Originally Posted by jsc1973
The Asrock 970 and 990FX Extreme 3, in their early incarnations, were pretty solid boards by the standards of Asrock (damning with faint praise...). Later revisions were not very good, on either chipset. What probably happened is that you had one of the better 970 Extreme 3's, and then replaced it with a later-revision 990FX version, where Asrock had clearly cut some corners in either the components or the manufacturing, or both. Probably both.
I recall that I was willing to recommend the 970 Extreme 3 as a budget board for the FX for quite a while, but then reports started coming in of new Extreme 3's not performing, with a high failure rate, and it turned out that the newer 990FX versions were doing the same thing.
Seriously, though, saving a few bucks by skimping on the motherboard is almost never a good idea, especially with high-power draw AMD chips. You can "get by" with an Asrock board on an Intel CPU running at stock, but on a Bulldozer, it's a terrible idea.
The Asrock 970 extreme3 is a solid board for stock speeds and up to 4Ghz if undervolted. The problem is high socket temp. Up to 4Ghz it's manageable. The high failure rates, i imagine, came because many (at least here it was a mainstream recomendation for budget gamers) were trying to go past 4Ghz on FX-8xxx. And apparently either the mosfets were failing or the high socket temp was frying something in that motherboard area...
Otherwise, if you treat it within reason, it's a good motherboard. My 1st one is still running since the FX launch (i had an 1090T running on it at the time) and has suffered much physical abuse (flexed it a lot, the bottom side has very visible scratches from the many times i installed/uninstalled it).
But, nowdays, for like 8 euros more, there is the Giga 970 UD3P, which cannot be compared in any level... So, it makes no sense to buy the Asrock nowdays.