System Performance

Not all motherboards are created equal. On the face of it, they should all perform the same and differ only in the functionality they provide - however, this is not the case. The obvious pointers are power consumption, but also the ability for the manufacturer to optimize USB speed, audio quality (based on audio codec), POST time and latency. This can come down to manufacturing process and prowess, so these are tested.

Power Consumption

Power consumption was tested on the system while in a single GPU configuration with a wall meter connected to the Corsair HX 750 power supply. This power supply is Platinum rated. As I am in the US on a 120 V supply, leads to ~87% efficiency > 75W, and 92%+ efficiency at 375W, suitable for both idle and multi-GPU loading. This method of power reading allows us to compare the power management of the UEFI and the board to supply components with power under load, and includes typical PSU losses due to efficiency. These are the real world values that consumers may expect from a typical system (minus the monitor) using this motherboard.

While this method for power measurement may not be ideal, and you feel these numbers are not representative due to the high wattage power supply being used (we use the same PSU to remain consistent over a series of reviews, and the fact that some boards on our test bed get tested with three or four high powered GPUs), the important point to take away is the relationship between the numbers. These boards are all under the same conditions, and thus the differences between them should be easy to spot.

Power: Long Idle (w/ GTX 980)

Power: OS Idle (w/ GTX 980)

Power: Prime95 Blend (w/ GTX 980)

In our Long Idle test, the EVGA X299 FTW K used the least amount of power compared to all X299 boards we have tested far. During the long idle, the system sat at 62W, while the OS idle was 66W. The Prime 95 Blend load yielded 183W, 20W less than the next board and up to 60W less than the SLI Plus which used the most power. The reason we see this result is due to the BIOS, by default, setting the AVX offset to -3 which is something we haven't seen so far in our testing. When you are doing less work, the system draws less power.

Non UEFI 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 look at the POST Boot Time using a stopwatch. This is the time from pressing the ON button on the computer to when Windows 10 starts loading. (We discount Windows loading as it is highly variable given Windows specific features.

Non UEFI POST Time

Post times for the FTW K also managed to be the fastest tested so far at 24.8 seconds with everything enabled and at default, while the stripped setting dropped a bit more than a second to 23.7. The FTW K has a very short time to access the BIOS during POST; If you blink, you will likely not get into it. A 'goto BIOS' function would be a plus on this board or at least an option to delay startup in order to enter the BIOS. 

Rightmark Audio Analyzer 6.2.5

Rightmark:AA indicates how well the sound system is built and isolated from electrical interference (either internally or externally). For this test we connect the Line Out to the Line In using a short six inch 3.5mm to 3.5mm high-quality jack, turn the OS speaker volume to 100%, and run the Rightmark default test suite at 192 kHz, 24-bit. The OS is tuned to 192 kHz/24-bit input and output, and the Line-In volume is adjusted until we have the best RMAA value in the mini-pretest. We look specifically at the Dynamic Range of the audio codec used on board, as well as the Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise.

Due to circumstances currently out of our control, we were unable to get RMAA results for this board. The problem does not lie with the board itself. Once we are able to get it working properly, the space will be updated with data. 

DPC Latency

Deferred Procedure Call latency is a way in which Windows handles interrupt servicing. In order to wait for a processor to acknowledge the request, the system will queue all interrupt requests by priority. Critical interrupts will be handled as soon as possible, whereas lesser priority requests such as audio will be further down the line. If the audio device requires data, it will have to wait until the request is processed before the buffer is filled.

If the device drivers of higher priority components in a system are poorly implemented, this can cause delays in request scheduling and process time. This can lead to an empty audio buffer and characteristic audible pauses, pops and clicks. The DPC latency checker measures how much time is taken processing DPCs from driver invocation. The lower the value will result in better audio transfer at smaller buffer sizes. Results are measured in microseconds. 

Deferred Procedure Call Latency

DPC Latency is in the expected range, below 300 with an X299 board leading results of 271ms. This was towards the higher end of our group, but again, its well within the expected range. 

Benchmark Overview System Performance: Short Form
Comments Locked

23 Comments

View All Comments

  • EricZBA - Monday, January 29, 2018 - link

    1. It would have been nice to get an explanation in the first page of what the heck a U.2 port is
    2. Motherboard / CPU are swapped in the "Manual overclocking results" graph on page 1
  • Joe Shields - Monday, January 29, 2018 - link

    Eric,

    Sorry about that. Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.2

    Thanks for the correction on the results.
  • JackNSally - Monday, January 29, 2018 - link

    Can you test with a better CPU cooler? All of your X299 overclocking results are thermally limited. This doesn't show the board limits, just the coolers limits.
  • Joe Shields - Monday, January 29, 2018 - link

    I see what you are saying. Do understand however, in the vast majority of cases, users will be thermally limited by the CPU before the board regardless.

    The problem comes with how effective, or not, adding more radiator really is considering how effective the interior TIM is. The test CPU (the new one) was still thermally limited with a 3x120 custom loop (CPU only) and a better block (Kryos NEXT). IIRC, I was able to run around 100 more MHz out of that than the Corsair AIO used in the test system. In order to reap those benefits fully, we would need to delid the CPU and go a lot bigger on the radiator before most boards would stop the overclock. With delidding, we are really getting into a world where not many users would do it unless they are benching competitively which these would not be the weapon of choice in the first place. These are '24/7' overclocks with reasonable cooling solutions and warrantied CPUs.
  • bug77 - Tuesday, January 30, 2018 - link

    Maybe add a paragraph summarizing all that to reviews, then?
  • oRAirwolf - Tuesday, January 30, 2018 - link

    USB type C motherboard headers should be standard equipment by now. I don't know why they would put 2 U.2 connectors on this motherboard but not a single USB type C header.

    My last motherboard was an EVGA x99 FTW K and it was a really nice motherboard. I liked the layout and the 2 slot spacing between GPUs. I am using an asrock z370 professional gaming i7 now and it only has single slot spacing between GPUs. There was definitely a noticeable increase in temperature going from 2 slot spacing to 1 slot spacing with SLI 1080 TI's. About 5-10 C. My only complaint with the x99 FTW K, besides using Killer networking, was that EVGA basically makes no motherboard software. While it doesn't see a lot of use, I like having utilities like fan curve and overclocking control. I know I can use things like speed fan and Intel extreme tuning utility...and I did, however, I was a bit let down by EVGAs lack of in house software.
  • Xajel - Tuesday, January 30, 2018 - link

    U.2 is crap, while it's good for NVMe 2.5" SSD drives (well, it's the only solution now). but I really hate how bulky it is, and the fact that the drive still need dedicated power pins.

    For any new technology for 2.5" & 3.5" SSD's ( SATA or NVMe ) I wish the cable to be small, compact, not so thick or hard cables, preferably reversible and can carry a minimum amount of power so a regular SSD can be powered also by the same cable. any more advance drive can have a separate power.
  • Drazick - Tuesday, January 30, 2018 - link

    At last real support for 2.5" drives with NVME.
    The M.2 solution is good for laptops.
    For desktop we need something better with less heat issues.
  • drajitshnew - Tuesday, January 30, 2018 - link

    Hi, could you please highlight the point at which an extra long screw is required. Also, list the specification of the required screw.
    Also , from the photographs is seems that the heat pipe from the power delivery is impinging on the 1 st memory slot. Could add a photo to clarify that?
  • drajitshnew - Tuesday, January 30, 2018 - link

    hi, it seems with the listed config for the 44 lane CPU it requires 60 lanes?!
    x16/x8/x8/x16=48 lanes and m2=4+ 2*U2=8, Could you clarify that?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now