The AMD X570 Motherboard Overview: Over 35+ Motherboards Analyzed
by Gavin Bonshor on July 9, 2019 8:00 AM ESTX570 Power Delivery Specification & Comparison
One of the most talked about aspects of any high-end motherboard lately is the quality of its power delivery system. At a high level, all X570 motherboards have to adhere to a couple of factors, the most important of which is support for the upcoming Ryzen 3950X 16c/32t processor. This means manufacturers needed to work even harder in creating suitable and efficient power delivery systems to ensure full compatibility with the Ryzen 3000 series.
Meanwhile, we're also keeping a look out for any cases where manufacturers may be embellishing their power delivery claims, advertising a board as being more capable than it really is. After some bad history and what has happened in the last two years there, we hope to (and expect) to see less of that with the X570 chipset.
As power delivery is usually one of the most requested items for any of our motherboard content, prior to the launch we reached out to all the motherboard vendors to find out what power delivery systems each of their new X570 boards are equipped with. Below is a table of the official information we have compiled from each of the vendors, with a question mark (?) denotes when we don't have information available.
Please note that this information is self-reported, so until we can review any given X570 board, we're operating on the honor system, trusting vendors to supply honest and upfront information. And we will be checking, and we will be keeping this page up-to-date as more information becomes available.
| X570 CPU Power Delivery Comparison | |||||
| Motherboard | Controller | H-Side | L-Side | Chokes | Doubler |
| ASRock X570 Aqua | IR35201 (6+2) |
IR3555 (12) |
12 | IR3599 (6) |
|
| ASRock X570 Creator | IR35201 (6+2) |
IR3555 (12) |
12 | IR3599 (6) |
|
| ASRock X570 Taichi | ISL69147 (6+2) |
SIC634 (12) |
SIC632A (12) |
12 | ISL6617A (4) |
| ASRock X570 Phantom Gaming X | ISL69147 (6+2) |
SIC634 (12) |
SIC632A (12) |
12 | ISL6617A (4) |
| ASRock X570 Phantom Gaming 4 | UP9505PQGW (4+2) |
UP1962SD (8) |
8 | UP1961SQ (4) |
|
| ASRock X570 Phantom Gaming-ITX TB3 | ISL69147 (4+2) |
ISL99227 (8) |
8 | ISL6617A (4) |
|
| ASRock X570 Steel Legend | ISL69147 (4+2) |
SIC634 (8) |
SIC632A (8) |
8 | ISL6617A (4) |
| ASRock X570 Extreme4 | ISL69147 (4+2) |
SIC634 (8) |
SIC632A (8) |
8 | ISL6617A (4) |
| ASRock X570 Pro4 | UP9505PQGW (4+2) |
UP1962SD (8) |
8 | UP1961SQ (4) |
|
| ASRock X570M Pro4 | UP9505PQGW (4+2) |
UP1962SD (8) |
8 | UP1961SQ (4) |
|
| ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Formula | ASP1405I (7+1) |
IR3555 (14) |
14 | - | |
| ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero | ASP1405I (7+1) |
IR3555 (14) |
14 | - | |
| ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Impact | ASP1405I (7+1) |
TDA21472 (8) |
8 | - | |
| ASUS Pro WS X570-Ace | ASP1405I (7+1) |
IR3555 (12) |
12 | - | |
| ASUS ROG Strix X570-E Gaming | ASP1405I (6+2) |
IR3555 (12) |
12 | - | |
| ASUS ROG Strix X570-F Gaming | ASP1106G (4+2) |
Sic639 (12) |
12 | - | |
| ASUS ROG Strix X570-I Gaming | ASP1405I (6+2) |
TDA21472 (8) |
8 | - | |
| ASUS TUF X570-Plus | ASP1106G (4+2) |
Sic639 (12) |
12 | - | |
| ASUS Prime X570-Pro | ASP1106G (4+2) |
Sic639 (12) |
12 | - | |
| GIGABYTE X570 Aorus Xtreme | IR XDPE132G5C (14+2) |
TDA21472 (14) |
14 | - | |
| GIGABYTE X570 Aorus Master | IR XDPE132G5C (12+2) |
IR3556 (12) |
12 | - | |
| GIGABYTE X570 Aorus Ultra | IR35201 (6+2) |
IR3553 (12) |
12 | IR3599 (6) |
|
| GIGABYTE X570 Aorus Pro/WIFI | IR35201 (6+2) |
IR3553 (12) |
12 | IR3599 (6) |
|
| GIGABYTE X570 I Aorus Pro WIFI | IR35201 (6+2) |
TDA21472 (6) |
6 | - | |
| GIGABYTE X570 Aorus Elite | ISL69138 (6+1) |
Vishay DrMOS (12) |
12 | SL6617A (6) |
|
| GIGABYTE X570 Gaming X | ISL69147 (5+2) |
ISL6625A (10) |
10 | SL6617A (5) |
|
| MSI MEG X570 Godlike | IR35201 (7+1) |
TDA21472 (14) |
14 | IR3599 (7) |
|
| MSI MEG X570 Ace | IR35201 (6+2) |
IR3555 (12) |
12 | IR3599 (6) |
|
| MSI Prestige X570 Creation | IR35201 (6+2) |
IR3555 (12) |
12 | IR3599 (6) |
|
| MSI MPG X570 Gaming Pro Carbon WIFI | IR35201 (5+1) |
QA3111N6N (10) |
10 | IR3598 (5) |
|
| MSI MPG X570 Gaming Edge WIFI | IR35201 (4+2) |
S4C029N (8) |
S4C024N (8) |
8 | IR3598 (4) |
| MSI MPG X570 Gaming Plus | IR35201 (4+2) |
S4C029N (8) |
S4C024N (8) |
8 | IR3598 (4) |
| MSI X570-A Pro | IR35201 (4+2) |
S4C029N (8 |
S4C024N (8) |
8 | IR3598 (4) |
As we get more information from vendors or reputable sources, we will update the table. As we get more and more X570 boards in for review, we can go deeper into the analysis in each individual review over the upcoming months.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
225 Comments
View All Comments
abufrejoval - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 - link
PCI4 and 5, or for that matter IF will trigger rethinking motherboard layouts and form factors."The [Enthusiast] motherboard" dates back to 1981 or the dawn of the IBM Personal Computer, and physics are catching up everywhere, even on the motherboard.
Distance has a huge impact on speed, latency and power, so 'flat' and 'square' are both the first obstacles and the first who need to compromise. In the future every milimeter of distance between the die carrier and your point of interest will need to be paid for, in energy/time or extra switching silicon.
Linear extrapolations of the past have little use, when the barriers are exponential.
TheUnhandledException - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 - link
Even if you keep the board a square moving the CPU and chipset to the center of the board and having PCIe slots on either side would cut the trace to the furthest slots in half.The_Assimilator - Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - link
Hopefully at the same time we can ditch 12V as the rail to rule them all, so that we can bring the amperages in current systems back down to sane levels.ChubChub - Friday, July 12, 2019 - link
Would be cool to see the CPU on one side of the board, and the cards on the other; would shrink those distances, but would require a new form factor, which would kindof suck (but I can picture what the dual-sided boards would look like, and I think it's a pretty neat idea having two independent sides for cooling (also, in a tower setup, a CPU sitting vertically on the board, which would be nice).Targon - Thursday, July 11, 2019 - link
This is why if Gen-Z gets adopted, we could have PCI Express hanging off the Gen-Z bus as a way to deal with these issues.sing_electric - Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - link
I was thinking that the mobo costs made price comparisons more difficult. Then I remembered that AMD is still throwing in a pretty good stock cooler, while Intel makes you BYO. For MOST users, that means that your total build cost will be lower with AMD.If you're doing something exotic - say, with liquid cooling or heavy overclocking that requires a certain thermal solution - then sure, you lose those savings, but if you're spending $300 to keep your machine cool, is the price difference of the motherboard really going to sway you one way or another?
Oliseo - Thursday, July 11, 2019 - link
You're actually comparing the bundled CPU cooler to a $300 custom loop Intel Cooler?You're expecting people to take you seriously as well?
Targon - Thursday, July 11, 2019 - link
Consider that for those who buy the i9-9900k, you can't get away with a 95W cooler, even if the rated TDP is 95W. So, you do need to buy at least a $30 cooler for air cooling on the 9900k, while AMD does provide a cooler to handle the typical performance of its processors. Even then, $330 for the Ryzen 7 3700X or 3800X for 8 cores/16 threads, vs. the $489 for the 9900k+$30 or $40 will still be more expensive for an 8 core/16 thread chip.What many don't realize is that if you go with AMD and get a B450 or X470 chipset motherboard(that has an updated BIOS or with BIOS flashback), you get the motherboard price you want, and the cost of ownership will still be lower. Since Intel doesn't offer PCI Express 4.0, going with PCI Express 3.0 on the AMD side won't be a big deal from the comparison point of view. Overclocking potential has not been compared between the enthusiast class X470 and X570 based motherboards from what I have seen as well, but it could make a difference for many people.
Flunk - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 - link
I like how almost all of these boards have 2 or more M.2 slots. I had to be very careful when I bought my Z170 board to find one with 3 M.2 slots.But now there are boards with 3 slots so maybe I'll have to snag that Aorus Ultra.
drexnx - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 - link
it's amazing how fast number of M.2 slots has become the primary thing I look for in a mobo anymore too