ASRock X399M Taichi

[cadaveca]

ASRock showcases their engineering know-how once again, this time by taking AMD's Threadripper CPUs and stuffing it all into a mATX form factor. 32 threads and mATX, along with a Taichi treatment? Yes, PLEASE!

Show full review

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Googled the price of the 1950X and...

 

[dj-electric]

870$ for a 16 core CPU, quite juicy indeed

 

[Assimilator]

The ridiculous amount of functionality ASRock have crammed into such a small area is made even more impressive by the size of that TR4 socket.

Googled the price of the 1950X and...

It's a halo product, what exactly did you expect?

 

[IceShroom]

Very solid and only TR4 mATX board.
Though only downside is that, no USB 3.1 Type-C front header.
Now Asrock, make X470 version of it with Type-C header.

 

[windwhirl]

The ridiculous amount of functionality ASRock have crammed into such a small area is made even more impressive by the size of that TR4 socket.



It's a halo product, what exactly did you expect?

and it probably beats or at least matches any intel product within that price range in performance/features

 

[TheGuruStud]

1950x is cheap... 700 hurr.

 

[Caring1]

I love the design of the Motherboard, pity about the high power consumption of those CPU's though, if it was around 130W like a lot of Xeons it would be perfect.

 

[xkm1948]

Great review. I am surprised that RAMs were able to reach 3600. I can only reach 2933 with 128GB populated on the TR workstation.

I so wanted the Taichi X399 when I was helping the other lab building their TR workstation. Sadly it was all sold out. Love the Taichi boards.

I love the design of the Motherboard, pity about the high power consumption of those CPU's though, if it was around 130W like a lot of Xeons it would be perfect.

You need to compare in context. A similar performed Xeon would cost how much?

 

[TheGuruStud]

I love the design of the Motherboard, pity about the high power consumption of those CPU's though, if it was around 130W like a lot of Xeons it would be perfect.

That's easy. Drop clocks a couple hundred MHz and reduce V.

 

[Assimilator]

You need to compare in context. A similar performed Xeon would cost how much?

Xeon is server, not HEDT, and should be compared to Epyc. Threadripper is more validly compared to the Intel X-series, but the closest in specs to 1950X is the i9-7960X which will set you back a cool ~$1,700. The closest to the lowest-end TR, the ~$450 1900X, would be the i9-7900X at ~$1,000... and both of the AMD processors provide 64 PCIe lanes, while the i9s only provide 44. (The i9s are "only" 140W TDP compared to TR's 180W, but at this performance level, power consumption really isn't a major concern.)

So yeah, Threadripper may be expensive, but it's still damn good value in comparison.

 

[efikkan]

This looks like a pretty decent board, even better if it provided 10 Gb/s Ethernet. Still, I believe that someone who builds a machine for >$2500 should consider full ATX to have the option of expanding memory.

Threadripper is more validly compared to the Intel X-series, but the closest in specs to 1950X is the i9-7960X which will set you back a cool ~$1,700. The closest to the lowest-end TR, the ~$450 1900X, would be the i9-7900X at ~$1,000... and both of the AMD processors provide 64 PCIe lanes, while the i9s only provide 44. (The i9s are "only" 140W TDP compared to TR's 180W, but at this performance level, power consumption really isn't a major concern.)

So yeah, Threadripper may be expensive, but it's still damn good value in comparison.

The only way to make Threadripper look better than Skylake-X is by comparing "specs" rather than performance.
i9-7900X ($999) is a strong competitor to Threadripper 1950X ($999). Threadripper 1950X is absolutely a decent CPU, and pulls ahead certain workloads such as rendering in Blender, but you'll have to have pretty specific workloads to get a better value compared to i9-7900X's much stronger cores. Arguing Threadripper 1950X($999) with it's 16 cores is a "better buy" than i9-7960X($1699) is just as silly as claiming Vega 56($399) is a superior deal compared to GTX 1080 Ti($699) because both of them provide the same number of cores…

64 PCIe lanes is a fair argument for buyers who actually needs them, which is pretty much limited to people running heavy compute workloads on four GPUs or similar.

 

[jabbadap]

Xeon is server, not HEDT, and should be compared to Epyc. Threadripper is more validly compared to the Intel X-series, but the closest in specs to 1950X is the i9-7960X which will set you back a cool ~$1,700. The closest to the lowest-end TR, the ~$450 1900X, would be the i9-7900X at ~$1,000... and both of the AMD processors provide 64 PCIe lanes, while the i9s only provide 44. (The i9s are "only" 140W TDP compared to TR's 180W, but at this performance level, power consumption really isn't a major concern.)

So yeah, Threadripper may be expensive, but it's still damn good value in comparison.

i9-7900x is ten core and TR 1900x is eight core so comparable to i7-7820x with mrsp of $600(yes it has cut down pcie lanes from 44->28). Though those low core Skylake Xs are kind of pointless anyway(Well there's nothing more pointless than kaby lake x were, but lets not go to that anymore). But yeah that eight core threadripper is not that much better buy at $450 for 8c/16t, I would rather buy 2. gen x470 platform for cheaper. For x399 platform TR 1920x and TR 1950x are the ones to buy, not saying x299(/x399 ) -platform intel i9s are bad buy either.