Why you can trust 3DTested Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.
Benchmark Results
Our standard benchmarks and power tests are performed using the CPU’s stock frequencies (including any default boost/turbo) with all power-saving features enabled. We set optimized defaults in the BIOS and the memory by enabling the XMP profile. For this baseline testing, the Windows power scheme is set to Balanced (default) so the PC idles appropriately.
Synthetic Benchmarks
Synthetics offer a valuable method for evaluating a board's performance, as identical settings are expected to yield similar results. Turbo boost wattage and advanced memory timings are areas where motherboard manufacturers can still optimize for stability or performance, though, and these settings can impact specific testing scenarios.
The Carbon Max performed well in our synthetic benchmarks, achieving slightly above-average results across the dozens of motherboards we tested.
Timed Applications
The Carbon Max was hit-or-miss in our timed applications. It did well in Corona and LAME, but Handbrake testing was slower than most by a few seconds in both benchmarks. Noting out of the ordinary.
3D Games and 3DMark
Starting with the launch of Zen 5, we’ve updated our game tests. We’re keeping the F1 racing game but have upgraded to F1 24. We also dropped Far Cry 6 in favor of an even more popular game in Cyberpunk 2077. We run both games at 1920x1080 resolution using the Ultra preset (details listed above). Cyberpunk 2077 uses DLSS, while we left F1 24 to native resolution scaling.
The goal with these settings is to determine if there are differences in performance at the most commonly used (and CPU/system-bound) resolution with settings most people use or strive for (Ultra). We expect the difference between boards in these tests to be minor, with most falling within the margin of error. We’ve also added a minimum FPS setting, which can affect your gameplay and immersion.
In our 3DMark and game tests, the board did well in 3DMark (Speedway was average; Steel Nomad was faster than average) and in games. Overall, nothing to worry about here. The Carbon Max performs well across a wide variety of functions, including games.
Overclocking
Over the past few CPU generations, overclocking headroom has been shrinking on both sides of the fence, while the out-of-the-box potential has increased. For overclockers, this means there’s less fun to have. For the average consumer, you’re getting the most out of the processor without manual tweaking. Today’s motherboards are more robust than ever, and they easily support power-hungry flagship-class processors; We know the hardware can handle them. There are multiple ways to extract even more performance from these processors: enabling a canned PBO setting, manually tweaking the PBO settings, or just going for an all-core overclock. Results will vary and depend on the cooling as well. In other words, your mileage may vary. Considering all the above, we will not be overclocking the CPU. However, we will try out our different memory kits to ensure they meet the specifications.
For memory testing, we start with our fastest non-clock driver kit: Klevv 32GB (2x16) DDR5-8000. Per usual on this platform, it booted to Windows but wouldn’t pass a stress test with our 9900X. The Team Group DDR5-7200 kit worked without issue. Those speeds are well past the ‘sweet spot’ for the AMD platform, and with today’s otherworldly RAM (and video card, and storage) prices, we doubt many people are looking at these higher speeds in the first place.
Dropping in a new Ryzen 5 8600G APU, we were able to run our Klevv DDR5-8000 kit without issue. We expect to see similar results moving forward, as the IMC on the APUs is generally better than the desktop processors we usually test with, and this one easily handles 8,000 MT/s.
Power Consumption / VRM Temperatures
We used AIDA64’s System Stability Test with Stress CPU, FPU, cache, and Memory enabled for power testing, using the processor's peak power consumption value. The wattage reading is obtained from the wall via a Kill-A-Watt meter, capturing the entire PC (excluding the monitor). The only variable that changes is the motherboard; all other parts remain the same. We've moved to using only the stock power use/VRM temperature charts, as this section aims to ensure the power delivery can handle flagship-class processors.
Stress testing the Carbon Max with our DDR5-7200 kit showed it to be fairly average in power consumption. At idle, it sat around 91W and peaked at 263W. This averages out to 177W, a middling result among X870 boards. There’s nothing out of the ordinary here, either.
VRM temperatures, surprisingly, ran warm on this machine, peaking at almost 51 degrees Celsius on our hottest sensor and about the same on the internal sensor. Although we’re only testing with a Ryzen 9 9900X, we’re certain the capable power delivery can handle any flagship-class processor and an overclock, without getting in the way.
Bottom Line
As we said up top, MSI’s refreshed X870E Carbon Max doesn’t arrive with significant updates. The OC Engine chip is a plus for manual overclockers, but it doesn’t offer much for PBO overclockers who adjust power limits and multipliers, leaving other adjustments, like BCLK, alone. You do get a higher-capacity 64MB BIOS for increased flexibility, retaining a full-featured BIOS without removing functionality or past processor support, and, of course, a minor facelift. Otherwise, the features and specifications remain the same.
There is plenty of competition around the $500 price point on this platform. Gigabyte’s X870E Aero X3D Wood ($499.99), which we recently reviewed and included on our best motherboard list, offers a unique aesthetic and, spec-wise, is similar to the Carbon Max (though it lacks a dedicated BCLK overclocking chip). Asus’ ROG Strix X870E-E Gaming (now $409.99 from $479 MSRP - that we also reviewed) packs a similar punch but is significantly cheaper (though you can find the original X870E Carbon Wifi for the same price). ASRock’s X870E Taichi OCF ($499 - another board we covered recently) is more focused on manual overclocking, but is more purpose-built and isn’t quite as attractive as the other boards.
In the end, the refreshed X870E Carbon Max feels more like a subtle refinement than a meaningful upgrade (as do most of the recent refreshed motherboards). If you’re a manual overclocker, the OC engine chip is helpful, but for those relying on PBO, it won’t change the experience. It’s a competitive market, and the Carbon Max does stand as a solid, premium mid-range option. Its value depends on how much you prioritize manual overclocking and MSI’s design over similarly comparable rivals, as comparables do exist for less money.
MORE: Best Motherboards
MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard
MORE: All Motherboard Content
