Z170 tech specs
Printed From: ASRock.com
Category: Technical Support
Forum Name: Intel Motherboards
Forum Description: Question about ASRock Intel Motherboards
URL: https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1054
Printed Date: 23 Dec 2024 at 6:56am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Z170 tech specs
Posted By: filips
Subject: Z170 tech specs
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2015 at 5:06am
|
Hi! I'd like to buy one of Z170 boards: oc formula or extreme7+, but I have couple of questions. 1.Is in ASR Z170 oc formula on first pci-e x16 slot space for gpu with backplate (for example msi geforce gtx 970 which I have)? How many milimeters are between pci-e slot and I/O shield or RAM slots? 2. Is ASR Z170 extreme7+ also made with 8-layer PCB? I will use MatLab, 3D programs like Catia and ofc gaming in spare time. I have water blocks for CPU and GPU and I like to OC (6600k). What are your opinions about these two?
|
Replies:
Posted By: Xaltar
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2015 at 1:57pm
|
There should be no problems with clearance on either board unless you are using some kind of aftermarket GPU cooler and backplate that protrudes more than commercial models like the Arctic Accelero Xtreme series which sticks out about a whole slot or more on the backplate and even then it should still fit. The Extreme 7+ only says "high density glass fabric PCB" there is no mention of how many layers. That said the Extreme series have always been very solid and not subject to much flex so I wouldn't worry about it. The system you mentioned should be fine for the applications you plan to use. Advanced rendering can be made faster with more threads (i7 or Xeon with hyperthreading) but general work and mesh manipulation will not see any real advantage from the extra cores. I do most of my own 3ds Max work on a pentium G3258 and never feel like the CPU is holding me back. The 6600k should serve you well.
|
Posted By: filips
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2015 at 7:33pm
|
Thanks for rapid response, but I still have objections about space for backplate. Here is image from official ASRock site, on which I showed places where (in my opinion) backplate may not be able to fit or may block RAM slots. Green - line of pci-e slot Red - mentioned places  Orginal photo from ASR: http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z170%20OC%20Formula/ I know it's only photo and I didn't have this mobo in my hands, but there is lack of space. If you saw it and there is more space than it looks like please tell me. I read that placing gpu in second slot sometimes may cause some problems because bios doesn't read it properly. Extreme7+ also is great OC mobo but there is no clear CMOS button, which is very useful. BTW. Is there a noticable difference between PCIe 3.1 and PCIe 3.0 for normal user like I am? |
Posted By: Xaltar
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2015 at 9:49pm
| I see what you mean by the shroud. I would imagine it should still fit. Even if it does not you can easily remove the shroud and if necessary trim it down a little, though I am not sure how that may effect the warranty. By the look of it and blowing up the image to near enough scale it should accommodate my GTX 960 G1 Gaming's backplate. |
Posted By: filips
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2015 at 11:26pm
|
Thanks for information. I think I will chose extreme7+, it's very good mobo and in some reviews it reaches 5.0GHz with 6700k. The primary reason is the ability to add/remove RAM sticks without removing GPU (with LC block and tubes it may be impractical) even if GPU has big backplate. Thanks again! Edit: I'm really curious about the place GPU in PCIe slots. If there are many PCIe 16x can I connect GPU to random slot and should it work? I read many posts about it and there were diverse opinions.
|
Posted By: vannex
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2015 at 10:55pm
|
Short answer: No, you can't connect your GPU to any of the "x16" slots. - 4 x PCI Express 3.0 x16 Slots (PCIE2/PCIE4/PCIE6: single at x16 (PCIE2); dual at x8 (PCIE2) / x8 (PCIE4); triple at x8 (PCIE2) / x4 (PCIE4) / x4 (PCIE6). PCIE3: x4 mode)*
|
Posted By: filips
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2015 at 5:56am
| Yes, PCIe 3.1 was only on a graphics:) I took extreme7+, it may be an overkill but I like it a lot. Thanks guys! |
Posted By: ASRock Expert
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2015 at 6:12am
|
If You ask me, I like the Ex7 more than the OC-F. Why? Colors are great, and the layout is similar. There will be no difference if You don't overclock on DICE/LN2, and use 1-2 GPU's. ------------- 990FX Extreme 9 MOD P1.70 AMD FX 8120 4GHz 1.25V Thermalright HR-02 Patriot Viper 2x4GB 2133MHz Samsung 850 EVO 250GB MSI R7970 TFIII 3GB CORSAIR VX550W LanCool K62 Dragonlord ASUS Xonar D2X |
Posted By: Xaltar
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2015 at 9:40pm
| Agreed on the colors, the extreme 7+ would be my board of choice too if I were to make the jump to skylake now. |
Posted By: parsec
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2015 at 1:44am
You are correct about the difference between the physical slot size (x16) and the electrical connections of each physical x16 slot. But limitations of the Z170 platform are factors in the number of PCIe 3.0 lanes assigned to each slot. Skylake processors provide just 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes, so providing all 16 lanes to every x16 slot has limited significance. A two video card SLI or CrossFire configuration results in eight PCIe 3.0 lanes for each card. Three card Crossfire further reduces the maximum lanes available for each card. If each x16 slot had 16 PCIe 3.0 lane connections, the ability to assign lanes to each x16 slot is required. That adds complexity and cost to a mother board. That flexibility would be nice, but is the additional cost worth it for every owner, given only 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes are available? Physical x16 slots must be used regardless of the number of PCIe 3.0 lanes available. Otherwise how can x16 physical cards be used in a physical x8 or x4 slot? To quote the specs again, "4 x PCI Express 3.0 x16 Slots (PCIE2/PCIE4/PCIE6: single at x16 (PCIE2); dual at x8 (PCIE2) / x8 (PCIE4); triple at x8 (PCIE2) / x4 (PCIE4) / x4 (PCIE6). PCIE3: x4 mode). Note that the word Slots is used, which is a physical description. We may interpret x16 slot as also describing the electrical connections used, but is that truly correct? IMO, no. So is this false advertising? Or a less than accurate interpretation by the reader? Can we connect a video card to any of the x16 slots? Yes we can. But the number of PCIe 3.0 lanes available electrically in each x16 slot varies both by the design of the board and the number of video cards being used. Will a video card's performance be reduced when fewer than 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes are available to the card? The general consensus is eight PCIe 3.0 lanes for most if not all current video cards does not limit performance by a significant amount, if at all. Only four PCIe 3.0 lanes will reduce performance. The number of PCIe lanes available on "Mainstream" and "Performance" Intel platforms, which includes Z170 boards, is nothing new and has been 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes since Ivy Bridge. PC builders should be familiar with these specifications and the limitations of PCIe lane to PCIe slot assignments. ------------- http://valid.x86.fr/48rujh" rel="nofollow"> 
|
vannex wrote:Posted By: Xaltar
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2015 at 2:10am
|
I think Parsec hit the nail on the head. These restrictions come from the architecture which no board manufacturer can really change without adding significant cost to the product. Repeated testing has been performed with each successive generation of graphics cards and PCIe iterations and in all cases it has been shown that 8 PCIe 3.0 lanes are not fully saturated by any current gen consumer grade GPUs. This trend goes back to PCIe 1.0 and the GPUs available when the standard was current. AMD even allows crossfire with PCIe x4 being provided to the second GPU and so far as I have seen, even when it does bottleneck the GPU the bottleneck is small on high end GPUs and non existent on midrange GPUs. If anyone wants more PCIe lanes available they have to be willing to fork out for enthusiast platforms.
|
Posted By: vannex
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2015 at 8:34am
|
Parsec - fair enough. I suppose it was a little harsh of me to claim false advertising. The issue is really that the x16/x8/etc. terminology is being used to describe both physical slot size as well as the number of lanes a slot supports electrically. In its advertising, a marketer will of course choose its wording to maximize the perceived value of their product. In this case, stating the physical slot size creates a higher perceived value ("2 x16 slots" vs. "1 x16 slot and 1 x8 slot"). A similar situation exists with hard drive storage capacities. For example, a capacity of 2 trillion bytes can be represented as "2 TB" or "1.8" TB, because TB is ambiguous. Again, marketers will use the measure which maximizes consumers' perceived value. Thankfully, we now have the standardized binary prefixes which were introduced to eliminate this ambiguity (1.8 TiB is approximately 2 trillion bytes, and 2 TB is 2 trillion bytes). It really comes down to the consumer being informed about what they are buying. I guess that's why we have forums like this one!
 |