Skylake-Based Z170 Gaming Mini ITX Motherboard

Are any you running the 950 Pro or any other m.2 drive using the m.2 slot on the back of the motherboard? Curious what kind of temps you guys are seeing.
 
Village Idiot said:
Are any you running the 950 Pro or any other m.2 drive using the m.2 slot on the back of the motherboard? Curious what kind of temps you guys are seeing.
Click to expand...

From way earlier in the thread. Can use a different test method if you have one you would like to see. I don't think the heat is a big issue unless you are really torturing the drive for extended periods.

Ail said:
It is solid as well, I was thinking about cutting a hole but did not think it would gain me much (only a little vent, screws for the side panel are under the MB so still no easy access) if I do have heat problems I'll try a thermal pad or something to get it in contact with the case so it acts as a bit of a heat sink.

I will see if I can find some drive tests to push the 951 and see how toasty it gets. The high temp on the 970 was after a couple rounds of 3D mark but those are fairly short so I'll try to do some longer stress testing.

On the noise front, once the proc gets into the 60s the cpu fan kicks up to 3000rpm and is pretty loud. I think I might switch to the silent setting and see what noise / temps look like as well. Pretty happy this far for such a cramped case.

Edit:: Ran ATTO 4 times back to back and 69 was as high as it got. Looking at info, throttle doesn't happen until the 80s so I think it will be just fine.
minissdtemp.jpg


Also ran Unigine valley test at 3440x1440 on ultra a few times in a row and the 970 still didn't get over high 70s. (and still only 44% on fan) The GPU temp was what I was most worried about so I think I'm pretty solid at this point.
Click to expand...
 
Ail said:
From way earlier in the thread. Can use a different test method if you have one you would like to see. I don't think the heat is a big issue unless you are really torturing the drive for extended periods.
Click to expand...

This came up today in the NCase m1 thread as well today and here is a quick summary:

http://www.legitreviews.com/samsung-sm951-512gb-m-2-pcie-ssd-review_161689/3 had thermal throttling on a m.2 mount on the TOP of the board and added a fan directly on the unit to show the difference in performance. this review is for the NVME Samsung 950: http://www.legitreviews.com/samsung-ssd-950-pro-512gb-nvme-pcie-ssd-review_174096/3

"When we let everything cool back down and re-did the test without the 120mm fan we noticed that the drive started to throttle at the 62 second mark. Our performance went from being ~1560 MB/s all they way down to 753 MB/s and then rising up to 879 MB/s during the throttle period. We plugged the fan back in at the 310 second mark and performance went right back up to ~1560 MB/s like nothing ever happened."
Click to expand...
So at 1560 MB/s they throttled after like 90,000 MB transferred. That is a shitload of data and it is still ~25% faster (when throttled) than a high end 2.5" Samsung SSD.
If/when they ever make 1 TB m.2 drives that people use for everything you might see more complaints but for now the real question is: Do you have a high enough workload requirement to actually push this drive to the limit in this way? Probably not and even if it did throttle you honestly might not even notice.

However for anyone really worried they can simply add thermal pads on the 950 that is mounted on the back of the motherboard.

http://linipc.com/blogs/news/65282629-samsung-950-pro-review-thermal-throttling-solved
DSC0563_grande.jpg
 
Good info. The spreader was going to be my solution if there were issues but it stays in the low 40s most of the time. With how fast the drive is, it is really hard to get it to heat up with real world use. It will chug through 15-30 gig files and barely let the progress bar show up, cools down quick as soon as it idles as well. (Mine is the ahci but pretty sure there isn't much heat difference)
 
I was more concerned about the longevity of the drive itself. I have the 256GB variant of the 950 Pro in my main rig (Z170 Sabertooth in a FT02 Case) with what I would consider adequate airflow. At idle the drive hovered around 55c, and under normal workload shot up to 63c. When benchmarking the drive got as high as 85c which seemed a bit too hot to me. I moved it to a PCIE slot and temps improved drastically.

I can't imagine what temps would be like in a smaller ITX case with less airflow coupled with the awkward placement behind the motherboard. I pieced together a secondary ITX Skylake build around the IN WIN 901 and just decided to go with the 850 EVO until we have more data regarding safe operating temps of these drives long term. The heat spreader looks like it would work pretty well, however i'd venture to guess it'd probably void the warranty also.


Here's what my temps look like when I had the drive directly in the m.2 slot on the motherboard

Samsung%20950%20M.2.jpg


PCIE Slot

950%20Pro%20in%20PCIE%20Slot%20.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ail said:
(Mine is the ahci but pretty sure there isn't much heat difference)
Click to expand...

That's what I was more curious about. Anecdotal data seem to suggest that the SATA based ones (at least those from Samsung) run much cooler then their NVMe counterparts. I've ordered both the M.2 evo as well as the 2.5 for my ITX build and plan on testing the theory.
 
Probably because SATA is limited to ~540MB/s throughput and the PCIe modules go way over 2GB/s throughput.

It's not the memory that gets hot, it's the controller needing to do all the legwork, reaching over 4 times the speed of SATA. Also, heat is still only an issue with benchmarking or if you get two and do long sessions of copying or video encoding from one to the other.
 
Village Idiot said:
That's what I was more curious about. Anecdotal data seem to suggest that the SATA based ones (at least those from Samsung) run much cooler then their NVMe counterparts. I've ordered both the M.2 evo as well as the 2.5 for my ITX build and plan on testing the theory.
Click to expand...
Sorry if i'm confused but all 850 EVO are SATA III. Are you testing temp differences between form factors?
 
Hanakuso said:
Sorry if i'm confused but all 850 EVO are SATA III. Are you testing temp differences between form factors?
Click to expand...

That's the plan more or less. I've ruled out the NVMe part altogether. I Plan on installing the M.2 SATA version of the EVO behind the motherboard and monitoring the temps. If they're acceptable i'll keep it, if not i'll return it and just go with the 2.5 version.
 
Hey there, guys.

Well, I'm having a somewhat hard time deciding between the Asus Impact and the Gigabyte Gaming-5. I ended up with those two choices because of the Type-C USB 3.1 support. Nevertheless, I do have a Samsung 950 - which I would have to forgo in case of the Asus; and I'm willing to do so if need be.

To be honest, I have always had Asus motherboards since the days of the good ol' A7N8X-Deluxe, so I'm partial to them. Also, the Impact is the mobo which I like physically the most.

But all this talk about maybe the Gaming-5 having a way to enable TB3, and also the fact that I would probably turn the WiFi and onboard audio off (I use an USB DAC), keeping my Samsung 950, make it a more sensible choice; even if I don't like G1 branding on the heatsink.

I do have a question regarding the Gaming-5 tho: Is the Killer NIC... bad? I have had Killer NIC's before (in a Razer Blade Pro (2013)), and to be honest did not notice any difference. Is it really something to be wary of or not?

Also, the Asus Pro Gaming is another solid choice... I just don't like the "Pro Gaming" branding there, heh. It also loses the Type-C and the USB 3.1 controller is ASMedia... so...

EDIT: ... yeah... I think the Gaming-5 is gonnabe it... probably just needed to write it in order for it all to make sense in my head. Thanks tho :p
 
KillerFry said:
Hey there, guys.

Well, I'm having a somewhat hard time deciding between the Asus Impact and the Gigabyte Gaming-5. I ended up with those two choices because of the Type-C USB 3.1 support. Nevertheless, I do have a Samsung 950 - which I would have to forgo in case of the Asus; and I'm willing to do so if need be.

To be honest, I have always had Asus motherboards since the days of the good ol' A7N8X-Deluxe, so I'm partial to them. Also, the Impact is the mobo which I like physically the most.

But all this talk about maybe the Gaming-5 having a way to enable TB3, and also the fact that I would probably turn the WiFi and onboard audio off (I use an USB DAC), keeping my Samsung 950, make it a more sensible choice; even if I don't like G1 branding on the heatsink.

I do have a question regarding the Gaming-5 tho: Is the Killer NIC... bad? I have had Killer NIC's before (in a Razer Blade Pro (2013)), and to be honest did not notice any difference. Is it really something to be wary of or not?

Also, the Asus Pro Gaming is another solid choice... I just don't like the "Pro Gaming" branding there, heh. It also loses the Type-C and the USB 3.1 controller is ASMedia... so...

EDIT: ... yeah... I think the Gaming-5 is gonnabe it... probably just needed to write it in order for it all to make sense in my head. Thanks tho :p
Click to expand...
I have both the H170N-WIFI and Z170N-G5. To be honest, I don't feel any difference in gaming between Intel and Killer NICs. Both running League of Legends at 47ms ping (used to be 26ms on Realtek NIC on the Zotac EN760 but thats before Riot moved the server). Also, the newest BIOS f4d has a option called TBT USB 3.1 Force Power. I don't know what this is but this might be a sign we'll get thunderbolt 3 eventually?
 
nehway0912 said:
I have both the H170N-WIFI and Z170N-G5. To be honest, I don't feel any difference in gaming between Intel and Killer NICs. Both running League of Legends at 47ms ping (used to be 26ms on Realtek NIC on the Zotac EN760 but thats before Riot moved the server).
Click to expand...

It would surprise me if it made a lot of a difference in regular online play. The bottleneck is not the NIC by any rate in that scenario.

The only real difference would be during LAN play, but the pings there are so much lower anyway, 1ms more or less really isn't going to cut it unless you're an extremely high-level player.
 
I don't understand why Intel is not pushing Thunderbolt 3 harder. There are just 5 motherboards out (full ATX) with TB3 support and the whole eGPU rollout is still very uninspired with just a few products announced at CES.

I still think eGPU is the holy grail of small form factor system and notebook gaming.
 
DrRetina said:
I don't understand why Intel is not pushing Thunderbolt 3 harder. There are just 5 motherboards out (full ATX) with TB3 support and the whole eGPU rollout is still very uninspired with just a few products announced at CES.

I still think eGPU is the holy grail of small form factor system and notebook gaming.
Click to expand...

I agree on the notebook gaming side of things, but for SFF on its own, it seems a bit nonsenical to just put the GPU outside of the case if you're connecting it all the time anyway.
 
GPU-Z is reporting my GPU is running at full x16 but HWInfo is reporting only 8Gbps. Is PCIE 3.0 x16 maxed out at 8Gbs? I thought it should be higher.
 
You're correct, it should be running at 16Gbps. Possibly it is configured in the bios to only run at PCIe 2.0 x16, which would be those 8Gbps.
 
Or it isn't being stressed, this was/is an issue with PCIe bus specs being dynamic to allow a reduced power consumption.
 
Phuncz said:
Or it isn't being stressed, this was/is an issue with PCIe bus specs being dynamic to allow a reduced power consumption.
Click to expand...
I had GPU-Z and HWInfo open at the same time and I ran the built in test within GPU-Z.

What also might be causing this is the fact i'm using a M.2 SSD in my Asus Z170i Gaming mobo. I remember awhile back the Asus Rep JJ said it would create the GPU to run at x8, but people in this thread said its not true, but only submitted GPU-Z. I wonder what would happen if they ran HWInfo.
 
I'm sure I could mount it using double-sided thermal tape. Saw someone else do the same on the MSI board.
 
Synomenon said:
I'm sure I could mount it using double-sided thermal tape. Saw someone else do the same on the MSI board.
Click to expand...

Or you could pick the Asrock and not have to worry about potentially mangling that 950. My Asrock will be here Tuesday, and I am using the 950 as well
 
Is the Intel AC-7260 the best wifi card you can put in the ASRock's mini-PCIe slot? It looks like the AC-8260 is M.2 only.

What else can that slot be used for?
 
Synomenon said:
Is the Intel AC-7260 the best wifi card you can put in the ASRock's mini-PCIe slot? It looks like the AC-8260 is M.2 only.

What else can that slot be used for?
Click to expand...

In theory pretty much everything. The M.2 E-key carries PCIe x2, USB 2.0, I2C, SDIO, UART and PCM, but the only modules that are actually available for it are WiFi adapters.
 
Found a mini-PCIe to USB-A port card I can put in there. Hopefully it works.
 
Still no Thunderbolt 3 mini-itx board. Hopefully that will change when the Razer Core is released and everyone will be talking about TB3 based eGPU.
 
DrRetina said:
Still no Thunderbolt 3 mini-itx board. Hopefully that will change when the Razer Core is released and everyone will be talking about TB3 based eGPU.
Click to expand...

I might have gone with something cheaper like the Asus B150I if it turns out TB3 won't be enabled on the Z170N.
 
There are Thunderbolt drivers on the download page for the Gigabyte Z170N Gaming 5 now.

I've installed them and I get a thunderbolt tray icon. But I have no Thunderbolt 3 (USB-C) devices to test with.
 
Popstar: what Bios version do you have on the Z170N Gaming 5 ?

I'm still waiting for my StarTech TB to TB3 adapter, pre-ordered at Amazon.com; shipment already postponed two times.. mid may is the new ETA :(
 
Popstar said:
There are Thunderbolt drivers on the download page for the Gigabyte Z170N Gaming 5 now.

I've installed them and I get a thunderbolt tray icon. But I have no Thunderbolt 3 (USB-C) devices to test with.
Click to expand...

Nice find. My 6700K and Samsung 950 Pro are still in the original boxes waiting for a Thunderbolt 3 miniitx motherboard for sweet magic to take place. *REALLY* looking forward to someone trying the port with an TB3 device.
 
Notting: I had the F3 bios and installed the drivers on that. I have updated to the F4 since tho.
 
Last edited:
brams said:
OK so Thunderbolt 3 module now present in the F4c bios which came out yesterday. It is disabled but a least it is now present. I suppose this is a positive sign.

EDIT:

So I enabled TB3 and it all seems functional and working though I have not tested it with any Thunderbolt device yet (waiting for a TB1 to TB3 adapter) so I can test with my Drobo

FMVPnUn.jpg
Click to expand...

I updated from out of the box (F1) to F4 (not F4c) and there is no such Thunderbolt option anywhere in the BIOS.
 
I'm running the AsRock Fatal1ty Gaming board. Hooked up my monitor (XB270HU) and get nothing. HDMI works fine. Am I missing something?
 
777 said:
I updated from out of the box (F1) to F4 (not F4c) and there is no such Thunderbolt option anywhere in the BIOS.
Click to expand...

I updated to F4 BIOS then installed the Thunderbolt Driver and then did the USB 3.1 FW update. No Thunderbolt option in the BIOS and no device in Device Manager.

How did you get that to appear in the BIOS? Why is the top area of your screenshot black instead of showing the BIOS menu bar?
 
777 I have just bought the GA-Z170N-Gaming 5 as well based on this thread and its suspected Thunderbolt 3 capabilities.

I upgraded the BIOS to version F4 and there is an option at the bottom of one of the "BIOS Features" menu which is called "TBT USB3.1 Force Power". I enabled that option and rebooted.

Installed the Thunderbolt driver and boom:

Thunderbolt.PNG


The one thing I haven't done is the USB 3.1 FW Update. Comparing the Gaming 7 ATX boards, they seem to have a Thunderbolt FW Update which is version B16.0201.1, whereas the Gaming 5 ITX board has a USB 3.1 FW Update version B16.0315.1. In the description they say "Firmware 16 + TI 1.7" for the G7, whereas just "Firmware 16" for the G5. Without knowing what that "TI 1.7" bit stands for, I decided not to do the update.

---

As an odd side note, it seems according to lspci for Windows, that the USB3.1/TBT controller is only capable of Gen1 x4, which is odd as it should be doing at Gen3 x2 according to the Gigabyte docs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 777
like this
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top