ASRock Z77 Extreme9 In The Box

ASRock boxes can often flip between very good value and perhaps not so much.  On the plus side, they had a phase where even the cheap end boxes contained a USB 3.0 front panel addition, which I thought was quite special.  In terms of the Z77 Extreme9, we get the following:

Driver CD
IO Panel
Manual
Six SATA cables
Two SATA-to-Molex Power Cables
3-way Rigid SLI Bridge
Three 2-way SLI Bridges
Wi-SB Box

While the ASRock Z77 Extreme9 has more SATA ports than the Gigabyte G1.Sniper 3, they have decided to put less SATA cables in the box – we do not get anything eSATA or otherwise either.  The big plus in the box is the ASRock Wi-SB box, which connects to the onboard WiFi.  This Wi-SB box houses two sets of antenna, allowing for better reception of WiFi signals.  The box doubles up as a 2.5” drive storage and two USB 3.0 ports for use on one of the two USB 3.0 headers.

Voltage Readings

After my first publication of OCCT voltage readings, a few readers responded with a more in-depth reasoning behind some of the results we were seeing.  With this in mind, I would like to re-describe what we are doing with this test, and how it comes about.

Much of what an enthusiast overclocker does is monitor CPU temperature and voltage.  Whatever settings a user places in the BIOS or OS is at the mercy of the motherboard - in terms of actually setting the values and reporting the values back.   As an enthusiast, we have to rely on what readings we get back, and hope that motherboard manufacturers are being honest with their readings.

Take CPU voltage.  What we as a user see in CPU-Z or OCCT is a time-averaged value that hides voltage ripple (if any) for power delivery.  It is very easy for a motherboard manufacturer to hide this value, or to disregard slight deviations and report a constant value to the user.  The CPU voltage reading can be taken at a variety of places on the power plane, which can vary between motherboards and manufacturers, meaning that each reading is essentially not comparable with the other.  Nevertheless, as an enthusiast, we will constantly compare value A with value B. 

Whether or not I can achieve 4.7 GHz with 1.175 volts on a particular board is inconsequential - your motherboard may perhaps produce the same result with a reading at 1.200 volts.  The only way to test the actual value is with consistent methodology is via an oscilloscope connected to similar points on each board.  This may sound like taking an OCCT reading is therefore redundant.

However, motherboards have settings relating to load line calibration.  As load is applied to the CPU, the voltage across the processor decreases (VDroop).  Load Line calibration essentially attempts to control this level of droop, by increasing voltage when voltage drops are detected away from a fixed value.  Manufacturers have different ideas on how to modify LLC with respect to load, or whether the level of modification should be controlled by the user.  Some manufacturers offer the option at a variety of levels, such that overclockers can be sure of the applied setting (even if it increases peak voltage, as explained by AnandTech in 2007).

By doing a full load OCCT test, we are essentially determining both how aggressive the motherboard is reporting the CPU voltage under load and how aggressive load line calibration is performing (from the point of view of the user without an oscilloscope or DVM).  If someone has one of the motherboards we have tested and you have a different one, variations in load voltage should describe the offset you may require for overclock comparisons.

As seen on other ASRock motherboards, the CPU at load in an ASRock board tends to be a little jumpy in terms of what is reported to the operating system.  The reports have a 0.008 volt granularity, which could mask a much smaller variation over time.  Though our OCCT recording is actually a smoothing over time, so for the OCCT reading to jitter so much does lead to a mild concern.  I also ran the test in an overclocked setting, with LLC set at Level 1:

There was still mild jitter being recorded on a heavily overclocked system, which leads me to believe that this is something systemic while the system is at load.

  Reported Load Voltage / V
ASRock Fatal1ty Z77 Professional 0.956
ASRock Z77 Extreme4 1.050-1.058
ASRock Z77 Extreme6 1.040-1.048
ASRock Z77 Extreme9 1.016-1.024
ASUS P8Z77-V Deluxe 1.085
ASUS P8Z77-V Pro 1.090
ASUS P8Z77-V Premium 1.088
Biostar TZ77XE4 1.036
ECS Z77H2-AX 1.048
EVGA Z77 FTW 0.698-0.706
Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H 1.067
Gigabyte Z77X-UD3H 1.067
Gigabyte G1.Sniper 3 1.068-1.078
MSI Z77A-GD65 1.020

 

ASRock Z77 Extreme9 Software ASRock Z77 Extreme9 Overclocking
Comments Locked

24 Comments

View All Comments

  • ultimatex - Wednesday, August 22, 2012 - link

    I got this MOBO from Newegg the first day they had it available , I couldn't believe the price since it offered 8x8x8x8x , Picked it up the first day and havent looked back. Doesnt look as cool as the Asrock extreme9 but it still looks good. Awesome Job Gygabyte , Anandtech should have given them a Gold not bronze though since the fan issue is a minor issue.
  • Arbie - Wednesday, August 22, 2012 - link

    For gaming, at least, how many people are really going to build a 2xGPU system? Let alone 3x or 4x. The are so few PC games that can use anything more than one strong card AND are worth playing for more than 10 minutes. I actually don't know of any such games, but tastes differ. And some folks will have multi-monitor setups, and possibly need two cards. But overall I'd think the target audience for these mobos is extremely small.

    Maybe for scientific computing?
  • Belard - Wednesday, August 22, 2012 - link

    Yep.... considering that most AAA PC games are just ports from consoles... having 3-4 GPUs is pointless. The returns get worse after the first 2 cards.

    Only those with 2~6 monitors can benefit with 2-3 cards.

    Also, even $80 Gigabyte boards will do 8x x 8x SLI/CF just fine.

    But hey, someone wants to spend $300 on a board... more power to them.
  • cmdrdredd - Wednesday, August 22, 2012 - link

    "Only those with 2~6 monitors can benefit with 2-3 cards."

    Oh really? 2560x1440 on a single card is garbage in my view. I am not happy with 50fps average.
  • rarson - Wednesday, August 22, 2012 - link

    If you're going multi-GPU on a single monitor, you're wasting money.
  • Sabresiberian - Wednesday, August 22, 2012 - link

    Because everyone should build to your standards, O god of all things computer.

    Do some reading; get a clue.
  • Steveymoo - Thursday, August 23, 2012 - link

    Incorrect.

    If you have a 120hz monitor, 2 GPUs make a tonne of difference. Before you come back with a "no one can see 120hz" jibe. That is also incorrect.... My eyes have orgasms every once in a while when you get those ultra detail 100+ fps moments in battlefield, that look great!
  • von Krupp - Friday, August 24, 2012 - link

    No. Metro 2033 is not happy at 2560x1440 with just a single HD 7970, and neither are Battlefield 3 or Crysis. The Total War series also crawls at maximum settings.

    I bought the U2711 specifically to take advantage of two cards (and for accurate colours, mind you). I have a distaste for multi-monitor gaming and will continue to have such as long as they keep making bezels on monitors.

    So please, don't go claiming that multi-card is useless on a single monitor because that just isn't true.
  • swing848 - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    At this date, December 2014, with maximum eye candy turned on, there are games that drop a refrence AMD R9 290 below 60 fps on a single monitor at 1920x1080 [using an Intel i5-3570K at 4GHz to 4.2GHz]
  • Sabresiberian - Wednesday, August 22, 2012 - link

    This is not 1998, there are many games built for the PC only, and even previously console-oriented publishers aren't just making ports for the PC, they are developing their games to take advantage of the goodness only PCs can bring to the table. Despite what console fanboys continue to spew, PC gaming is on the rise, and console gaming is on the relative decline.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now