ASRock Forums : ASRock Fatality 970 Performance

ASRock Forums : ASRock Fatality 970 Performance https://forum.asrock.com/ Copyright (c) 2006-2013 Web Wiz Forums - All Rights Reserved. Tue, 05 May 2026 15:36:00 +0000 Mon, 07 Mar 2016 02:34:13 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 12.04 360 https://forum.asrock.com/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=2054 <![CDATA[ASRock Forums]]> https://forum.asrock.com/forum_images/web_wiz_forums_black.png https://forum.asrock.com/ <![CDATA[ASRock Fatality 970 Performance : Yes and no. Cooler VRM or any...]]> https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2054&PID=11098&title=asrock-fatality-970-performance#11098 Author: WKjun
Subject: 2054
Posted: 07 Mar 2016 at 2:34am

Yes and no. Cooler VRM or any component is a good thing anyhow. But if the VRM circuit and its heatsink is designed well, the proper CPU air-cooler will suffice.

In the case of the 970 Performance and the FX-9000 CPU, this is never the case. This board is not compatible with the FX-9000 series! The AMD compatibility list, where this board is missing, proves that. I cannot understand, why ASRock still promotes this board to be capable of handling the FX-9000! This thing has to work without extraordinary modding of the VRM cooling solution and it works with other boards that way. It's, however, ASRock's choice, which of its boards gets the microcode for certain CPUs.

If a board is built to last even under oveclocked condition, it will hold. Imagine an AMD FM2+ APU not having 95W but 125W TDP. Maybe the higher priced models, independend of the chipset, will hold. Overclocking the 95W TDP model however, could lead to even more than 125W. It would be better to use the stock 125W model.

Because of the 970 chipset and the quiet recent release of this board, I believe not many people chose this combination. The FX-9000 is more then ever a niche product, although I have 3 of them and built a system for a friend.

]]> Mon, 07 Mar 2016 02:34:13 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2054&PID=11098&title=asrock-fatality-970-performance#11098 <![CDATA[ASRock Fatality 970 Performance : Ok, it seems that regardless...]]> https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2054&PID=10790&title=asrock-fatality-970-performance#10790 Author: WhitetailKiller
Subject: 2054
Posted: 27 Feb 2016 at 2:13pm

Ok, it seems that regardless of what cpu I use I should add additional cooling to the vrm's. So a case with lots of fans, and lots of space is the best option. I am glad that I started this thread. I would have been banging my head on the keyboard. I will be back after I decide on a case. I have an AZZA here, but not sure if it will be the one to use.

]]> Sat, 27 Feb 2016 14:13:57 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2054&PID=10790&title=asrock-fatality-970-performance#10790 <![CDATA[ASRock Fatality 970 Performance : PetrolHead wrote:If you are...]]> https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2054&PID=10780&title=asrock-fatality-970-performance#10780 Author: parsec
Subject: 2054
Posted: 27 Feb 2016 at 11:14am

PetrolHead wrote:

If you are going to use a liquid cooler for the CPU, you may want to consider using an extra fan to cool the VRM section, as it's not a true 8+2 power phase design, but a doubled 4+1. The socket may also end up running hot. Note that ASRock states in the CPU support list that you should install a CPU cooler with a top-down blowing design when using a 125 W TDP FX-8120.

Extra cooling for the VRM stage when using any liquid/radiator based CPU cooler is a MUST if you are over clocking or operating your CPU at high loads for significant lengths of time. That is, if you care about the temperature of the CPU VRM stage.

One advantage of having more phases in a CPU VRM stage is efficiency of power usage. Fewer phases will need to be active at lower power draw levels of the CPU. But simply having a phase (device) active does not mean the CPU is using all the power the device is capable of providing.

Increasing the number of phases in a CPU VRM stage is not without its own issues. A phase/device that is inactive takes time to become active. The ever changing power needs of a CPU occur very quickly, and shutting down a VRM phase as soon as the power demand is below its active range is not done. If the power demands of the CPU cannot be provided immediately, it will throttle or have a computational error. The more phases in a VRM stage, the better its parts and design must be. That translates into more $$.

While the VRM stage we are discussing is said to be a 4 + 1, and not a true 8 + 2, that does NOT mean it is less capable of supplying power to a CPU. It is simply switching two devices/phases on or off at a time, instead of one. The number of power devices is the SAME in both designs.

Given the range of power usage of a processor, it may not even be optimal to have say ten or more phases that allow for one or two to be active when the CPU is at idle. The minimum number that is required to be active may be two or four.

As is always the case, discussing the number of phases without considering the actual parts being used is simplified beyond having any significance. No review has ever truly tested a CPU VRM stage for power output capability over time. It would be interesting to see this but I won't hold my breath waiting. Sick

]]> Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:14:25 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2054&PID=10780&title=asrock-fatality-970-performance#10780 <![CDATA[ASRock Fatality 970 Performance : PetrolHead wrote:If you are...]]> https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2054&PID=10773&title=asrock-fatality-970-performance#10773 Author: WhitetailKiller
Subject: 2054
Posted: 27 Feb 2016 at 7:11am

So if I take the top fan and reverse it, that should help it out. If not I may have to do something else. I have not looked at the manual yet for the MB. It kind of sucks to get a MB and then have to cool it with a airplane propeller. Hope it performs like they say.

Just checked the cpu list and if I put the 6100 in it, I won't need the extra cooling.

Edited by WhitetailKiller - 27 Feb 2016 at 7:24am]]> Sat, 27 Feb 2016 07:11:48 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2054&PID=10773&title=asrock-fatality-970-performance#10773 <![CDATA[ASRock Fatality 970 Performance : If you are going to use a liquid...]]> https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2054&PID=10771&title=asrock-fatality-970-performance#10771 Author: PetrolHead
Subject: 2054
Posted: 27 Feb 2016 at 6:21am

If you are going to use a liquid cooler for the CPU, you may want to consider using an extra fan to cool the VRM section, as it's not a true 8+2 power phase design, but a doubled 4+1. The socket may also end up running hot. Note that ASRock states in the CPU support list that you should install a CPU cooler with a top-down blowing design when using a 125 W TDP FX-8120.]]> Sat, 27 Feb 2016 06:21:31 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2054&PID=10771&title=asrock-fatality-970-performance#10771 <![CDATA[ASRock Fatality 970 Performance : I am glad that I am keeping...]]> https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2054&PID=10766&title=asrock-fatality-970-performance#10766 Author: WhitetailKiller
Subject: 2054
Posted: 27 Feb 2016 at 4:54am

I am glad that I am keeping the TDP down to 125W. I am going to put the 8120 on my Asus MB and put the 6100 on the ASRock MB to get it up and running. I planned on taking my time building this rig. But, I sure am anxious to see how it runs. ]]> Sat, 27 Feb 2016 04:54:43 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2054&PID=10766&title=asrock-fatality-970-performance#10766 <![CDATA[ASRock Fatality 970 Performance : It handles my CPU, that's...]]> https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2054&PID=10747&title=asrock-fatality-970-performance#10747 Author: TryHardTex
Subject: 2054
Posted: 26 Feb 2016 at 3:32pm

It handles my CPU, that's TDP is 125w, with no problems.

]]> Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:32:11 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2054&PID=10747&title=asrock-fatality-970-performance#10747 <![CDATA[ASRock Fatality 970 Performance : parsec wrote:So glad you asked...]]> https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2054&PID=10664&title=asrock-fatality-970-performance#10664 Author: WhitetailKiller
Subject: 2054
Posted: 24 Feb 2016 at 10:46am

parsec wrote:

So glad you asked about this.

But please define a "review" for me? Is it an article published in a PC hardware website, or the comments made by a random person on a retailer's product page for selling a mother board?

Most of the reviews are from retailer sites, with random individuals making their perspective complaint on the MB. I do appreciate that you feel the 125W TDP will do better on the motherboard. I ordered a FX 8120 and going to cool it with the FX liquid cooler I have.

]]> Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:46:40 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2054&PID=10664&title=asrock-fatality-970-performance#10664 <![CDATA[ASRock Fatality 970 Performance : So glad you asked about this....]]> https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2054&PID=10640&title=asrock-fatality-970-performance#10640 Author: parsec
Subject: 2054
Posted: 23 Feb 2016 at 1:39pm

So glad you asked about this.

But please define a "review" for me? Is it an article published in a PC hardware website, or the comments made by a random person on a retailer's product page for selling a mother board?

The short answer for you is NO, the ASRock Fatality 970 Performance board will not fail or "fry" if you are using an AMD processor whose TDP is 125W.

Compared with ALL AMD AM3+ boards made by ALL manufactures, the ASRock Fatality 970 Performance is absolutely one of the better AM3+ boards (IMO top 20%), and can even survive using an FX-9590 at stock speeds.

That is, if the user of an FX-9590 in this board provides the appropriate cooling for the CPU and just as important, cooling the CPU VRM/power components on this board. If BOTH of these things are not provided on ANY mother board using an FX-9590, then the chances of the board failing are at best increased, and at worst guaranteed.

I have some experience with this, since I have this board and an FX-9590. This board is one of a small handful of boards using the 970 chipset that has a chance of using an FX-9000 series processor. That is not the fault of the 970 chipset itself, but of the build quality that comes with the price point of a budget priced chipset like the 970. The ASRock Fatality 970 Performance is one of the very rare over-built 970 chipset boards.

Regrettably, AMD made the FX-9000 series processors physically compatible with any AM3+ socket board. Add to that the appropriate CPU microcode in the BIOS, and it will work in a $50 board. In reality the FX-9000 series processors should not be used in a sub-$200 MSRP mother board. Or at least not by the plug and play type of user that does not provide the requirements for cooling such a system.

AMD does have one page of information about the special requirements of the FX-9000 series, and the boards they recommend for use with those processors:

http://support.amd.com/en-us/search/faq/295

AMD is recently touting their new Wraith cooler for the FX series processors. It is an improvement over their earlier designs, but not for use with an FX-9000 series CPU.
]]> Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:39:00 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2054&PID=10640&title=asrock-fatality-970-performance#10640 <![CDATA[ASRock Fatality 970 Performance : Hi,New member here, and my first...]]> https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2054&PID=10633&title=asrock-fatality-970-performance#10633 Author: WhitetailKiller
Subject: 2054
Posted: 23 Feb 2016 at 8:04am

Hi,

New member here, and my first time posting. The question that I have is this. Certain place I go for reviews on the MB, I hear about the boards frying. Is what I would like to know is this an issue with the 220W processors or with all?? I plan on not going any higher than 125W.

Thanks

]]> Tue, 23 Feb 2016 08:04:06 +0000 https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2054&PID=10633&title=asrock-fatality-970-performance#10633