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

ASRock X299 Killer SLI/ac

cadaveca

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
17,248 (2.45/day)
ASRock's entry-level Intel X299 motherboard is the X299 Killer SLI/ac, which we review today. With built-in Wi-Fi and a digital CPU VRM design, ASRock continues its solid stance on reliable Intel X299 motherboards, and perhaps just kills the competition.

Show full review
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems like that aggressive voltage on automatic overclocking is present on most motherboards on market today and manually tuning the voltage is the best option.
 
It always was that way...

Mobo's always tended to overvolt in favor of stability. Nothing new there. Chait. :)




@cadaveca - Why is CPUz reading the Input voltage? Both ASRock X299 boards I used showed actual voltage... 1.80.2x64 (the latest I believe) is what I am using...What voltage did you reach when overclocking on auto? Manual?
 
Last edited:
Only one USB 3.0 header? Nope.
 
Assimilator said:
Only one USB 3.0 header? Nope.
Click to expand...
You consistently give feedback that makes me think. Thanks, that's valid input!

Chaitanya said:
Seems like that aggressive voltage on automatic overclocking is present on most motherboards on market today and manually tuning the voltage is the best option.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is, and while I understand why it is happening, users do need to be made aware of what exactly is going on.

EarthDog said:
@cadaveca - Why is CPUz reading the Input voltage? Both ASRock X299 boards I used showed actual voltage... 1.80.2x64 (the latest I believe) is what I am using...What voltage did you reach when overclocking on auto? Manual?
Click to expand...

Yeah, CPU-Z version must be at fault there. automatic overclocking sees only 4.5 GHz due to temps. Manual clocking sees the 4.6 GHz AVX-stable with a small bit of thermal overhead (85c loaded @ 1.225V selected in BIOS). Input voltage is automatically upped to 2.1V again on this board, where I tuned that down to 1.775V, allowed the CPU to go that little bit further, so no big changes needed for manual tuning; just Input voltage.
 
:D
 
Not so much a comment on this specific board as it is on Asrock;

I just made a new build with the Asrock z270 Killer, it's the second Z270 mobo I have used (made a build with a gigabyte z270 previously) and my work PC (Asrock H81M) and previous gaming PC (Asrock P67) are/were both Asrock mobos. To me me personally, my biggest gripe with Asrock was the mobos always felt thinner then the completions but with the Asrock Z270 Killer I seriously felt as if I may break the PCB board as I gently tightened an after market heat sink back plate onto it.
 
I own this board, and I don't think it deserves an editors choice. You probably wouldn't find it during the tests in a review, but the BIOS is buggy and has caused me more frustration than any other board I have ever previously owned. The initial release BIOS would stop detecting M.2 drives after the first reboot, and the only way to fix it was to clear the CMOS every reboot. It took a month after release for ASRock to fix that bug; until then my system was unusable unless I kept it powered on 24/7. And the board won't flash BIOS updates unless you have a specific hardware configuration; otherwise it throws a "security check failed" error. It took me about a week to figure out that I have to unplug all SATA drives and clear the cmos BEFORE I can flash the BIOS. It's just ridiculous that they allowed this buggy a product to make it to retail.
 
Can't say I have experienced those issues in my testing either. It was fine in the latest version I tested on... 1.6(?)... its been out a monthish?

Im not saying it didnt happen, but what i am saying is the latest bios out, i havent seen these issues. And if others update to the latest who may be having these issues, id imagine their issue to be resolved. :)
 
Last edited:
EarthDog said:
Can't say I have experienced those issues in my testing either. It was fine in the latest version I tested on... 1.6(?)... its been out a monthish?

Im not saying it didnt happen, but what i am saying is the latest bios out, i havent seen these issues. And if others update to the latest who may be having these issues, id imagine their issue to be resolved. :)
Click to expand...
You must be referring to a different board, since the latest BIOS on their site is 1.30A. And I agree, it works fine with the latest BIOS version, but why did I have to put up with a month of a non-working product? The majority of people who buy motherboards aren't going to update their BIOS or even adjust more than the most basic of BIOS settings, so they will likely have the same frustrating experience as I did.
 
I'm used the same board. See the question mark after 1.6 that you quoted? That means I wasn't sure. Apologies I forgot the BIOS version.

The majority of people who purchase motherboards like this are going to flash their BIOS. The driver disk, which most people use, also has the ability to DL the latest BIOS. In other words, I disagree with your sentiment people aren't going to update their BIOS.

As far as the issues... you shouldn't have had to go through that. I agree there. However, its over now and most can easily flash if the boards don't have a later version.

I mean, price you pay for being an early adopter at times. Welcome to the club, nothing is perfect upon release... some are worse than others. :)
 
The Von Matrices said:
And I agree, it works fine with the latest BIOS version, but why did I have to put up with a month of a non-working product?
Click to expand...

Because the X299 train was rushed in light of Threadripper and you happened to jump on that train. But that definitely doesn't excuse Intel or Asrock for botching X299.

The Von Matrices said:
The majority of people who buy motherboards aren't going to update their BIOS or even adjust more than the most basic of BIOS settings, so they will likely have the same frustrating experience as I did.
Click to expand...

The majority of people who buy motherboards don't buy HEDT ones. There's an expectation (not unrealistic, IMO) that HEDT users are smarter than the average bear.
 
Assimilator said:
Not sure if sarcasm or...
Click to expand...
Not sarcasm at all. ;)

dirtyferret said:
Not so much a comment on this specific board as it is on Asrock;

I just made a new build with the Asrock z270 Killer, it's the second Z270 mobo I have used (made a build with a gigabyte z270 previously) and my work PC (Asrock H81M) and previous gaming PC (Asrock P67) are/were both Asrock mobos. To me me personally, my biggest gripe with Asrock was the mobos always felt thinner then the completions but with the Asrock Z270 Killer I seriously felt as if I may break the PCB board as I gently tightened an after market heat sink back plate onto it.
Click to expand...
If an X299 board bends, you did something really wrong. The socket design kind of makes that impossible. I feel what you are saying, nd yeah, some boards are thin, but I find that from all brands. Sometimes when you buy a more expensive board, those are the things you get to avoid. Board bending from heatsink pressure used to be pretty common in mainstream products, actually.
 
Hello, I'm new to this forum and I just read the review own this motherboard. However, I do have to say that I am currently in the process of building a x299 platform with this motherboard. I've actually noticed that this motherboard gives a area where a second USB 3.0 header can be soldiered in place. Additionally, I've also noticed the same thing about com1 port as well. Furthermore, I'm not sure about this aspect but it looks as if a debugging display can be added on to the board near the comos battery. These features would help this board dramatically and these parts cost little to nothing. I'm actually thinking about buying a second board of the same make and model and testing to see if indeed these aspects that I'm contemplating can be achieved.Lastly, I'd like to know if the original poster or anybody in the comments would think that this would be an achievable aspect. Because in the end I honestly think this board has a lot of features that the competition does not include for a entry-level board and ultimately if your to able to solider in the debugging screen, second 3.0 header, and the com1 port then that would make this board live up to its name in the aspects of killer value.
 
Last edited:
hello, again I did get in touch with asrock, concerning my thoughts and this was the reply.

"ASRock use the same PVC for different model ,depend of the motherboard model those empty spaces are occupied"

Which means to me if they use the pvc or in other words the same pcb board, then we should be able to solder in the missing aspects.
 
The key here is if the existing board controllers are able to support the additional bandwidth required for the new headers. Also, wouldn't a BIOS update be required to ID the new parts?
 
yes that would be true, and I was thinking the bios would need to be changed out to one that recognized the updates. I don't see the issue with changing out a bios with say a higher end motherboard say for example Fatal1ty X299 Professional Gaming i9. and if they were to use the same bios and bios version. I really don't think you'd need to swap them. This is the great thing about computer, is the user has so many different options which are most unaware of having. I would love to be able to test it to see if it would work, because then your talking about saving the third of the price of a higher end motherboard. I'll eventually look for a used one or a open box to test my theories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top