The ASUS ROG Strix X570-E Gaming Motherboard Review
by Gavin Bonshor on January 25, 2021 11:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
- AMD
- Asus
- ROG
- AM4
- Ryzen 3000
- X570
- Strix X570-E
- Ryzen 5000
- X570-E Gaming
Board Features
The ASUS ROG Strix X570-E Gaming is an ATX motherboard with a very solid feature set and sits just below its premium ROG Crosshair series. It uses a lot of the benefits available from the X570 chipset, including eight SATA ports with support for RAID 0, 1, and 10 arrays, as well as two PCIe 4.0 x4/SATA M.2 slots. There is plenty of PCIe support which includes three full-length PCIe 4.0 slots operating at x16, x8/x8, and x8/x8/x+4, with a further two PCIe 4.0 x1 slots. A total of four memory slots allow support for up to DDR4-4400 memory, with a maximum capacity of up to 128 GB. For cooling, ASUS includes six 4-pin headers for cooling, with two dedicated for CPU fans, one for AIO pumps, one for conventional water pumps, and two for regular chassis fans. All of the 4-pin headers available can support PWM controlled fans.
| ASUS ROG Strix X570-E Gaming ATX Motherboard | |||
| Warranty Period | 3 Years | ||
| Product Page | Link | ||
| Price | $330 | ||
| Size | ATX | ||
| CPU Interface | AM4 | ||
| Chipset | AMD B550 | ||
| Memory Slots (DDR4) | Four DDR4 Supporting 128 GB Dual Channel Up to DDR4-4400 |
||
| Video Outputs | 1 x HDMI 2.0b 1 x DisplayPort 1.2 |
||
| Network Connectivity | Realtek RTL8125-CG 2.5 GbE Intel I211-AT Gigabit Intel AX200 Wi-Fi 6 |
||
| Onboard Audio | SupremeFX S1220A | ||
| PCIe Slots for Graphics (from CPU) | 2 x PCIe 4.0 (x16, x8/x8) | ||
| PCIe Slots for Other (from PCH) | 1 x PCIe 4.0 x4 2 x PCIe 4.0 x1 |
||
| Onboard SATA | Eight, RAID 0/1/10 (B550) | ||
| Onboard M.2 | 2 x PCIe 4.0 x4/SATA | ||
| USB 3.1 (10 Gbps) | 7 x Type-A Rear Panel 1 x Type-C Rear Panel 1 x Type-C Header (1 x port) |
||
| USB 3.0 (5 Gbps) | 1 x Type-A Header (2 x ports) | ||
| USB 2.0 | 2 x Type-A Header (4 x ports) | ||
| Power Connectors | 1 x 24-pin ATX 1 x 8pin CPU 1 x 4pin CPU |
||
| Fan Headers | 2 x CPU (4-pin) 1 x AIO pump (4-pin) 1 x Water pump (4-pin) 2 x System (4-pin) |
||
| IO Panel | 7 x USB 3.1 G2 Type-A 1 x USB 3.1 G2 Type-C 1 x Network RJ45 2.5 G (Realtek) 1 x Network RJ45 1 G (Intel) 5 x 3.5mm Audio Jacks (SupremeFX) 2 x Intel AX200 Antenna Ports 1 x Q-Flash Button 1 x DisplayPort 1.2 Output 2 x HDMI 2.0b Output |
||
ASUS has stacked the rear panel with USB 3.2 G2 connectivity including seven Type-A ports and a single Type-C port, all conforming to the 10 Gbps specification. The board also has a premium networking configuration including a pair of Ethernet ports with one controlled by a Realtek RTL8125-CG 2.5 Gb NIC, with the other by a Gigabit Intel I211-AT controller. Wireless connectivity is provided via an Intel AX200 Wi-Fi 6 interface which also allows support for BT 5.0 devices. ASUS also provides a Q-Flash firmware update button with a designated Type-A port highlighted on the rear panel, along with a pair of video outputs including HDMI 2.0b and a DisplayPort 1.2 output. The onboard audio is handled by a SupremeFX S1220A HD audio codec which adds five 3.5 mm audio jacks and one S/PDIF optical output.
Test Bed
As per our testing policy, we take a high-end CPU suitable for the motherboard released during the socket’s initial launch and equip the system with a suitable amount of memory running at the processor maximum supported frequency. This is also typically run at JEDEC subtimings where possible. It is noted that some users are not keen on this policy, stating that sometimes the maximum supported frequency is quite low, or faster memory is available at a similar price, or that the JEDEC speeds can be prohibitive for performance. While these comments make sense, ultimately very few users apply memory profiles (either XMP or other) as they require interaction with the BIOS. Most users will fall back on JEDEC supported speeds - this includes home users and industry who might want to shave off a cent or two from the cost or stay within the margins set by the manufacturer. Where possible, we will extend out testing to include faster memory modules either at the same time as the review or a later date.
| Test Setup | |||
| Processor | AMD Ryzen 3700X, 65W, $329 8 Cores, 16 Threads, 3.6 GHz (4.4 GHz Turbo) |
||
| Motherboard | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E Gaming (BIOS 3001) | ||
| Cooling | ID-Cooling Auraflow 240 240mm AIO | ||
| Power Supply | Thermaltake Toughpower Grand 1200W Gold PSU | ||
| Memory | 2x8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 16-16-16-36 2T | ||
| Video Card | ASUS GTX 980 STRIX (1178/1279 Boost) | ||
| Hard Drive | Crucial MX300 1TB | ||
| Case | Open Benchtable BC1.1 (Silver) | ||
| Operating System | Windows 10 1909 | ||
Readers of our motherboard review section will have noted the trend in modern motherboards to implement a form of MultiCore Enhancement / Acceleration / Turbo (read our report here) on their motherboards. This does several things, including better benchmark results at stock settings (not entirely needed if overclocking is an end-user goal) at the expense of heat and temperature. It also gives, in essence, an automatic overclock which may be against what the user wants. Our testing methodology is ‘out-of-the-box’, with the latest public BIOS installed and XMP enabled, and thus subject to the whims of this feature. It is ultimately up to the motherboard manufacturer to take this risk – and manufacturers taking risks in the setup is something they do on every product (think C-state settings, USB priority, DPC Latency / monitoring priority, overriding memory sub-timings at JEDEC). Processor speed change is part of that risk, and ultimately if no overclocking is planned, some motherboards will affect how fast that shiny new processor goes and can be an important factor in the system build.
| Hardware Providers for CPU and Motherboard Reviews | |||
| Sapphire RX 460 Nitro | MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X OC | Crucial MX200 + MX500 SSDs |
Corsair AX860i + AX1200i PSUs |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| G.Skill RipjawsV, SniperX, FlareX |
Crucial Ballistix DDR4 |
Silverstone Coolers |
Noctua Coolers |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
46 Comments
View All Comments
du_bucha - Monday, January 25, 2021 - link
I have this board, they just forgot to tell that there is a bunch of bios upgrades in asus website that is causing a lot of errors in people systems, so it is a good thing check the asus forum first to see which ones are the stable bios before rushing into the last one ( using ver 3001 here but there is a 3402 beta already for download in asus website).Another thing that bothers me in this mb is the fact that it doesn't have a bios reset button for use when overclocking or fine tunning the memory. You only have an ancient jumper pin and terribly located in the bottom part of the motherboard.
The chipset sits right under the video card and suck all the hot air from it. My chipset temperatures was around 68ºC in idle with a GTX1060. Since I don't use the computer for gamming, I changed the GTX1060 to the second slot and changed the thermal pad too, and now chipset temp is around 62ºC.
These are the negative points I found in this board that was not mentioned in the review.
Beaver M. - Tuesday, January 26, 2021 - link
All new mainboards have issues with crappy firmware. But its starting to get ridiculous with X570 and B550 ones. They sure as hell arent new anymore. Only the Zen 3 CPUs are, and they have been released for a long time as well.Yet nothing seems to change or improve.
I am seriously rethinking of buying an AMD because of that and because of the WHEA issues (not to mention the still not fixed X570 IO issues.
Guess people (and me) were right still recommending Intel simply because they are far more stable.
Qasar - Tuesday, January 26, 2021 - link
news for you, myself, and some others i work with, have had issues with intel as well. be it bios updates or drivers. to claim intel is more stable, is also false.EG, i have 2 X99 boards, after a re install of win 10, for some reason, 6 of the 10 sata ports would not work after installing the latest drivers from the board maker AND intel's site, exclamation point in device manager. went back to both pages and tried a few of the driver revisions on both, i started to search for drivers. finally found ones that fixed the issue. this driver version was not available on either site.
i have this board, and it has been great for a year now. even with an issue with the SB Z sound card i have, and a bios update that cause it to reboot on its own from time to time, i would still get this board again. bottom line i have had issues with BOTH AMD AND Intel. and would get either or, depending in which has the performance and features i want for a price i am willing to pay. this round, its been amd, and have replaced 3 of 6 comps with amd and ryzen 3000 cpus that were intel.
Beaver M. - Tuesday, January 26, 2021 - link
So youre comparing ancient boards with new ones?Ok.
You know, my one Z170 board also has lots of issues. But they started over time, because........ its degrading after 5+ years.
The issues with AMD are filling reddit and other forums. Thats a fact. And its not issues that are because of rare hardware failures that are normal, its because of bugs in software AND hardware design that can be reproduced rather often. In comparison, when the first Skylake had the "768 FFT bug", or the Z87 bug, it wasnt nearly as huge of a problem as the AMD fanboys made it out to be. Plus they were fixed quickly.
The issues with AMD right now are vast, critical and numerous and some of them have been there for quite a long time (some even since Zen 2). And all you hear are crickets.
If Intel had those issues, the cries of havoc would be so shrill and loud that even your rose colored glasses would burst into tiny shards. And very justified so.
But this "users keeping silent/uncritical about serious issues" phenomenon has always been a part of AMD. Even 20 years ago. I fell for it several times myself.
Qasar - Tuesday, January 26, 2021 - link
yes, as while that issue with the sata ports were recent, when i picked up my x99 board new 5 years ago, i had issues then as well.the funny part, is EACH person has their own experience with either side. myself, i have had issues with BOTH. it hasnt been just amd, or just intel over the years.
" it wasnt nearly as huge of a problem as the AMD fanboys made it out to be " the SAME can be said about the intel fanboys with amd, whats your point ?
while you kind of accuse me of rose colored glasses, the same can be said for the other side as well, again whats your point ?
if intel does it, its just fine, and ok, but if AMD does it, its a federal offense.
Spunjji - Tuesday, January 26, 2021 - link
They managed to squeeze so much projection, prognostication and ventriloquism into a few tight little posts. It's an exceptional demonstration in partisan rhetoric married to denial.Qasar - Tuesday, January 26, 2021 - link
i didnt know that saying either side has had,and has, its issues was considered to be a demonstration in partisan rhetoric married to denial.Spunjji - Wednesday, January 27, 2021 - link
@Qasar - I was talking about Beaver M., not you. I agree entirely with you here. 👍Spunjji - Tuesday, January 26, 2021 - link
I'm impressed by the way you made a claim about forums, threw in the declarative "Thats a fact" (it wasn't, it's hyperbole) and then followed with another statement that *definitely* isn't a fact - it's clearly just your opinion. Very self-confident; Dunning and Kruger offer a salute.I also appreciated your completely un-self-aware commentary on how other people have "rose tinted glasses", even as you assume the truth of your casual dismissal of specific Intel issues. To make it extra funny from an outside perspective, you hype up a few other AMD issues you just didn't quite get around to specifically naming.
Whatever this bit you're doing is, it's very good!
Spunjji - Tuesday, January 26, 2021 - link
Cautiously-worded partisan FUD is still partisan FUD. You jumped from someone's specific anecdotal critique to a generalised one, then used that to bolster an unrelated conclusion.I Googled the WHEA issues, and it leads to two types of post:
1) People gathering data on the issue and noting that it doesn't do any harm in and of itself, and is often fairly trivially solved.
2) A bunch of similar posts on forums (some from the same users) that look like this: "My (fairly recent) high-spec Intel system was a saint that never crashed, and now my brand-new high-spec AMD system crashes aLl ThE tImE and this is definitely AMD's fault. /ragequit"
It's possible there's a selection bias here - and I might be missing a serious issue. I just don't really buy the way you introduced these topics.