How bad is the MSI Z590-A PRO?

[athenian200]

https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/Z590-A-PRO/Overview

I wound up getting that board because I didn't realize it was the lowest-end model MSI had at the time (I was thinking $189 was perhaps the lower-end of mid-tier, not entry-level). I didn't want LEDs or Wi-Fi, and I did want a PS/2 port for my keyboard. This was the only one that fit the bill as far as the features I wanted. Now that I've got it though, I'm wondering if it can handle my 11700K, and whether overclocking is out of the question or not. I remember in the past a lot of entry-level motherboards couldn't handle high-end CPUs even at stock, and I actually had a dual-core CPU fry a motherboard under load within a few months at one point back in the mid-2000s.

Overall, the board itself seems really nice for the money, has armor on the first PCI-E slot, has an M.2 shield, etc. But I've gotten a lot of people asking me why I'd pair a cheap board like this with an 11700K, saying it's a bad match, etc. I don't really need to overclock this because I'm pretty happy with how the CPU performs out of the box, but I'm just curious if a board like this has any headroom for overclocking at all, or whether getting a low-end board like this would only be a problem for an extreme OC. Like, suppose I wanted to modestly overclock the 11700K from 3.6GHz to 4GHz. Would a board like this be able to handle that? If it can't, that's fine, but I'm just curious how bad it really is.

 

[StormNobleheart]

The motherboard does not appear bad from the specifications and looking at the layout. It appears to have decent power delivery. I would give it a try.

 

[Domingo]

I paired a 6700K and an 8700K with MSI boards in that same class. They overclocked well, had good memory support, had the features I wanted, and were under $200. I wouldn't sweat it. With only a few exceptions, those $200-range MSI boards tend to be really solid choices. For what it's worth, I'm using another one (x570 Tomahawk) for my new Ryzen 5800X build, too.

 

[Dan_D]

MSI caught so much flack for motherboards like the X570-A Pro, they won't be producing anything that egregiously bad any time soon. The X570 Tomahawk and X570 Unify were an "apology tour" of sorts for MSI.

I paired a 6700K and an 8700K with MSI boards in that same class. They overclocked well, had good memory support, had the features I wanted, and were under $200. I wouldn't sweat it. With only a few exceptions, those $200-range MSI boards tend to be really solid choices. For what it's worth, I'm using another one (x570 Tomahawk) for my new Ryzen 5800X build, too.

The X570 Tomahawk was produced after the first run of ultra-budget boards by MSI that had a notoriously bad reputation.

 

[Nebulous]

If you don't expect much from it, it might do what you ask of it. Who knows, it might surprise you.

 

[Dan_D]

That doesn't happen with Intel motherboards.........At the Corsair forum, those are worst than the black plague, looks like Corsair employees are sick and tired of responding to the issues of that platform.





ASUS PRIME Z590-P is a much better option.



With the ASUS board, it could go up o 5.0GHz on all 8 cores, it does 5.0GHz with ONE core but from 3.6 to 4.0? That's not "overclock", that's what it's supposed to do, underclocking it by 1,000MHz? Com'on!!!!

First off, Corsair's forum isn't what I would call the authority on what constitutes a good motherboard. It's people complaining who are using Corsair RAM or other products. Corsair's memory compatibility, isn't what it used to be. I've used their products in reviews for a decade and a half and have witnessed their decline. I wouldn't call it shit, but it's not my go to brand anymore. As the years went by I watched as Corsair RAM went from the gold standard for compatibility to being practically the worst of the major brands.

For Corsair, RAM isn't their primary business anymore. It's peripherals, cases, watercooling equipment, fans, etc. which are all more lucrative. As for what happens on Intel motherboards, I'll be blunt: Most people do not understand what's "happening" with them. The fact is, because Intel's been losing benchmarks for awhile, they've loosened their grip on OEM's who are now free to do whatever they want to improve benchmark performance. They do this buy allowing things like ASUS' multi-core enhancement which takes these CPU's beyond their intended specifications. Motherboards now quite problematically overvolt and overclock Intel CPU's in ways the company never would have allowed even five years ago. The ASUS Maximus XII Extreme is a good example of this as it will tune worse examples of the 10900K to 1.50v+, which no 10900K I've used requires. It often does more harm than good as it causes throttling.

As for the ASUS PRIME Z590-P being a better option, it does appear to be given that they are the same price and overall, seems to be higher quality. That being said, I haven't decoded ASUS' marketing BS on that one yet. Until I look at the VRM's in person, I am always skeptical of what ASUS' says as they'll flat out lie and say something has x amount of phases when they don't. They'll count double the inductors and chokes as additional phases, which isn't what defines a power phase. I will say that I agree with you on the overclocking. I don't think people have yet grasped the difference between base, boost and overclocking on these CPU's. Frankly, Intel hasn't exactly made this any easier than AMD has.

 

[athenian200]

ASUS PRIME Z590-P is a much better option.

As for the ASUS PRIME Z590-P being a better option, it does appear to be given that they are the same price and overall, seems to be higher quality. That being said, I haven't decoded ASUS' marketing BS on that one yet. Until I look at the VRM's in person, I am always skeptical of what ASUS' says as they'll flat out lie and say something has x amount of phases when they don't. They'll count double the inductors and chokes as additional phases, which isn't what defines a power phase. I will say that I agree with you on the overclocking. I don't think people have yet grasped the difference between base, boost and overclocking on these CPU's. Frankly, Intel hasn't exactly made this any easier than AMD has.

Hmm... I just took a look at the ASUS PRIME Z590-P, and it really looks to me like it's pretty much the same board as what I have for the same price, aside from the aesthetics. Is it those extra capacitors off the left side that's making you think the ASUS was a better board for the money? Or is it the VRM heatsinks being a little larger? I don't see much of a difference in terms of features, honestly. From quick online research, the MSI board has 12 power stages and the ASUS has 11, but the ASUS has bigger VRM heatsinks and more capacitors which kind of balances things out. I don't know anything about the quality or efficiency of those power stages, though, I'm far from an expert.

I wish there was a tech site out there that did some kind of comparison of the overclocking capabilities of all the $189 motherboards from various manufacturers to see which one is the best bang for the buck... I notice it seems like every major motherboard manufacturer has a board that costs almost exactly $189 as either their entry level offering, or one step up from it, and all those boards look similar to my eyes.

 

[Dan_D]

Hmm... I just took a look at the ASUS PRIME Z590-P, and it really looks to me like it's pretty much the same board as what I have for the same price, aside from the aesthetics. Is it those extra capacitors off the left side that's making you think the ASUS was a better board for the money? Or is it the VRM heatsinks being a little larger? I don't see much of a difference in terms of features, honestly. From quick online research, the MSI board has 12 power stages and the ASUS has 11, but the ASUS has bigger VRM heatsinks and more capacitors which kind of balances things out. I don't know anything about the quality or efficiency of those power stages, though, I'm far from an expert.

I wish there was a tech site out there that did some kind of comparison of the overclocking capabilities of all the $189 motherboards from various manufacturers to see which one is the best bang for the buck... I notice it seems like every major motherboard manufacturer has a board that costs almost exactly $189 as either their entry level offering, or one step up from it, and all those boards look similar to my eyes.

You cannot simply count power stages and determine the actual phase count. ASUS often uses two power stages and two chokes per phase, but the actual count is lower. I rarely comment on VRM implementations until I've really had a chance to go through them. I haven't in this case. What appears to be better quality are the heat sinks. Otherwise, they are so similar I don't think it matters. They both have similar feature sets and their PCB's are the same layer count, etc. That being said, I can't find a lot of concrete specifications on either VRM design. MSI doesn't usually do anything innovative on that front. However, it looks like they have 55AMP phases and their phase controller is known based on what I'm seeing. It looks like MSI is running a 6 phase design with two FETs per phase. It's likely a 6+1 phase setup, or 6+2. It's likely doublers are being used or they've gone and done what ASUS has done and taken those out.

I don't know what the ASUS' board's phases are rated at. I don't have the MSI in front of me either, so it's difficult to say. I only have one Z590 board here for review at the moment. Without an actual board, I can't tell you much about it. So, on a more detailed look based on what I can find, I don't think it matters. I like the heat sinks better on the ASUS as they look beefier, but that doesn't actually mean they work better. Although, ASUS certainly has a better UEFI than MSI does. But your right, at $189, they all look to be entry level and all about the same.

 

[D-EJ915]

After having a deployment of "CSM" model Asus boards die on me, I don't recommend their low-end boards anymore lol. The prime is like slightly higher quality than those but I'd still say it's a bargain tier board. I would go for Tuf for a minimum from Asus, for MSI I have no idea how good their pro series is but it has better memory overclocking listed so it's probably a little better in general if they can do that.

To be perfectly honest though if you aren't overclocking your board should be fine, I would have no issue with it at stock for somebody if it has the features they need.

 

[CAD4466HK]

I wish there was a tech site out there that did some kind of comparison of the overclocking capabilities of all the $189 motherboards from various manufacturers to see which one is the best bang for the buck... I notice it seems like every major motherboard manufacturer has a board that costs almost exactly $189 as either their entry level offering, or one step up from it, and all those boards look similar to my eyes.

here are some OC'ing and VRM thermal comparisons on some budget Z590's. And they show the VRM layout. Asrock is still a no go.

 

[Dan_D]

After having a deployment of "CSM" model Asus boards die on me, I don't recommend their low-end boards anymore lol. The prime is like slightly higher quality than those but I'd still say it's a bargain tier board. I would go for Tuf for a minimum from Asus, for MSI I have no idea how good their pro series is but it has better memory overclocking listed so it's probably a little better in general if they can do that.

To be perfectly honest though if you aren't overclocking your board should be fine, I would have no issue with it at stock for somebody if it has the features they need.

The TUF series isn't what it used to be. There was a time where I could almost recommend those without hesitation, but when they turned it into a budget gaming brand that stopped.

 

[athenian200]

Well, it looks like based on that video above, my motherboard falls squarely in the middle of the pack, and there is a bit of a difference between brands. Gigabyte was a little better, but apparently the ASUS was actually a little worse. But overall, anything that's not an ASRock did okay.

I decided to go ahead and try overclocking the 11700K to see what I could get out of it, since it kind of seems like a waste to have an unlocked processor and a powerful fan and not at least try, even if I don't wind up running the overclock 24/7.

It turns out that overclocking is a bit safer than it used to be because now the CPU will try to throttle itself or shutdown if something obvious like temperatures or voltage going way too high happens, which is what used to kill CPUs when overclocking.

It looks like MSI's OC Genie thinks this board can run the processor with an all-core overclock of 4.7GHz, Intel's Extreme Tuning utility thinks the processor can run an all-core overclock of 4.80GHz, and my own testing shows that what the CPU can actually handle is an all-core overclock of exactly 5.0GHz, which just happens to be the single-core turbo frequency. Bear in mind, the workload I'm testing this with is a program compile that normally stresses the CPU with 100% load on all 16 threads for about 20 minutes, so it's possible gaming would be stable at 5.1GHz or something, since that is probably a lot less stressful.

What I observed is that at 5.0GHz, everything is surprisingly cool and stable. My temperatures stay between 70-80 degrees, which is about where locked processors would stay with a stock cooler at stock settings, only now it's doing that with a Noctua running full blast. It's almost stable at 5.1GHz, and even though the temperatures don't go up much, it has random crashing/freezing. It's possible that very careful manual voltage tuning could get that stable, I don't know. 5.2GHz or 5.3GHz (the turbo frequency of the 11900K), will boot into Windows but crashes quickly if you put any kind of load on the CPU. What's weird is that with a monitoring utility open, it doesn't appear to be heat or voltages causing the instability, it's like the CPU just mysteriously isn't stable or able to keep up with itself if you set it any higher.

It seems like that might actually validate the theory that the 11700K is basically an 11900K that was tested and found not to be stable at a single-core turbo speed of 5.3GHz, and so they clocked it down to 5.0GHz and sold it as the 11700K. I don't have proof that's true, but based on my own results it seems like there is a reason other than marketing why the maximum turbo on the 11700K is 300MHz lower than on the 11900K... of course, it could just be this board, too, though I really doubt there is much more headroom in the chip itself.

I probably won't keep it running overclocked though, because I'm sure it will shorten the life of the processor, and it only compiles the application in 17 minutes instead of 19 minutes... not really worth running 10 degrees hotter for that, even if the fans can handle it. LOL. Maybe if it was 15-13 minutes, but that overclock only cut two minutes off the compile times. It seemed like Turbo Boost was trying to get 4.6GHz on all cores under load even without me doing anything, so it seems like it's pretty much pushed about as far as it will go already.