Power Delivery Thermal Analysis

A lot more focus has been put onto power delivery specifications and capabilities, not just by manufacturers, but as a result of users demands. In addition to the extra power benefits from things like overclocking, more efficient designs in power deliveries and cooling solutions aim to bring temperatures down. Although this isn't something most users ever need to worry about, certain enthusiasts are bringing more focus onto each boards power delivery. The more premium models tend to include bigger and higher-grade power deliveries, with bigger and more intricate heatsink designs, with some even providing water blocks on ranges such as the ASUS ROG Maximus Formula series.


The 10+2+1 power delivery on the ASRock Z490 PG Velocita

Testing Methodology

Our 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 testbed 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 before testing, I binned 10 and selected the most accurate (within 1c of the actual temperature) for better parity in our testing.

To recreate a real-world testing scenario, the system is built into a conventional desktop chassis which is widely available. This is to show and alleviate issues when testing on open testbeds which we have done previously, which allows natural airflow to flow over the power delivery heatsinks. It provides a better comparison for the end-user and allows us to mitigate issues where heatsinks have been designed with airflow in mind, and those that have not. The idea of a heatsink is to allow effective dissipation of heat and not act as an insulator, with much more focus from consumers over the last couple of years on power delivery componentry and performance than in previous years.


ASRock Z490 PG Velocita undergoing our VRM thermal testing (we close the side panel when 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 50.7°C on the hottest part of the PCB around the power delivery

The ASRock Z490 PG Velocita is using a 13-phase power delivery with a 10+2+1 configuration. This is split into ten for the Vishay SiC653 50 A power stages for the CPU, two SiC654 power stages for the SoC, with the final SiC632 power stage powering the board's VCCSA. Cooling the power delivery is a pair of aluminum heatsinks that are connected by a single heat pipe, with three small cooling fans designed to increase the amount of heat that can be dissipated. 

In regards to the board's power delivery thermal performance, the 10+1+1 design works well and due to the active cooling of the heatsinks, the PG Velocita is a solid performer. The difference between our recorded temperatures from the pair of K-Type Thermocouples and the integrated temperature sensor was minimum, with just one to two degrees of variance. We recorded a temperature of 53°C from the integrated sensor which sits middle of the pack compared with other boards we have tested. The ASRock Z490 PG Velocita is a solid performer and the active cooling solution for the power delivery works well, but the fans can spin quite fast and they aren't the quietest. The fans can be altered within the firmware with less aggressive settings, although ASRock patched the firmware from earlier revisions where the fans would make the system sound like a jet engine.

Overclocking ASRock Z490 PG Velocita Conclusion
Comments Locked

16 Comments

View All Comments

  • YB1064 - Monday, September 21, 2020 - link

    It would be nice if you can thrown in a comparable dataset from an AMD system. It wouldn't be remiss to cut out motherboard gaming benchmarks altogether. The motherboard stopped being a factor cince, 2001 (?)
  • Udyr - Monday, September 21, 2020 - link

    Although I agree with you that some comparison is necessary for the majority of users to have a "visual" difference vs other products, the board has always been a factor. Bad VRM, conductor and other important parts of it have to work properly for the overall system to have good stability, otherwise you start having random issues or, worst case scenario, fried components
  • YB1064 - Monday, September 21, 2020 - link

    The stress tests should bring out any issues with the VRM. Gaming benchmarks don't add much to a MB review.
  • oRAirwolf - Tuesday, September 22, 2020 - link

    I think it is good just to validate that there are no glaring performance issues that haven't been addressed. I agree that the benchmarks are pretty much useless otherwise though.
  • AMDSuperFan - Monday, September 21, 2020 - link

    Why didn't they benchmark this system with an AMD CPU in it? Scared?
  • Tomatotech - Tuesday, September 22, 2020 - link

    Absolutely agree. Don’t forget the hammer to help install an AMD cpu in it. The benchmarks won’t be great though.
  • mattkiss - Monday, September 21, 2020 - link

    Hmm...Buildzoid didn't like this mobo very much: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmKiwDL3UrA
  • whatthe123 - Monday, September 21, 2020 - link

    Seems more accurate than this review. This review just focuses on general performance out of the box if a normal single gpu config, so yes it's similar in performance with but with better DPC latency.

    Problem is other models at this price point have more features and/or more efficient/powerful VRM design that doesn't require a bunch of little fans. The little fans are what help it drop VRM temps down to the 60s, but most VRMs don't really have any degradation problems even at in the 90Cs, so it's not clear what the price premium is paying for except DPC latency.
  • mattkiss - Wednesday, September 23, 2020 - link

    "This review just focuses on general performance out of the box if a normal single gpu config, so yes it's similar in performance with but with better DPC latency."

    Not sure I understand your statement...both reviews are of the ASRock Z490 PG Velocita.
  • whatthe123 - Friday, September 25, 2020 - link

    I meant that as in, this review compares the velocita in a single GPU config against other motherboards then just checks the results, whereas buildzoid's review actually looks into what features the board provides and how it manages to achieve its results i.e. a bunch of proprietary small fans when competitors have passive cooling more than good enough to keep VRMs stable.

    The conclusion anandtech's review makes only makes sense if you ignore all the other features offered by competitors. Otherwise it doesn't make sense because you're paying the same price and getting fewer features on top of having more moving parts that can fail.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now