four USB 3.0 ports (two on the rear panel, two by headers), and PS/2 mouse/keyboard combo port. The board is driven by AMI UEFI BIOS, and supports Windows 8 SecureBoot and FastBoot. Expect this board to be priced around US $130.
Add your own comment

55 Comments on GIGABYTE Intros 990XA-UD3 R5 Socket AM3+ Motherboard

#1
Caring1
Makes me think AMD are going to release a new AM3+ FX Processor this year, with a lower TDP.
There has been a couple of new boards come out with the 970 and 990 chipset.
Posted on Reply
#2
NC37
Caring1 said:
Makes me think AMD are going to release a new AM3+ FX Processor this year, with a lower TDP.
There has been a couple of new boards come out with the 970 and 990 chipset.
Depends how much old inventory they still have to move. But either way it would be a waste of money.
Posted on Reply
#3
john_
There isn't going to be a new FX chip, but the old ones are going to look much better value when DX12 comes.
Posted on Reply
#4
Countryside
john_ said:
There isn't going to be a new FX chip, but the old ones are going to look much better value when DX12 comes.
Yeah not yet, new ones are coming early 2016 and yeah like NC37 said it would be a waste of money & reasorses.
Posted on Reply
#5
Sony Xperia S
Countryside said:
Yeah not yet, new ones are coming early 2016
You already know about the new Zen processors on 16 nm coming early next year?!

john_ said:
There isn't going to be a new FX chip
How will the new processors be called if not FX?
Posted on Reply
#6
Countryside
Indeed i do and i see that you also know :D
Posted on Reply
#7
Sony Xperia S
Countryside said:
Indeed i do and i see that you also know :D
I am looking forward to seeing and probably using them. Full of anticipation for something worth it. ;)
Posted on Reply
#8
Countryside
Sony Xperia S said:
I am looking forward to seeing and probably using them. Full of anticipation for something worth it. ;)
True words! time for AMD redemption song.
Posted on Reply
#9
VulkanBros
Why the heck does GIGABYTE not put in support for FX-9xxx ??
Posted on Reply
#10
Assimilator
john_ said:
There isn't going to be a new FX chip, but the old ones are going to look much better value when DX12 comes.
How? AM3+ chips don't have integrated graphics...
Posted on Reply
#11
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Assimilator said:
How? AM3+ chips don't have integrated graphics...
DX12 will be extremely friendly with multi-core CPUs, even without developers making their games multi-core friendly.
Posted on Reply
#12
john_
Sony Xperia S said:
How will the new processors be called if not FX?
We are talking about AM3+ and on AM3+ I do not expect any new FX. And when I mean no new FX I do not mean a Piledriver model. AMD can come out with a Piledriver based model, but that would be just a different model number not REALLY a NEW FX.
Posted on Reply
#13
Caring1
VulkanBros said:
Why the heck does GIGABYTE not put in support for FX-9xxx ??
It's not a high end board marketed at gamers, which would require capacity for higher voltage regulation and a better VRM.
This way they keep costs down and can sell it mainstream for general purpose.
Posted on Reply
#15
Jorge
VulkanBros said:
Why the heck does GIGABYTE not put in support for FX-9xxx ??
Because the FX-9000 series is a 220w CPU and requires a better quality VRM design to deliver proper power. For years Gigabyte had issues with just providing sufficient power for the FX-8000 series mobos and ended up having to revise their VRM designs in the past two years. Going from 140w to 220w is a cost issue primarily, because better components and heat sinks are required.

The 12+2 phase Asrock mobos have proven to be excellent for the FX-9000 series as have some Asus models. Only use an AM3+ mobo properly rated for the FX-9000 CPUs to prevent VRM failure and many expensive headaches.
Posted on Reply
#16
Jorge
Assimilator said:
How? AM3+ chips don't have integrated graphics...
AM3+ CPUs are not designed to have integrated graphics nor do those who buy the FX processors desire such. The FX discrete processor and a good GPU card out perform APUs at this time. Eventually that will change but that's years down the road. The current FX model CPUs however do provide decent performance at a good price so for many they are a good value. The newer mobos tend to offer better audio and SATA ports for those looking for these special features.

Mobo makers are not selling as many Intel mobos as they'd like in a down market so additional revenues from AMD mobos contribute to the revenue stream.
Posted on Reply
#17
buildzoid
LOL that VRM design. They put 10 inductors but they are parallel in pairs so while this looks like an 8+2 it's a 4+1. You can tell that there aren't many MOSFETs because of how small the VRM heatsink is.
Posted on Reply
#18
Assimilator
btarunr said:
DX12 will be extremely friendly with multi-core CPUs, even without developers making their games multi-core friendly.
Except that AMD CPUs aren't true octa-cores, they're closer to quad cores with HyperThreading. And Intel's i7s are faster than AMD's FX chips, so they're still going to be faster when DX12 arrives. Since quad-core CPUs are currently the most common, that's probably the highest common denominator that DX12 will target.

So yeah, not seeing any advantages for AMD.
Posted on Reply
#19
xorbe
buildzoid said:
LOL that VRM design. They put 10 inductors but they are parallel in pairs so while this looks like an 8+2 it's a 4+1. You can tell that there aren't many MOSFETs because of how small the VRM heatsink is.
I found this awesome motherboard chart with VRM info, but sadly the website hasn't been updated for 1/2 year
http://sinhardware.com/index.php/vrm-list
Posted on Reply
#20
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Assimilator said:
Except that AMD CPUs aren't true octa-cores, they're closer to quad cores with HyperThreading. And Intel's i7s are faster than AMD's FX chips, so they're still going to be faster when DX12 arrives. Since quad-core CPUs are currently the most common, that's probably the highest common denominator that DX12 will target.

So yeah, not seeing any advantages for AMD.
AMD Bulldozer is as much an octa-core as Intel Conroe was a dual-core (shared paths/cache between two cores).
Posted on Reply
#21
Sony Xperia S
Jorge said:
The FX discrete processor and a good GPU card out perform APUs at this time. Eventually that will change but that's years down the road.
You do not even know what you are speaking about. Total bull crap - that will NEVER happen.
Posted on Reply
#22
Countryside
Sony Xperia S said:
You do not even know what you are speaking about. Total bull crap - that will NEVER happen.
What?:D at the moment no apu peforms better then FX. And in the case "taht will never happen is when AMD ***** up new FX cpus then they will have only gpus and apus
Posted on Reply
#23
john_
Assimilator said:
Except that AMD CPUs aren't true octa-cores, they're closer to quad cores with HyperThreading. And Intel's i7s are faster than AMD's FX chips, so they're still going to be faster when DX12 arrives. Since quad-core CPUs are currently the most common, that's probably the highest common denominator that DX12 will target.

So yeah, not seeing any advantages for AMD.
They are closer to octacores than quad cores, but you are right that it is AMD's approach to HyperThreading. Someone at that company in a very high position was stupid enough to love the Pentium 4 design, and even more stupid high rank people in the board of directors support the idea.

With DX11 you have many occasions where a dual core Pentium outperforms an eight core(four core if you prefer) FX chip in many games thanks to Haswell's higher IPC. With DX12 that will probably change and the FX chips will be faster at more games compared to a Pentium or even a i3. I don't know if we will see cases where an 8core FX will be even better performing compared to a i5 in a DX12 game.
Posted on Reply
#24
Jorge
Assimilator said:
Except that AMD CPUs aren't true octa-cores, they're closer to quad cores with HyperThreading. And Intel's i7s are faster than AMD's FX chips, so they're still going to be faster when DX12 arrives. Since quad-core CPUs are currently the most common, that's probably the highest common denominator that DX12 will target.

So yeah, not seeing any advantages for AMD.
Different day yet we still have the same technically ignorant rant about AMD cores not being real cores... People should educate themselves and stop talking nonsense.

For the record AMD builds it's CPUs on dual core modules that are added in quantities to produce a quad, hex or octa CPU. The AMD dual-core CPU is exactly that TWO CPU cores in one module. The fact that it uses one instruction fetch segment, etc. to feed two cores does not make it anything less than a dual core CPU. While floating point performance can be reduced by using this technique, integer performance is not compromised. The fact that two cores actually process two data bits concurrently ends the technical ignorance that AMD CPUs are not truly dual, quad, hex or octa cores, because they are and it's obvious they are when they can be observed processing two bits concurrently via dual cores.

As far as value vs. performance, AMD has always been the leader and is likely to stay that way. Most PC consumers including enthusiasts do not buy the highest priced CPU available, they buy what they believe to be a good value. Each person can decide for themselves what serves their needs best and at the best price.
Posted on Reply
#25
Sony Xperia S
john_ said:
With DX11 you have many occasions where a dual core Pentium outperforms an eight core(four core if you prefer) FX chip in many games thanks to Haswell's higher IPC.
Link with those benchmarks, please!

Countryside said:
What?:D at the moment no apu peforms better then FX. And in the case "taht will never happen is when AMD ***** up new FX cpus then they will have only gpus and apus
You don't understand either. :D

He said that eventually at some point a potential APU would be faster than an FX processor + a discrete graphics card.

Do you realise that might happen only if there is no more progress in the discrete CPUs & GPUs?!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment