AMD Motherboards - Inquiry about Asrock N68C-S UCC

Print Page | Close Window

Inquiry about Asrock N68C-S UCC

Printed From: ASRock.com
Category: Technical Support
Forum Name: AMD Motherboards
Forum Description: Question about ASRock AMD motherboards
URL: https://forum.asrock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1242
Printed Date: 22 Dec 2024 at 1:17pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Inquiry about Asrock N68C-S UCC

Posted By: SyyN
Subject: Inquiry about Asrock N68C-S UCC
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2015 at 11:56am

does my Asrock N68C-S UCC can support AMD FX-6100 3.3GHz ?

Replies:

Posted By: Xaltar
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2015 at 3:38pm

I am afraid not, it does not list any FX CPUs on it's CPU support list.

Posted By: SyyN
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2015 at 8:12am

thanks for the reply. can you suggest a cheap mobo that support fx 6100?

Posted By: Xaltar
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2015 at 4:05pm

ASRock has plenty of budget options you could choose from. It depends on what features you are looking for.

You should be able to pick up an http://asrock.com/mb/AMD/970M%20Pro3/index.us.asp" rel="nofollow - ASRock 970M Pro3 for around US $60. This is a solid yet simple board that should provide all the features you need. There are some cheaper options but you would be sacrificing features for very little savings.

Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2015 at 4:06pm

From my experiences and hanging out here in forums, do not use a 970 chipset MB. Stay with the 990FX for your FX-6100. The 970 boards were not designed to handle the FX's 125w power requirements and often fail due to excessive heat killing their VRMs.

Below are the ASRock 990FX chipset motherboards sorted by lowest price first.

Wherever you live you can use this as a starting point.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=Property&N=100007625%2050001944%20600138080%20600166242&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=90" rel="nofollow -
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=Property&N=100007625%2050001944%20600138080%20600166242&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=90

Edited, trying to create link

<

id="kpm_plugin" ="application/x-KPMPlugin">

< id="kpm_plugin" ="application/x-KPMPlugin">

Posted By: ASRock Expert
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2015 at 4:09pm

I got the FX series running on that board.

But only if You are brave enough.

The N68C-S UCC PCB was reused for N68C-GS FX.
The only difference is the black socket, and the sticker
over the old board name.

So, If You cross-flash the board - You should be running FX CPU's.
http://www.asrock.com/mb/NVIDIA/N68C-S%20UCC/
http://www.asrock.com/mb/NVIDIA/N68C-GS%20FX/

The only thing that may not work is the LAN port, cause it is the main
difference of those two boards.

The only thing You have to know, for this 3-phase board,
a 95W FX is required.

I tested it with FX-4100 and it worked fine.

But for the FX-6300, it may not last long.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fora cheap AM3+ motherboard, go with an ASRock 970 chip-set based or higher.
http://www.asrock.com/mb/index.asp?s=AM3%2b

http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/970M%20Pro3/
http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/970%20Pro3/
http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/970%20Pro3%20R2.0/
http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/970%20Extreme3/
http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/970%20Extreme3%20R2.0/

-------------
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: 16 Nov 2015 at 4:12pm

970 chipset boards should be more than adequate for the 95w Zambezi FX 6100 but if you ever plan to upgrade to an FX 8XXX then you may want to spend a little more on a 990 chipset board as Wardog suggests if for no other reason than extra features and more upgrade options. The problem with using 125w CPUs is the VRMs get too hot if not actively cooled. ASRock recommends using a top down blowing CPU cooler to help with cooling when hotter running CPUs are installed on the system. This is true even of the 990FX boards.

AMD systems tend to be space heaters so be sure you have adequate cooling for your system regardless of what board you end up choosing.

Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2015 at 4:34pm

Well, it would seem I'm getting voted down here.

Here's ASRock's own recommendations for MB's they produce that they say will support your FX-6100.

YMMV

http://www.asrock.com/support/cpu.asp?s=AM3%2b&u=386" rel="nofollow - http://www.asrock.com/support/cpu.asp?s=AM3%2b&u=386

< id="kpm_plugin" ="application/x-KPMPlugin">

Posted By: Xaltar
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2015 at 5:02pm

wardog wrote:

Well, it would seem I'm getting voted down here.

< id="kpm_plugin" ="application/x-KPMPlugin">

Not at all, you are correct in that many people have had issues with the 970 chipset boards in conjunction with 125w CPUs. The reason for this is not very well documented so I outlined it in my post. The reason the 990FX boards suffer less is due to the fact they are higher end boards with better cooling and power delivery but even then it it still recommended to use a top down blowing cooler to ensure proper VRM cooling with more power hungry CPUs. Personally I am with you on the 990FX recommendation, it would be a more sound investment and will run cooler than the 970 chipset boards as well as allow more upgrade paths. If budget is a constraint however then, so long as it is set up correctly the 970 chipset boards are probably the best option as they can be had for very little cash outlay.

Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2015 at 5:30pm

Xaltar and all,

My way of looking at it is if the board, 970 or below, needs set up with cooling fan(s) to operate for any length of time a user is better served with going with the AMD Approved 990FX chipset.

MB manufacturers had to commit to AMD that the AM3+(EDIT originally had "990FX" here) boards they produced met somewhat stringent guidelines in their power delivery(read: VRM section) and that a new black AM3b CPU socket be used to denote this.

Sadly, many manufacturers, ASRock included, got rather loose with the use of the approved AM3b black socket and then followed that such as the N68 boards by way of BIOS updating kludges could support an FX. IMO that is not the truth. Quite far from it.

In ASRocks own words:
http://www.asrock.com/news/index.asp?id=200" rel="nofollow - http://www.asrock.com/news/index.asp?id=200

Now, BIOS updates aside, isn't ASRock above, and by AMD AM3+(EDIT originally had "FX" here) Standards, seemingly contradicting themselves by stating an N68 or any other than AM3+(EDIT originally had "the 990FX board" here) boards will support FX's. Beit 95w or 125w.

< id="kpm_plugin" ="application/x-KPMPlugin">

Posted By: wardog
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2015 at 5:33pm

Even more supporting my stance
http://hw-lab.com/asrock-socket-am3-motherboards-preview.html" rel="nofollow - http://hw-lab.com/asrock-socket-am3-motherboards-preview.html

< id="kpm_plugin" ="application/x-KPMPlugin">

Posted By: parsec
Date Posted: 17 Nov 2015 at 3:26pm

Personally, I don't believe it is simply the chipset the board uses that makes it unusable with an FX-9590 (as long as it is compatible with a specific processor.)

But there are reasons why in general that cheaper chipsets tend to be used in boards that are not compatible with the FX-9590.

Much more important, as Wardog pointed out, is the rest of the build quality of the board. Particularly the CPU VRM stage, and the AMD TDP rating that the board (VRM stage) supports.

Yes, boards that don't have the 990 chipset tend to be cheaper, and one of the main areas where they are cheaper is the CPU VRM stage.

The VRM transistors, inductors, capacitors, and heatsink are relatively costly as components, and also add to the assembly cost of a board.

The two ASRock 970 chipset boards that ASRock states are compatible with the FX-9590/220W TDP processors are the Fatal1ty 970 Performance and Fatal1ty 970 Performance/3.1. I am fortunate enough to have one of the latter model. It's the board I used in the ASRock AMD board contest.

Both of these boards have an 8 + 2 VRM stage.

The X + Y VRM stage normally means X phases for the processor, and Y phases for the memory.

A "phase" is generally one MOSFET power transistor. Think of each phase like one hose spout, capable of supply a maximum amount of power, or volume of water.

Depending on how much power the processor is using/drawing, various numbers of phases can be active or inactive. That is an efficiency and power saving aspect of the design.

Some mother board manufactures at one time even allowed the user to select the maximum number of phases that would be used (if that was really true) or showed the user how many phases were in use.

Beyond that we get into was is called "split phases", where two MOSFET power transistors are combined to actually create one "phase", but all the transistors are counted in the phase count.

So an eight phase design could be eight MOSFETs in four split phases. Some people consider that cheating and a lesser quality design. It might be from an efficiency standpoint, but as usual this description is simplified.

All VRM transistors are not the same regarding their power capability. That spec is generally ignored when PC builders discuss this, except to quote a part number and the manufacture of the power transistor.

For an engineer designing a random circuit, why use an expensive 100W power transistor when a 10W or 1W capability transistor is all that is needed for an application? Transistor manufactures have hundreds or thousands of different models for various uses. One of the main differences in their specs is power output capability.

So we can easily realize, without knowing the specs of the VRM power transistors in use, how do we judge which design is "better" from a power output aspect? Or even better, how would we measure or verify the output power of a VRM design? Who does that? No one besides the design engineers.

Regardless, the more phases/hose spouts available, generally the more power/water volume is available.

Back to chipsets, a quick review of ASRock 990 and 970 chipset boards:

The 990FX Extreme3 board has a 4 + 2 VRM stage, and is not rated for 220W processors.

The 990FX Extreme6 board has an 8 + 2 VRM stage, and is rated for 220W processors.

The Fatal1ty 990FX Killer boards (two) have an 8 + 2 VRM stage, and are NOT rated for 220W processors.

The 990FX Extreme9 board has a 12 + 2 VRM stage, is rated for, and is called the best choice for use with 220W processors.

Besides the two Fatal1ty 970 boards, the other four 970 chipset boards do NOT support 220W processors.

For the 990 chipset, it is two boards out of five total that are compatible with 220W processors.

For the 970 chipset, it is two boards out of six total that are compatible.

Also notice that two boards with 8 + 2 phase VRMs are not FX-9590 compatible.

I'm still surprised and impressed how relatively cheap the AMD 990 and 970 boards are compared to Intel chipset boards. Note that high end Intel Z chipset boards commonly have 12 + 2 phase VRM designs, for sub-100W TDP processors.

In my Fatal1ty 970 Performance/3.1 board build, I took precautions to insure the VRM heatsink had a fan moving air directly across the VRM heatsink. The heatsink temperature was not greater than ~110º F. But do I know if that board would be fine long term with that processor if the VRM heatsink was not actively cooled? No, but chances are it will work much longer than a sub-eight phase VRM design without a heatsink.

Wait... what is the point being debated? Confused

Bottom line: Simply because an AMD processor is compatible physically with the socket used in a mother board, does NOT mean the board is up to the task of providing the processor with the power it will need in all circumstances.

-------------
http://valid.x86.fr/48rujh" rel="nofollow">

Posted By: SyyN
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2015 at 9:07am

yes i do plan to upgrade my processor before the end of this year.

ps i read about the new mobo z170 or something can anyone pls explain the advantage of using new ddr4? i heard it's good with gaming but omg the prices aaare killer.