Intel Core i9 9900K processor review
Intel Core i7 9700K processor review
Intel Core i5 9600K processor review
MSI MEG Z390 ACE review
ASUS ROG Maximus XI Hero review
Crucial P1 M.2 1000GB SSD Review
Corsair Force Series MP510 M.2 SSD Review
MSI GeForce RTX 2070 Armor 8G review
ASUS Turbo GeForce RTX 2070 8GB review
Guru3D PC Buyers Guide Autumn 2018
ASUS TUF X470 Plus-Gaming review
Posted by: on: 07/24/2018 10:56 AM [
7 comment(s) ]
We review the ASUS TUF X470 Plus-Gaming, optimized for Ryzen 2000 / Zen+ on a motherboard with an ATX form factor. Alongside the release of Ryzen 5 2600X and Ryzen 7 2700X processors, AMD prepped the X470 chipset, that offers a more fine-tuned experience for your Ryzen processor. The new board offers is more appealing budget wise as it is selling at a 159,- USD/EUR price point.
Read article
Advertisement
cryohellinc
Senior Member
Posts: 1917
Senior Member
Posts: 1917
Posted on: 07/24/2018 12:35 PM
Nice review @Hilbert Hagedoorn and spot-on recommendations.
Nice review @Hilbert Hagedoorn and spot-on recommendations.
BLEH!
Senior Member
Posts: 5780
Senior Member
Posts: 5780
Posted on: 07/24/2018 01:05 PM
That's a fair conclusion. I thought the back panel was a bit bare, personally, like to see more USB than that.
That's a fair conclusion. I thought the back panel was a bit bare, personally, like to see more USB than that.
Jonathanese
Member
Posts: 26
Member
Posts: 26
Posted on: 07/24/2018 04:26 PM
I had the Z370 version of this board. ASUS makes a great BIOS for overclocking, but they just cut back wayyy too much on the VRMs. At stock clocks with high load-line calibration, I was already seeing the CPU throttle because of VRM temperatures. That simply shouldn't be happening that easily. My 8700K would see ~130W in Prime, but would just keep climbing to over 200W.
I ended up returning it and getting an ASRock Extreme 4 which certainly has a more difficult overclocking interface, but the VRM setup is far more robust. I have a probe between the heatsink and the thermal pad on my VRMs and rarely see it hit 55C. At a 5.2GHz overclock at 1.4v no less. My power usage hangs out at about 170W and doesn't climb.
So the TUF series isn't exactly "TUF". It's a great board for running things stock, or perhaps overclocking 6-core i5s or 4-core i7s. But it feels like they were hoping people wouldn't notice where they cut corners.
Aesthetically, I actually really liked it. Sort of a classic "factory" look that some might find cheesy, but I thought looked pretty good alongside the cleaner look of modern pc components.
I had the Z370 version of this board. ASUS makes a great BIOS for overclocking, but they just cut back wayyy too much on the VRMs. At stock clocks with high load-line calibration, I was already seeing the CPU throttle because of VRM temperatures. That simply shouldn't be happening that easily. My 8700K would see ~130W in Prime, but would just keep climbing to over 200W.
I ended up returning it and getting an ASRock Extreme 4 which certainly has a more difficult overclocking interface, but the VRM setup is far more robust. I have a probe between the heatsink and the thermal pad on my VRMs and rarely see it hit 55C. At a 5.2GHz overclock at 1.4v no less. My power usage hangs out at about 170W and doesn't climb.
So the TUF series isn't exactly "TUF". It's a great board for running things stock, or perhaps overclocking 6-core i5s or 4-core i7s. But it feels like they were hoping people wouldn't notice where they cut corners.
Aesthetically, I actually really liked it. Sort of a classic "factory" look that some might find cheesy, but I thought looked pretty good alongside the cleaner look of modern pc components.
undorich
Junior Member
Posts: 8
Junior Member
Posts: 8
Posted on: 07/24/2018 07:51 PM
You get six power phases, -- no way ! looks like a stock 4+2
You get six power phases, -- no way ! looks like a stock 4+2
tunejunky
Senior Member
Posts: 539
Senior Member
Posts: 539
Posted on: 07/24/2018 08:50 PM
excellent review as always HH.
you're quite right in (almost) saying this is a B450 board in disguise.
at this price point Asus should ditch the "Tuf" branding, as there are no heatsinks for the M.2, no "thermal armor", and worst of all, no wifi.
the simple fact is you can add wifi at any price point as it is always worth the additional cost.
an extra pcie slot x4 (2.0) isn't worth the money it took to place it on the board.
i have a sinking feeling it's there only because in the ATX format, it would look weird not to have at least 2 (if not 3) pcie slots.
Asus, you can do way better. this same board in ITX would sell like hotcakes. especially as they've (to my knowledge) never released a "tuf" ITX. Not everyone would be willing to pay $200+ for a R.O.G. ITX. a "tuf" ITX with wifi would sell really well (imo) at $150-170.
excellent review as always HH.
you're quite right in (almost) saying this is a B450 board in disguise.
at this price point Asus should ditch the "Tuf" branding, as there are no heatsinks for the M.2, no "thermal armor", and worst of all, no wifi.
the simple fact is you can add wifi at any price point as it is always worth the additional cost.
an extra pcie slot x4 (2.0) isn't worth the money it took to place it on the board.
i have a sinking feeling it's there only because in the ATX format, it would look weird not to have at least 2 (if not 3) pcie slots.
Asus, you can do way better. this same board in ITX would sell like hotcakes. especially as they've (to my knowledge) never released a "tuf" ITX. Not everyone would be willing to pay $200+ for a R.O.G. ITX. a "tuf" ITX with wifi would sell really well (imo) at $150-170.
Jawnys
Member
Posts: 69
Member
Posts: 69
Posted on: 07/24/2018 11:17 PM
it would be nice to see a benchmark of this cpu on a b350 mobo just to see if its worth upgrading to a 4xx mobo if you upgrade from ryzen to zen +
it would be nice to see a benchmark of this cpu on a b350 mobo just to see if its worth upgrading to a 4xx mobo if you upgrade from ryzen to zen +
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 878
As HH touched on this board really is poorly equipped with what is actually the same 4+2 phase supply used on the earlier 350 boards. Those board's VRMs could overheat significantly on a 1700 overclocked running a heavy workload. buildzoid registered temps of 127c in such situations. Combine that with the 2700x being capable of pulling significantly more power in standard configs to the older gen chips and this really does not equate to a power supply setup for a X470 branded board, especially one holding the TUF branding. A very poor move by Asus.
I liked his conclusion - Avoid like the plague...
Obviously if you want to run a lower end Ryzen+ CPU with lower power consumption requirements then this board should be adequate, but you are still paying (lowish) x470 prices for what is Really a 450 board.
(edited for a typo)