Gaming Benchmarks

While writing this review and inputting the benchmark numbers into my custom database, I came across a significant discrepancy in the gaming benchmark performance of the Impact against other motherboards in three out of four of our gaming tests.  In our testing configurations, we saw a 2 FPS dip against other Z87 motherboards.  The culprit it seems is Sonic Radar, the new software designed to aid gamers with a visual representation of directional audio.  To put this into perspective, this is what I saw in my testing with Metro 2033:

Settings: 1440p, max everything.  CPU at stock, XMP enabled, benchmark mode.

With Sonic Radar enabled, 31.00 FPS and the following frame rate graph:

Without Sonic Radar enabled, 33.15 FPS and the following frame rate graph:

Now it is painfully obvious that the FPS graph with Sonic Radar is manic.  Regular fluctuations up to 300 FPS are noticeable at this level of gameplay, whereas it was not noticeable in Dirt 3.  This is the first generation of Sonic Radar release, and I am conversing with ASUS whether there is something fundamental with Sonic Radar, or my system setup, that is causing this affect.  I have put both SR and non-SR numbers in the benchmark results below. 

Metro2033

Our first analysis is with the perennial reviewers’ favorite, Metro2033.  It occurs in a lot of reviews for a couple of reasons – it has a very easy to use benchmark GUI that anyone can use, and it is often very GPU limited, at least in single GPU mode.  Metro2033 is a strenuous DX11 benchmark that can challenge most systems that try to run it at any high-end settings.  Developed by 4A Games and released in March 2010, we use the inbuilt DirectX 11 Frontline benchmark to test the hardware at 1440p with full graphical settings.  Results are given as the average frame rate from a second batch of 4 runs, as Metro has a tendency to inflate the scores for the first batch by up to 5%.

Metro 2033 - One 7970, 1440p, Max Settings

Metro 2033 - One 580, 1440p, Max Settings

Dirt 3

Dirt 3 is a rallying video game and the third in the Dirt series of the Colin McRae Rally series, developed and published by Codemasters.  Dirt 3 also falls under the list of ‘games with a handy benchmark mode’.  In previous testing, Dirt 3 has always seemed to love cores, memory, GPUs, PCIe lane bandwidth, everything.  The small issue with Dirt 3 is that depending on the benchmark mode tested, the benchmark launcher is not indicative of game play per se, citing numbers higher than actually observed.  Despite this, the benchmark mode also includes an element of uncertainty, by actually driving a race, rather than a predetermined sequence of events such as Metro 2033.  This in essence should make the benchmark more variable, but we take repeated in order to smooth this out.  Using the benchmark mode, Dirt 3 is run at 1440p with Ultra graphical settings.  Results are reported as the average frame rate across four runs.

Dirt 3 - One 7970, 1440p, Max Settings

Dirt 3 - One 580, 1440p, Max Settings

Civilization V

A game that has plagued my testing over the past twelve months is Civilization V.  Being on the older 12.3 Catalyst drivers were somewhat of a nightmare, giving no scaling, and as a result I dropped it from my test suite after only a couple of reviews.  With the later drivers used for this review, the situation has improved but only slightly, as you will see below.  Civilization V seems to run into a scaling bottleneck very early on, and any additional GPU allocation only causes worse performance.

Our Civilization V testing uses Ryan’s GPU benchmark test all wrapped up in a neat batch file.  We test at 1080p, and report the average frame rate of a 5 minute test.

Civilization V - One 7970, 1440p, Max Settings

Civilization V - One 580, 1440p, Max Settings

Sleeping Dogs

While not necessarily a game on everybody’s lips, Sleeping Dogs is a strenuous game with a pretty hardcore benchmark that scales well with additional GPU power due to its SSAA implementation.  The team over at Adrenaline.com.br is supreme for making an easy to use benchmark GUI, allowing a numpty like me to charge ahead with a set of four 1440p runs with maximum graphical settings.

Sleeping Dogs - One 7970, 1440p, Max Settings

Sleeping Dogs - One 580, 1440p, Max Settings

Computational Benchmarks ASUS Maximus VI Impact Conclusion - Silver Award
Comments Locked

69 Comments

View All Comments

  • tekeffect - Friday, November 22, 2013 - link

    Good looking board. It's nice to see so much effort being put to the ITX form factors
  • hoboville - Friday, November 22, 2013 - link

    The editors of Maximum PC put it this way: "small is the new fashion, a big fat tower underneath your desk is no longer sexy". The context being that all this emphasis on mobile has made big power-hungry (and powerful) boxes seem old and "uncool".

    Gotta cater to the future :\, but I like my tower.
  • UltraTech79 - Friday, November 22, 2013 - link

    THis is funny coming from "Maximum" PC. Small and quite is always welcome, and frankly it is a lot of fun seeing how powerful a machine you can get without sacrificing near silence and a tiny form factor. At the end of the day you will never get a "Maximum" power PC in a small form factor.

    Choose Two:
    1. Small footprint
    2. Quiet
    3. Top 20% in power.
  • Samus - Friday, November 22, 2013 - link

    I have a 4771k at 4.7GHz, liquid cooling on cpu and gpu (one 140mm fan for entire system) 512GB SSD, 4TB 3.5". 2TB 2.5", 760TI, 80+ gold psu, bluray and an eSATA JBOD in my ITX system that is less than 1 foot cubed.

    how does that not meet all 3 of your criteria? ;)

    ITX can do anything ATX can in less space using less power.
  • Samus - Friday, November 22, 2013 - link

    FT03-mini btw
  • Slawwwc - Saturday, November 23, 2013 - link

    Do you think Maximus VI Impact would fit in FT03-mini?
  • jihe - Thursday, November 28, 2013 - link

    FT03-mini isn't all that small. When I think of mITX, I am thinking more of mac mini size, something you can pick up in one hand and go.
  • Flunk - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link

    In that case there isn't much point in buying this motherboard because you'll never get a discrete GPU in your form factor. No point in buying a "gaming" motherboard without a discrete GPU.
  • Morawka - Saturday, November 23, 2013 - link

    I'd be interested in seeing your build log, pics, or part list. i'm looking to build a SFF gaming pc but finding the right case has become a issue since i plan to use water cooling.
  • wetwareinterface - Saturday, November 23, 2013 - link

    let's see;

    1. small footprint - okay you got that
    2. quiet - again it seems from your description you should have noise down as well
    3. top 20% in power - this is where your mini itx build doesn't meet the criteria. top 20% in power would require that you at least have dual sli 760 or crossfire 7870 set up to meet the lower 20%, triple setups of 780/titan or new r9 290/290x for the top range. absolute top would require dual xeon 12 core and triple crossfire r9 290x in a massive case to handle the extra loops and radiator/resevoir needed to cool that beastly of a system and reign in noise. for the top crown you'd need a cosmos II or 950d sized mini fridge case to handle it all.

    yes you can build a very respectable gaming machine off of mini itx mobo's and in small enclosures. you will not ever be able to do triple sli water cooling in that space. dual socket is possible in fact shuttle had an interseting dual socket 940 opteron sff barebones a few years back with a 500 watt power supply which for the day would allow a respectable 8800 gtx to go in it. but that was the last dual socket sff i've seen so top performing is out for mini itx.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now