Experience comparing Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro and Asrock Z390 Extreme4.
Experience comparing Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro and Asrock Z390 Extreme4.
Initially, I was working with an i7-8700K paired with a Noctua NH-D15 cooler. After overclocking all my previous setups for nearly two decades, I now have a solid understanding of the process.
Firstly, I selected the Asrock Z390 Extreme4 motherboard. Within a week, the highest stable overclock I achieved was 4.9GHz (without AVX), operating at 1.376v under load with an average CPU power consumption of 186W. I pushed it up to 1.420v but failed to reach a consistent 5.0GHz. At that frequency, the system would become unresponsive within minutes and would immediately fail P95 (no AVX). The maximum temperatures stayed below 82°C, and the Extreme4’s VRMs were designed to perform well, so I considered missing out on the silicon potential and settled for 4.9GHz.
One observation from this board was that Vdroop remained consistent regardless of the LLC setting I chose. I consistently kept it at LLC1, the maximum. At a base frequency of 1.400 in the BIOS, I achieved idle voltages around 1.392v and load around 1.376v. To ensure optimal cooling, I even placed a fan directly on the VRM heatsinks.
Later, I upgraded to the Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro motherboard after reviewing positive feedback and its higher VRM count. After several hours of testing with Prime95 (no AVX) at 5.10GHz and 1.380v load, I reached an average power draw of 162W, maintaining a stable idle at 1.380v with LLC set to "turbo."
I primarily used HWiNFO64 for monitoring sensor data, but cross-verified with other tools, all reported similar results. Both boards run on the latest BIOS versions.
Is the Gigabyte really more efficient than the Asrock at this price point? I’ve long admired Asrock’s offerings, especially the Z390 Extreme4 for i7-8700K overclocking, but my experience with it has been underwhelming... or perhaps I encountered a faulty board?
I’m curious about the performance differences between these boards. The Asrock managed to draw 186W at 1.376v/4.9GHz, while the Gigabyte achieved 162W at 1.380v/5.1GHz. Despite checking all power configurations and software settings, there’s no indication of aggressive throttling. Is the Gigabyte truly more efficient?
Are there any voltage monitoring points on the Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro that I could use with a multimeter to verify the Vcore? I want to confirm the sensors are accurate and ensure I’m not exceeding the board’s limits. Though temperatures remain excellent—around 78°C max per core, averaging about 75°C overall—I’m still seeking clarity on this matter.
This post is mostly for guidance; I now strongly suggest the Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro as a superior choice for anyone seeking optimal value in an overclocking setup. My curiosity remains about why I’m seeing such varied results, especially given Asrock’s strong reputation. I’m only using a 6-core i7-8700K, not the 8-core i9s it supports.
Thank you for the comments! I own a delidded 8700K and was thinking about switching to a Z390 board someday. If the 9900K ever becomes more affordable, it would be easy to upgrade. The Gigabyte boards were on my list because they received good reviews... I was surprised by the ASRock feedback, which matches what the reviewer Hardware Unboxed mentioned. It's nice to get some practical insights from someone who has actually used both motherboards.
I'm glad I could assist. Finding information was tough when I was trying to decide, which is why I started with the Asrock. I also chose the Asrock because of its strong performance in value, and the Z370 Extreme4 worked well for me. I shared this on another forum, and someone there is facing a similar issue with the Asrock Z390 Extreme4 as I did. I usually look for good overclocking boards rather than buying a generic one that costs a lot of money. Gigabyte Aorus has clearly dominated the overclock market with their Z390 boards.
Also, just a note, today Amazon is offering a $20 discount on the Gigabyte Aorus Z390 Pro, bringing it down to $160—great deal!
Wmblalock :
Happy to assist. Finding details was tough when I was choosing, which is why I started with the Asrock first. I also chose the Asrock because of my positive experience with their value offerings, and the Z370 Extreme4 performed well. I shared this on another forum, and someone there is facing a similar issue with the Asrock Z390 Extreme4 as I did. I usually seek a solid overclocking board rather than just purchasing a generic one that would be a waste of money. Gigabyte Aorus has clearly dominated the overclock market with their Z390 boards.
Also, just a note, today Amazon is offering a $20 discount on the Gigabyte Aorus Z390 Pro, bringing it down to $160 – a great deal!
Oh, I often dream about living in the US... because hardware prices here seem so much higher than in the UK.
ive heard that the extreme4 z370 is actually better than the z390 model. dont know how true that is but i was mainly going for around 5ghz and if i got that i was going to go for lowest possible voltage. i can run it at a negative 10 offset which comes to about 1.28-1.31 vcore on normal loads and maybe 1.344 on avx loads. i took the silly plastic io shield off like i do all these mobos. put 2 40mm fans on the left vrm heatsink with zip ties and have a side panel that has a mount for 2 120mm fans blowing on the back of the mobo where the vrms are. im confident that if a 9900k will do 5ghz or more this board will support it. dont have experience with the z390 version but the z370 version is great and i got mine for 134 on sale. their cheap now and thats what i would get. the 9th gen work on z370 just as well.
the only difference in performance is because of higher power and temp limits. but you say that tests show the z390 boards being faster? well turn up the power limit. but even with the power limit turned off they are faster? yeah because some boards allow a tjmax of 115. the cpu doesnt stay at 115 probalby but it does bump up against it and i dont want the performance that much.
for anybody that is wondering about how to oc the 9900k and to a certain extent the 8700k and 9700k while balancing power concerns and the like heres my advice.
just oc to as high as you can normally with a voltage limit that you are happy with. but this will overheat the cpu because of how much power they draw especially with the 8700k being pasted and the 9900k being 8 cores 16 threads. so people drop there ocs so that video rendering or whatever doesnt fry their systems.
but that is what power limits are for. for the extreme4 and an 8700k i would probalby set the maintained limit to 160 and the short limit to 180-190. if you delid then i would raise that up to 190 for the maintained and 210 for the short. for the 9900k i would set about the same limit as a delidded 8700k. maybe a touch more.
but if i do that then my 9900k wont be any faster than an 8700k right? no. when you have less cores you clock higher to use a power budget to get more perforamnce but when you have more cores you can clock lower to get the same or more performace. and since you get diminishing returns the higher you clock you will get more performance from the 9900k and more cores at slightyly lower speeds. for instance if you have your 8700k set to maintained limit of 160 then it will run something like cinebench at maybe 4.9-50 as cinebench at 5ghz at 1.32 volts or so will use about 170w maybe. on the 9900k that it would clock down to 4.6-4.7 maybe but still be much faster. if you go with 190 w then the 8700k will run 5ghz-5.1 in cinebecnh with no throttling while the 9900k will probalby throttle. but just barely. maybe down to 4.9 which isnt a big deal and it will be much faster with the extra cores.
also i recommend using offset mode or otherwise you will have to use the amount of voltage necessary for avx loads while running normal non avx loads. also keep hyour power plan in windows on balanced as this will allow the cores to throttle down when not loaded. they will stay at about 800mghz and mahybe .7 volts when not being used. if you dont do this that means that 24/7 ( or however long you leave your pc running) you will be blasting the pc with much higher than necessary voltage which leads to aging and degradation fo the chip. it will also make the computer quiter because fans will run lower