POST Time

Different motherboards have different POST sequences before an operating system is initialized.  A lot of this is dependent on the board itself, and POST boot time is determined by the controllers on board (and the sequence of how those extras are organized).  As part of our testing, we are now going to look at the POST Boot Time - this is the time from pressing the ON button on the computer to when Windows starts loading. (We discount Windows loading as it is highly variable given Windows specific features.)  These results are subject to human error, so please allow +/- 1 second in these results.

POST (Power-On Self-Test) Time

I am not sure exactly what ASUS has done with the Premium, but the boot times are excellent compared to other Z77 motherboards.  Only a single ASRock motherboard we have tested gives better boot times at default.

Update: It turns out ASUS has moved from a legacy ROM format to a CAP format in their BIOS system - this allows for quicker booting.  This is being rolled out on their X79 and Z77 range as we speak, and should be ready for Windows 8 as well.

Overclock Comparison

Here at AnandTech we want to provide quick and easy ways to determine if a board is good for you (with in-depth analysis of course).  So here is a quick round up of our overclocking results.  Overclocks are tested for stability with PovRay and OCCT - while these may not be the most strenuous of stability tests, it does offer a quick check for memory errors under high load (and also balances testing time with getting the next board on for review!).

  CPU Speed
(MHz)
Voltage
(Volts)
PovRay Peak
Temp (ºC)
OCCT Peak
Temp (ºC)
Notes
ASRock
Fatal1ty Z77
Professional
4700 1.200 89 89 PLL Overvoltage enabled
ASRock
Z77 Extreme4
4700 1.175 86 86 LLC Level 1
ASRock
Z77 Extreme6
4700 1.175 81 82 LLC Level 1
ASUS
P8Z77-V Deluxe
4700 1.225 89 84 PLL Overvoltage enabled
ASUS
P8Z77-V Pro
4700 1.200 83 86 PLL Overvoltage enabled
ASUS
P8Z77-V Premium*
4700 1.225 93 96 *High Ambients
Biostar
TZ77XE4
4700 1.180 84 85 None
Gigabyte
Z77X-UD5H
4700 1.225 88 88 LLC Extreme
Gigabyte
Z77X-UD3H
4700 1.200 82 86 LLC Extreme
Gigabyte
Z77MX-D3H
4700 1.200 80 84 LLC Extreme
MSI
Z77A-GD65
4700 1.250 90 - PLL Overvoltage enabled

 

Test Setup, Power Consumption System Benchmarks
POST A COMMENT

43 Comments

View All Comments

  • ASUSTechMKT - Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - link

    It offers considerably better performance first generation 9128 and 9120 and 9130 were not bad controller just limited in peak throughput but keep in mind the controller was put to market before Intel even had SATA6G PCH. Also keep in mind performance for real world usage ( boot time, application launch performance, copy performance is pretty similar between then it is only in benchmarks you will see a measurable difference. That being noted the x2 interconnect offers twice the throughput for considerably improved performance vs the x1 interconnect 9128 type solutions. This allows newer SATA6G drives to generally perform on about the same level as the Intel PCH ( peak performance being at / near or above 500MBs on fast controllers ). Additionally it has some specific advantages not noted in the review such as stacked SSD caching. This allows up to 3 SSDs to be stacked on a mechanical drive to continue to enhance its performance.

    Hope this clarifies it for you.
    Reply
  • infoilrator - Monday, August 13, 2012 - link

    On any top price product certain features are necessary, useful or not, on a "has" basis.
    Minor omissions (in the would be nice category) would be a card reader in the front USB3.0 Device, and a PCIe expansion card with 2 firewire and 2 USB2 or USB3 plugs.

    After all, too much is not enough, $450 should not require further shopping for minor add ins.
    The price, if you have full use for the "package" seems acceptable, not that I'll ever have it.
    Reply
  • TimoKyyro - Monday, August 13, 2012 - link

    I would have liked to see GPU rendering benchmarks with SmallLuxGPU or Blender. This board would be perfect for animation rendering with 2 x PCIe 3.0 x16 for dual GTX 690 or 4 x PCIe 3.0 x8 for quad GTX 680.

    The price doesn't matter if I get faster GPU rendering and better support for new technologies like PCIe 3.0 and Thunderbolt.
    Reply
  • IanCutress - Monday, August 13, 2012 - link

    Unfortunately I do not have access to those GPUs.

    Ian
    Reply
  • rahvin - Monday, August 13, 2012 - link

    Are the eSATA ports port multiplier capable? Reply
  • mayankleoboy1 - Monday, August 13, 2012 - link

    it would be great to see a PCIE3.0 SSD for tests and if it can take advantage of the extra bandwidth. Reply
  • DigitalFreak - Monday, August 13, 2012 - link

    There is no "extra bandwidth". You're still limited to the x16 connection to the CPU. Reply
  • jwcalla - Monday, August 13, 2012 - link

    $450???

    If you want to set yourself apart, how about supporting something useful like ECC RAM and 10 GbE?

    Until you can do ethernet over Thunderbolt, I don't really see the point of TB on a motherboard like this.

    And 10+ SATA ports... that would only be used in a file server context. But that requires ECC RAM. So it doesn't add up.

    JMO.
    Reply
  • jwcalla - Monday, August 13, 2012 - link

    * Ahh yes I forgot that desktop Intel chipsets don't support ECC RAM so they can charge more for their server-based motherboards and processors.

    Even Cortex A-15 supports ECC. *sigh*

    This space needs some serious competition. It's just the same boring features rehashed and multiplied.
    Reply
  • Kevin G - Monday, August 13, 2012 - link

    There are a few TB -> Ethernet solutions out there, including an adapter from Apple. Though with two NIC's on the board, I'm not really use-case scenario for TB on this particular motherboard. I can only fathom fast external storage and at that point the user would be better off with a solid SAS card with external connectivity.

    As for ECC, Intel does indeed limit their desktop processors. A handful of motherboards will support ECC if a socket 1155 Xeon is utilized. Though if ECC is critical, AMD's FX line supports ECC and up to the motherboard manufacturers to support it.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now