they are 4 USB 3.0 back, and 2 front

count them

Basically identical performance as you would expect from modern mobos using the same chipsets. There's no magic here, just a matter of picking the mobo with the features you desire.

The excess power consumption on the Asus is troubling however. Asus has had VRM issues in the past so they may need to re-engineer their VRM circuits to prevent these issues.

You should have disable APM Master instead of HPC Mode during OC. Disappointing to see that only ASUS has that option.

So all that speculation about the Crosshair V being a factor behind BD's lackluster performance was all a load of bull.

So do the motherboards do not post at all with zero on the screen until bios upgraded? How did you upgrade bios on MSI for example (they have two methods, which is better)

Can you also please run one scientific parallel algebra test on Bulldozer i depend on? Take 32-bit benchmark for Windows compiled with intel fortran at

http://www.equation.com/s...ion.cmd?fa=laipebenchmark

The Elapsed time (first line) depending on amount of cores shows how fast task is executed when processors are deployed one by one to work in parallel from 1 to 8. Other lines of results are almost irrelevant (they are elapsed time times number of processor and so on). All previous AMD CPUs were beating Intel here almost by the factor of 1.5-2

Thank, i purchased Asus formula V and i was worried about its performance comparing to gigabyte UD7 , but i m very happy reading this all , thank you

> ... all the advantages of the Asus Crosshair V Formula ...
> We stopped at 4.5 GHz frequency during our overclocking
> experiments, but that occurred because of our CPU and its
> cooling system, and not because of the mainboard. I am sure
> that the mainboard can easily hit higher frequencies.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1760/15/

"One aspect of the GIGABYTE 990FXA-UD7 truly set it apart from the ASUS Crosshair V Formula. That was our experience when we overclocked the AMD FX-8150. When we pushed the FX-8150 on the ASUS Crosshair V Formula, we weren't able to break 4.6GHz with all eight cores active. At 4.6GHz the system would boot up completely normal and seemed to be rock solid. When we tried for 4.7GHz the system wouldn't even post, didn't seem to matter if we pushed more voltage or any of the other tricks up our sleeves. It seemed that our FX-8150 was just limited to 4.6GHz with all eight cores. We were able to disable four of the cores and get to 4.9GHz. The GIGABYTE 990FXA-UD7 turned out to be a completely different story. We were able to bring the system to 4.6GHz, and didn't plan on much more thinking that our chip wouldn't do any more. Turns out it wasn't the chip that was the issue. We were able to increase the multiplier to 24.5 and boot into Windows! We weren't what we call completely stable, but if we were to switch over to water cooling we could pump more voltage and gain the system stability we desire."