The MSI MEG X570 Godlike Motherboard Review: Thor's Flagship
by Gavin Bonshor on August 28, 2019 12:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
- AMD
- MSI
- 10G Ethernet
- Ryzen
- PCIe 4.0
- Ryzen 3000
- X570
- X570 Godlike
- MEG
Power Delivery Thermal Analysis
One of the most requested elements of our motherboard reviews revolves around the power delivery and its componentry. Aside from the quality of the components and its capability for overclocking to push out higher clock speeds which in turn improves performance, is the thermal capability of the cooling solutions implemented by manufacturers. While almost always fine for users running processors at default settings, the cooling capability of the VRMs isn't something that users should worry too much about, but for those looking to squeeze out extra performance from the CPU via overclocking, this puts extra pressure on the power delivery and in turn, generates extra heat. This is why more premium models often include heatsinks on its models with better cooling designs, heftier chunks of metal, and in some cases, even with water blocks such as the ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Formula.
Two K-Type Thermal Probes attached to the rear of the power delivery on the MSI MEG X570 Godlike
Testing Methodology
Out method of testing out if the power delivery and its heatsink are effective at dissipating heat, is by running an intensely heavy CPU workload for a prolonged method of time. We apply an overclock which is deemed safe and at the maximum that the silicon on our AMD Ryzen 7 3700X processor allows. We then run the Prime95 with AVX2 enabled under a torture test for an hour at the maximum stable overclock we can which puts insane pressure on the processor. We collect our data via three different methods which include the following:
- Taking a thermal image from a birds-eye view after an hour with a Flir Pro thermal imaging camera
- Securing two probes on to the rear of the PCB, right underneath CPU VCore section of the power delivery for better parity in case a probe reports a faulty reading
- Taking a reading of the VRM temperature from the sensor reading within the HWInfo monitoring application
The reason for using three different methods is that some sensors can read inaccurate temperatures, which can give very erratic results for users looking to gauge whether an overclock is too much pressure for the power delivery handle. With using a probe on the rear, it can also show the efficiency of the power stages and heatsinks as a wide margin between the probe and sensor temperature can show that the heatsink is dissipating heat and that the design is working, or that the internal sensor is massively wrong. To ensure our probe was accurate prior to testing, I personally binned 10 and selected the most accurate (within 1c of the actual temperature) for better parity in our testing.
For thermal image, we use a Flir One camera as it gives a good indication of where the heat is generated around the socket area, as some designs use different configurations and an evenly spread power delivery with good components will usually generate less heat. Manufacturers who use inefficient heatsinks and cheap out on power delivery components should run hotter than those who have invested. Of course, a $700 flagship motherboard is likely to outperform a cheaper $100 model under the same testing conditions, but it is still worth testing to see which vendors are doing things correctly.
Thermal Analysis Results
We measured 58°C on PCB between the CPU socket and power delivery
The MSI MEG X570 Godlike is running a 14-phase design for the CPU VCore section. This includes an International Rectifier IR35201 running in a 7+1 configuration with seven IR3599 doublers on the rear of the PCB; the SoC section is running four phases off a single IR3599 which splits the signal into four. As far as designs go, this is MSI's best AMD power delivery that I can recall seeing, although I still find it a little odd that the SoC section is split into four, but through one IR3599 doubler in quad mode. Perhaps this will yield some benefits and gains for extreme overclockers, but it's not an issue for general users to be concerned about. The heatsink is very similar to the MSI MEG X570 Ace and uses the same design. The power delivery heatsinks are interconnected by a heat pipe which stretches around the left side of the memory slots and down into the actively cooled X570 chipset heatsink.
As we get more results, we will endeavour to update this chart when more models have been tested
Note - The ASRock B450 Gaming ITX-ac model crashed instantly every time the small FFT torture test within Prime95 was initiated. At anything on the CPU VCore above 1.35 V would result in instant instability. The Ryzen Master auto-overclocking function failed every time it tried to dial in settings, but it does however operate absolutely fine at stock, and with Precision Boost Overdrive enabled. Either the firmware is the issue, or the board just isn't capable of overclocking the Ryzen 3700X with extreme workloads with what is considered a stable overclock on the X570 chipset. We will re-test this in the future.
The power delivery on the MSI MEG X570 Godlike actually runs slightly cooler in our testing which can be explained by having a slightly better 14+4 power delivery versus the 12+2 design on the MSI MEG X570 Ace. More phases usually generate less heat overall as each phase is active for a shorter period of time, which does show in our testing. We ran our AMD Ryzen 7 3700X testbed sample at 4.1 GHz with a CPU VCore of 1.45 V which is consistent with other models we have tested to try and generate as much heat as possible. The power delivery probe output reading was 59°C after an hour of testing, while the VRM temperature sensor gave us a reading of 61°C. The MSI MEG X570 Godlike does well under our testing method and there should be no issues when overclocking the current Ryzen 3000 processors, as we found that we hit CPU thermal limitations before anything else.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
116 Comments
View All Comments
WaltC - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Not to mention an old architecture Intel's been milking for years that is full of security holes and software & bios patches, etc. Nah, the longevity argument and bang-for-the-buck argument is won by AMD this time, decisively.Oliseo - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
"Not to mention an old architecture Intel's been milking for years that is full of security holes and software & bios patches, etc. Nah, the longevity argument and bang-for-the-buck argument is won by AMD this time, decisively."Be careful of comments like this. They may come back to haunt you. Just because there seems to be no security issues in AMD does not mean they don't exist.
After all, it's not like you were screaming about spectre a couple of years ago, was you.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Reality is that people buy what's available today. Today, there are more security problems with Intel than with AMD.Today, Intel has a worse track record for security robustness.
However, I will say that both companies embed black boxes into their chips. AMD stripped PSP for China, presumably to add a different black box.
29a - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
Is the next Ryzen using the same socket?Qasar - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link
given AMD's track record for upgrade ability, its quite possible, it could.Threska - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
Future Proofing? So that means we've finally gotten something definite about 2020 forward on socket AM4, and PCI 5.Peter2k - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Or buy a solid X570 for way less and still get an all core of 4.2The difference you achieve with pricier boards is negliable really, AMD or Intel
Also I have no idea why you're bashing and then referring to Intel in this regard, you can easily buy a 700$, or even 1000$ Z390
Sweetbabyjays - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
"get an all core of 4.2" according to silicon lottery's statistics, only the top 21% of their 3700x cpu's tested could get to 4.15GHz (all core). So to get a guaranteed 4.2 you need to get a 3800x.I agree that the difference with pricier boards is negligible, really your silicon is more determinate of your max OC than your motherboard.
The reason I'm bashing (this $700 motherboard specifically) is because if you're willing to dump $700 on a motherboard in the pursuit of performance you can literally pay that $700 for a cpu and motherboard combo(the 9900k and a Z390 board) that destroys the performance of the 3700x (the one tested in the article) and any motherboard.
If you compare product level to product level you will find that the X570 price vs Z390 version of say the Gigabyte AORUS XTREME or the MSI MEG Godlike, is ~ $150 and $100 respectively more expensive for the X570 version.
If you need an 8c/16t cpu and you're after the highest performance overclocked option, why pay more for a 3700x/X570 for less performance than a 9900k/Z390?
AshlayW - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Dude where are you getting that 3700X/X570 costs more than 9900K/Z390? The CPU alone is like 150 bucks cheaper, and decent X570s are around 150-200 bucks, the same as decent Z390s. You also have to buy the cooler for the Blast Furnace 9900K to get it anywhere near those "4.8GHz" clocks you're going to need another 50 bucks on a cooler, whereas the 3700X can use its included Prism easily. By your own admission "5-10%" performance isn't worth it, so why pay 150-200 bucks more for a less efficient, dead-end, security vulnerability ridden product based on tech from 2015, when you can have 90% its performance with the latest features including PCIE4.0, for less money?I'm sorry mate but you're not making sense or you're delusional. Please don't spread misinformation, and I suggest people go to their favourite retailer/store and check prices if they want to confirm it themselves.
Sweetbabyjays - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link
Ashlay you need to cool your jets broseph.The first section of my comment is referring to how pointless this $700 board is when you can spend that $700 and get a Z390 and 9900k that will beat the cpu tested in the article (3700x) on this monstrosity of a board.
Then I commented how X570 in general has an inflated cost that really hurts the value proposition of the Ryzen CPUs when you compare model tier to model tier.
As per PC Partpicker:(my source wasn't mentioned, so sorry for not saying that)
MSI X570 Godlike $689.99
MSI Z390 Godlike $578.86
Difference: ~$111
Gigabyte X570 AORUS XTREME $706.98
Gigabyte Z390 AORUS XTREME $549.99
Difference: ~$150
To get the 9900k to 4.8 is really very little effort at all and most can go there with 1.25V which again is pretty tame and hardly creates the "furnace" you're talking about. Yes at 5.1 GHz and say 1.4V the 9900k is probably excellent for tempering swords and casting iron. The 3700x can use it's stock cooler easily, at stock speeds, I totally agree, but once you get that overclock going, you are going to need a better cooler, note the temps above are with 240mm AIO on the 3700x.
I'm not going to argue with the efficiency, because AMD did quite well in that regard with their 7nm process, it clearly is more power efficient.
As far as security issues they have both had their own issues over the years, although Intel has had a fair amount more.
I think though you really hammer the point i am making home with your statement "...product based on tech from 2015, when you can have 90% its performance..."
Intel tech from 2015 is still 10% better performing than AMD's best and newest tech in 2019.
Then you say in another comment "they've won the performance and value games both at once." i never knew 10% less performance is better.
As for PCIE 4.0 if AMD has big Navi coming that can actually outperform a PCIE 3.0 x16 slot's bandwidth then I will be the first in line to get a 3900x and x570. But until there is a single card that is limited by PCIE x16 I personally don't see any reason for it. Sure ridiculously fast nvme drives are nice, but again, they don't do a whole lot to improve gaming or most workflows.