AMD Ryzen 7 3800X review
PowerColor 5700 RED DEVIL review
MSI Radeon RX 5700 XT Evoke review
ASUS Radeon RX 5700 XT ROG STRIX review
ViewSonic Elite XG240R Monitor Review
Promo: URCDKey Summer Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
X570 Aorus master review
Cooler Master Silencio S600 review
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G review
ASUS RoG Swift PG35VQ Monitor review
ASRock X299E-ITX/ac A Very Tiny Mini ITX LGA2066 Motherboard
ASRock managed to inject quite a few features into a 17x17cm motherboard, a Mini-ITX sized motherboard. The ultimate Mini-ITX has to have everything, X299E-ITX/ac was built on a X299 platform to give ultimate processing power, dual Intel Gigabit Lan along with dual band 2.4/5GHz 802.11ac WiFi.
Press-release -- Dual band 2.4/5GHz 802.11ac WiFi provides the best connectivity, USB3.1 Gen2 Type A+C are also available at the rear of the motherboard, more amazingly this little beast also supports quad channel memory up to DDR4 4000 MHz(OC), stunning performance on such a small motherboard.
In order to provide the best expandability ASRock engineers has to think outside the box, by adding two expansion cards, X299E-ITX/ac now has 3 Ultra M.2 and 6 SATA3 ports, absolutely no compromise for supporting high speed storage devices. Stability is also vital, with 60A power choke and Dr.MOS to form a 7 power phase design, this motherboard can handle heavy load as well as everyday task with ease.
ASRock has collaborated with water cooling expert Bitspower technology to developed a cooling block specifically for X299E-ITX/ac, it is able to dissipate heat for both CPU & MOSFET up to 300W, a perfect optional upgrade for performance seeker and water cooling enthusiasts.
ASRock has yet again broke the limit to crammed such performance as well as amazing features into a Mini-ITX size motherboard, not only that, X299E-ITX/ac received a TAIWAN EXCELLENCE 2018 award right after the official launch, a perfect affirmation that this little beast is the truly built for small form factor fanatics.
More information can be checked out at the product page.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9271
Joined: 2011-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 9271
Joined: 2011-09-21
#5482560 Posted on: 10/17/2017 03:47 PM
I am legitimately impressed with this. They managed to keep quad channel this time (they didn't with the x99 m-ITX).
wonder how it would handle a 7820x?
I am legitimately impressed with this. They managed to keep quad channel this time (they didn't with the x99 m-ITX).
wonder how it would handle a 7820x?
rl66
Senior Member
Posts: 2076
Joined: 2007-05-31
Senior Member
Posts: 2076
Joined: 2007-05-31
#5482567 Posted on: 10/17/2017 04:13 PM
If ASRock manages this with Threadripper (doubtful) I'm in.
no the CPU is bigger than itx form factor ((maybe i am trolling lol
))
I am legitimately impressed with this. They managed to keep quad channel this time (they didn't with the x99 m-ITX).
wonder how it would handle a 7820x?
not sure of that as the mATX have the 4 of them... anyway about the 7820X i guess it would be nice on WC as those too become smaller with time and more effective.
If ASRock manages this with Threadripper (doubtful) I'm in.
no the CPU is bigger than itx form factor ((maybe i am trolling lol
))I am legitimately impressed with this. They managed to keep quad channel this time (they didn't with the x99 m-ITX).
wonder how it would handle a 7820x?
not sure of that as the mATX have the 4 of them... anyway about the 7820X i guess it would be nice on WC as those too become smaller with time and more effective.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9271
Joined: 2011-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 9271
Joined: 2011-09-21
#5482569 Posted on: 10/17/2017 04:16 PM
not sure of that as the mATX have the 4 of them... anyway about the 7820X i guess it would be nice on WC as those too become smaller with time and more effective.
m-ITX x99 was dual channel. http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/X99E-ITXac/index.asp
not sure of that as the mATX have the 4 of them... anyway about the 7820X i guess it would be nice on WC as those too become smaller with time and more effective.
m-ITX x99 was dual channel. http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/X99E-ITXac/index.asp
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4257
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4257
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5482590 Posted on: 10/17/2017 05:00 PM
This is some seriously impressive engineering, but I see this as being a very niche product, even moreso than the other X299 boards. Unless you're using one of the i7s or worse, a lot of the PCIe lanes will go to waste. Available PSUs and cooling methods to accommodate the CPU are also going to be pretty bulky. This platform would make for the best ITX build you can make, but for X299 (or X399) I'd rather have micro ATX. You'd get a slightly larger chassis but a whole lot more options, and likely a cheaper motherboard (in the event one is ever made).
This is some seriously impressive engineering, but I see this as being a very niche product, even moreso than the other X299 boards. Unless you're using one of the i7s or worse, a lot of the PCIe lanes will go to waste. Available PSUs and cooling methods to accommodate the CPU are also going to be pretty bulky. This platform would make for the best ITX build you can make, but for X299 (or X399) I'd rather have micro ATX. You'd get a slightly larger chassis but a whole lot more options, and likely a cheaper motherboard (in the event one is ever made).
tunejunky
Senior Member
Posts: 875
Joined: 2017-08-18
Senior Member
Posts: 875
Joined: 2017-08-18
#5482621 Posted on: 10/17/2017 06:44 PM
Asrock...rocks.
i have been a bit more than underwhelmed with x299 since the launch. there has been nothing on the mobo front to pique my interest until now.
now there's a usage scenario with Kaby LakeX that make sense. expensive sense, but sense.
Asrock...rocks.
i have been a bit more than underwhelmed with x299 since the launch. there has been nothing on the mobo front to pique my interest until now.
now there's a usage scenario with Kaby LakeX that make sense. expensive sense, but sense.
MorganX
Senior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: 2015-03-30
Senior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: 2015-03-30
#5482635 Posted on: 10/17/2017 07:08 PM
no the CPU is bigger than itx form factor ((maybe i am trolling lol ))
.
Unfortunately, I think you are correct.
no the CPU is bigger than itx form factor ((maybe i am trolling lol
)).
Unfortunately, I think you are correct.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4257
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4257
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5482646 Posted on: 10/17/2017 07:41 PM
Socket TR4 can fit in ITX, in theory. Take a look at the full size ATX boards: some of them have the first PCIe slot directly below the I/O panel. The real challenge with an ITX TR build would actually be finding a place to put the chipset. If a manufacturer did the same sorts of things ASRock did with this X299 board, everything could fit, except the chipset. That would also likely need to be mounted on a separate card, unless you start removing things like SATA or other headers.
What kind of surprises me is why nobody has bothered to create a daughterboard for ITX. So basically the bottom (and larger) layer has the I/O ports, the PCIe x16 slot, the M.2 slots, the chipset, and if there's room, the 24-pin power connector. The bottom layer would also have most/all of the header pins and SATA ports, but angled at 90 degrees. Then, the top layer would contain the CPU socket, RAM slots, VRM, 8-pin power connectors, and maybe the M.2 slot for wifi. Since you're probably going to water-cool this system anyway, I don't think another few cm of elevation is a big deal. You might be thinking that the 4000+ pin CPU would complicate communication to the bottom layer, but I don't think it would:
* Roughly half of the pins in socket TR4 are useless; about half of them are meant for the additional 2 dies supplied by Epyc. AMD made the sockets similar because it was cheaper to just recycle the same socket.
* Though I don't know how many of them there are, a good chunk of the pins of the CPU are used for ground and power delivery, making the remaining ~2000 pins not seem so high. Remember, the VRM and 8-pin power connectors are supplied on the daughterboard too.
* The CPU supplies up to 64 PCIe lanes, but the motherboard will be using less than half that. I have no idea how many pins are dedicated for PCIe but I imagine ignoring at least 32 of them would substantially reduce the complexity.
* There may be quad-channel memory, but that too is on the top-layer board.
So all that being said, I can't imagine it'd be too complex or expensive to connect the two boards.
Probably never going to happen, but I at least think it's cool to think about.
Socket TR4 can fit in ITX, in theory. Take a look at the full size ATX boards: some of them have the first PCIe slot directly below the I/O panel. The real challenge with an ITX TR build would actually be finding a place to put the chipset. If a manufacturer did the same sorts of things ASRock did with this X299 board, everything could fit, except the chipset. That would also likely need to be mounted on a separate card, unless you start removing things like SATA or other headers.
What kind of surprises me is why nobody has bothered to create a daughterboard for ITX. So basically the bottom (and larger) layer has the I/O ports, the PCIe x16 slot, the M.2 slots, the chipset, and if there's room, the 24-pin power connector. The bottom layer would also have most/all of the header pins and SATA ports, but angled at 90 degrees. Then, the top layer would contain the CPU socket, RAM slots, VRM, 8-pin power connectors, and maybe the M.2 slot for wifi. Since you're probably going to water-cool this system anyway, I don't think another few cm of elevation is a big deal. You might be thinking that the 4000+ pin CPU would complicate communication to the bottom layer, but I don't think it would:
* Roughly half of the pins in socket TR4 are useless; about half of them are meant for the additional 2 dies supplied by Epyc. AMD made the sockets similar because it was cheaper to just recycle the same socket.
* Though I don't know how many of them there are, a good chunk of the pins of the CPU are used for ground and power delivery, making the remaining ~2000 pins not seem so high. Remember, the VRM and 8-pin power connectors are supplied on the daughterboard too.
* The CPU supplies up to 64 PCIe lanes, but the motherboard will be using less than half that. I have no idea how many pins are dedicated for PCIe but I imagine ignoring at least 32 of them would substantially reduce the complexity.
* There may be quad-channel memory, but that too is on the top-layer board.
So all that being said, I can't imagine it'd be too complex or expensive to connect the two boards.
Probably never going to happen, but I at least think it's cool to think about.
Agent-A01
Senior Member
Posts: 11351
Joined: 2010-12-27
Senior Member
Posts: 11351
Joined: 2010-12-27
#5482647 Posted on: 10/17/2017 07:48 PM
Will never happen, socket just takes way too much space.
They would have to omit a PCIe slot or vrm above cpu. But then there's not room else where to put things.
If ASRock manages this with Threadripper (doubtful) I'm in.
Will never happen, socket just takes way too much space.
They would have to omit a PCIe slot or vrm above cpu. But then there's not room else where to put things.
igorfiuza
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 2013-11-23
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 2013-11-23
#5483037 Posted on: 10/18/2017 04:58 PM
Did anyone notice that the RAM slots are notebook memory type?
Did anyone notice that the RAM slots are notebook memory type?
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9271
Joined: 2011-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 9271
Joined: 2011-09-21
#5483038 Posted on: 10/18/2017 05:06 PM
Yes. Only way you are getting quad channel on a mITX.
Did anyone notice that the RAM slots are notebook memory type?
Yes. Only way you are getting quad channel on a mITX.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: 2015-03-30
If ASRock manages this with Threadripper (doubtful) I'm in.