Z390 asus vs gigabyte OC

Distracted

Distracted

Distracted

Soldato
Joined
30 Aug 2018
Posts
2,623
I'm wondering if there is anyone here in a position to compare the OC of a 9 series CPU on both an Asus and Gigabyte z390 mobo.

I have read a couple of reviews and user reports that the Asus Maximus range is allowing for 100mhz or so higher clocks with the same or even lower voltages than the gigabyte board on the same CPU.

I understand there is a significant difference in power delivery between the boards.

I'm curious if this is to do with the Bios differences, because if it is I am wondering if a) gigabyte could get an additional 100mhz with a bios update and b) whether future overclocks could potentially be improved by bios updates for all boards?

Edit: I've also read that the z390 Maximus range reports voltage differently than the previous range, ie more accurately, which could explain why it is reporting lower voltages.
 
Last edited:
Then again I am assuming the people making the reviews and the users are capable of getting the most out of each board.

Perhaps they are not and this is down to user error and the promise of higher ocs with a future bios update is a pipe dream.
 
Like you say both are within a small range of each other.

Asus should clock the Memory higher/easier due to a better bios (memory training algorithms).

VRM wise the gigabyte (pro, master, xtreme) is better equipped, both the actual vrm and the cooling solution on it.

Asus maximus vrm is not bad, it's just not as good as the gigabyte, but more then sufficient for a 9900k. Just make sure you have proper ventilation on it, specially if you are doing any type of work with high loads for hours. (Hero, code, formula)

The Asus extreme, gene and Apex have a different vrm then the others and a very capable one.

Tldr: Pick the one you like best and has the features you want.
 
Last edited:
Distracted said:
Then again I am assuming the people making the reviews and the users are capable of getting the most out of each board.

Perhaps they are not and this is down to user error and the promise of higher ocs with a future bios update is a pipe dream.
Click to expand...

A bios update can't fix a bad VRM design though if that is the issue at hand.

Buildzoid (On Youtube) did a teardown of the Z390 Hero board and he wasn't that impressed overall.
 
lee32uk said:
A bios update can't fix a bad VRM design though if that is the issue at hand.

Buildzoid (On Youtube) did a teardown of the Z390 Hero board and he wasn't that impressed overall.
Click to expand...

I agree. But it isn't the fat 4 that is getting lower clocks. It is the gigabyte boards.

I was just wondering if it was a limitation of the bios given they are supposed to have the better vrm design. That got me thinking if it is down to bios then could an update give a higher oc and could a similar update be applied to other manufacturers boards?

Of course first it would help to know if others can reproduce the situation to know if it is actually a thing and not just user error. But i dont imagine many people buying both brands of z390.

Still it doesnt hurt to ask just incase.
 
Gigabyte uses a higher uncore at auto than Asus does, this was mentioned by a Gigabyte rep on another board as it maybe the cause of the difference in clocks.

This was responding to a user at 5.3ghz (stable) that had 5.4ghz on an Asus board (returned).

This proves two things, the gigabyte can handle 5.3ghz and the difference of 100 was maintained across higher clocked levels, meaning it must be something at bios level (uncore as suggested, maybe)
 
ISilva said:
Gigabyte uses a higher uncore at auto than Asus does, this was mentioned by a Gigabyte rep on another board as it maybe the cause of the difference in clocks.

This was responding to a user at 5.3ghz (stable) that had 5.4ghz on an Asus board (returned).

This proves two things, the gigabyte can handle 5.3ghz and the difference of 100 was maintained across higher clocked levels, meaning it must be something at bios level (uncore as suggested, maybe)
Click to expand...

Thank you! I havent seen that post you are talking about but that would certainly account for the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom