The MSI X299 SLI Plus Motherboard Review: $232 with U.2
by Joe Shields on November 29, 2017 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
- MSI
- X299
- Skylake-X
- Kaby Lake-X
- SLI Plus
Benchmark Overview
For our testing, depending on the product, we attempt to tailor the presentation of our global benchmark suite down into what users who would buy this hardware might actually want to run. For CPUs, our full test suite is typically used to gather data and all the results are placed into Bench, our benchmark database for users that want to look at non-typical benchmarks or legacy data. For motherboards, we run our short form CPU tests, the gaming tests with half the GPUs of our processor suite, and our system benchmark tests which focus on non-typical and non-obvious performance metrics that are the focal point for specific groups of users.
The benchmarks fall into several areas:
Short Form CPU
Our short form testing script uses a straight run through of a mixture of known apps or workloads and requires about four hours. These are typically the CPU tests we run in our motherboard suite, to identify any performance anomalies.
| CPU Short Form Benchmarks | |
| Three Dimensional Particle Movement v2.1 (3DPM) | 3DPM is a self-penned benchmark, derived from my academic research years looking at particle movement parallelism. The coding for this tool was rough, but emulates the real world in being non-CompSci trained code for a scientific endeavor. The code is unoptimized, but the test uses OpenMP to move particles around a field using one of six 3D movement algorithms in turn, each of which is found in the academic literature. |
| The second version of this benchmark is similar to the first, however it has been re-written in VS2012 with one major difference: the code has been written to address the issue of false sharing. If data required by multiple threads, say four, is in the same cache line, the software cannot read the cache line once and split the data to each thread - instead it will read four times in a serial fashion. The new software splits the data to new cache lines so reads can be parallelized and stalls minimized. | |
| WinRAR 5.4 | WinRAR is a compression based software to reduce file size at the expense of CPU cycles. We use the version that has been a stable part of our benchmark database through 2015, and run the default settings on a 1.52GB directory containing over 2800 files representing a small website with around thirty half-minute videos. We take the average of several runs in this instance. |
| POV-Ray 3.7.1 b4 | POV-Ray is a common ray-tracing tool used to generate realistic looking scenes. We've used POV-Ray in its various guises over the years as a good benchmark for performance, as well as a tool on the march to ray-tracing limited immersive environments. We use the built-in multi threaded benchmark. |
| HandBrake v1.0.2 | HandBrake is a freeware video conversion tool. We use the tool in to process two different videos into x264 in an MP4 container - first a 'low quality' two-hour video at 640x388 resolution to x264, then a 'high quality' ten-minute video at 4320x3840, and finally the second video again but into HEVC. The low-quality video scales at lower performance hardware, whereas the buffers required for high-quality tests can stretch even the biggest processors. At current, this is a CPU only test. |
| 7-Zip 9.2 | 7-Zip is a freeware compression/decompression tool that is widely deployed across the world. We run the included benchmark tool using a 50MB library and take the average of a set of fixed-time results. |
| DigiCortex v1.20 | The newest benchmark in our suite is DigiCortex, a simulation of biologically plausible neural network circuits, and simulates activity of neurons and synapses. DigiCortex relies heavily on a mix of DRAM speed and computational throughput, indicating that systems which apply memory profiles properly should benefit and those that play fast and loose with overclocking settings might get some extra speed up. |
System Benchmarks
Our system benchmarks are designed to probe motherboard controller performance, particularly any additional USB controllers or the audio controller. As general platform tests we have DPC Latency measurements and system boot time, which can be difficult to optimize for on the board design and manufacturing level.
| System Benchmarks | |
| Power Consumption | One of the primary differences between different motherboads is power consumption. Aside from the base defaults that every motherboard needs, things like power delivery, controller choice, routing and firmware can all contribute to how much power a system can draw. This increases for features such as PLX chips and multi-gigabit ethernet. |
| Non-UEFI POST Time | The POST sequence of the motherboard becomes before loading the OS, and involves pre-testing of onboard controllers, the CPU, the DRAM and everything else to ensure base stability. The number of controllers, as well as firmware optimizations, affect the POST time a lot. We test the BIOS defaults as well as attempt a stripped POST. |
| Rightmark Audio Analyzer 6.2.5 | Testing onboard audio is difficult, especially with the numerous amount of post-processing packages now being bundled with hardware. Nonetheless, manufacturers put time and effort into offering a 'cleaner' sound that is loud and of a high quality. RMAA, with version 6.2.5 (newer versions have issues), under the right settings can be used to test the signal-to-noise ratio, signal crossover, and harmonic distortion with noise. |
| USB Backup | USB ports can come from a variety of sources: chipsets, controllers or hubs. More often than not, the design of the traces can lead to direct impacts on USB performance as well as firmware level choices relating to signal integrity on the motherboard. |
| DPC Latency | Another element is deferred procedure call latency, or the ability to handle interrupt servicing. Depending on the motherboard firmware and controller selection, some motherboards handle these interrupts quicker than others. A poor result could lead to delays in performance, or for example with audio, a delayed request can manifest in distinct audible pauses, pops or clicks. |
Gaming
Our gaming benchmarks are designed to show any differences in performance when playing games.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
20 Comments
View All Comments
Lolimaster - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link
*buyBillyONeal - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link
Threadripper has all the same problems. Huge socket == small area for VRM, and 180W TDP. At least in my testing TR 1950X consumes well over 250W when running at 3.9 GHz.Lolimaster - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link
Why would you buy a handycapped X299 when AMD's X399 platform is better in every possible way?mkaibear - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link
Ah, still spreading your usual fear, uncertainty and doubt I see.I'll reply the same way I did before;
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1904?vs=19...
That's why (note not identical parts because it's a 12 core TR vs an 8 core i7 - but they are as close as I can get in terms of costs). If I went the other way and went with a 10 core i9 vs the 16 core TR then we see roughly the same pattern of behaviour.
Threadripper wins in the multithreaded tests so long as the workload suits it but for the many benchmarks it's per-core speed which is more important than number of cores.
In essence, if your work requires fast cores and quite a few threads then you're better off with the i7 or i9, if it utilizes loads of threads but speed is less important then you're better off with the TR.
So; given that there are obvious use cases for both processors I'm afraid I can't agree that "Threadripper X399 is better in every possible way".
I note you didn't bother to reply before, but it'll be interesting to see if you manage to string a coherent sentence together this time.
mkaibear - Friday, December 1, 2017 - link
...hey look at that, he doesn't bother to reply. What a shock...BillyONeal - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link
Because you have a workload Threadripper isn't as good at? Building the compiler my 7980XE box is ~40% faster than my 1950X box. TR has much better price/performance but that's not an end-all, be-all metric.Lolimaster - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link
Even better when the 1950X is $800 right now.BillyONeal - Wednesday, November 29, 2017 - link
Agreed; at that price the 1950X invalidates the 1920X even more than it used to. (Saving $200 on a CPU when the rest of the system costs ~1.5k seems like a waste)BenJeremy - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link
More VROC nonsense. Officially, you are not supposed to be able to buy the VROC upgrade key - vendors are supposed to provide you with a means to get one. Until you PAY MORE ($126 for VROCSTANMOD), you will be stuck with a hobbled system that cannot create bootable RAID-0 arrays unless you use Optane SSDs.Meanwhile, X399/ThreadRipper offers bootable RAID-0 for your NVMe array for FREE and it's been demonstrated at higher speeds than Intel's promised with VROC.
Edward190 - Saturday, December 2, 2017 - link
https://www.cartoonhdappz.com/