CPU Performance, Short Form

For our motherboard reviews, we use our short form testing method. These tests usually focus on if a motherboard is using MultiCore Turbo (the feature used to have maximum turbo on at all times, giving a frequency advantage), or if there are slight gains to be had from tweaking the firmware. We leave the BIOS settings at default and memory at JEDEC for the supported frequency of the processor for these tests, making it very easy to see which motherboards have MCT enabled by default.

Rendering - Blender 2.78: link

For a render that has been around for what seems like ages, Blender is still a highly popular tool. We managed to wrap up a standard workload into the February 5 nightly build of Blender and measure the time it takes to render the first frame of the scene. Being one of the bigger open source tools out there, it means both AMD and Intel work actively to help improve the codebase, for better or for worse on their own/each other's microarchitecture.

Rendering: Blender 2.78

The Blender results show just how core/thread heavy Blender can use. Where most of the 7900X results are around 3 minutes and 20 seconds, the i7-8700K took over 5 minutes to complete. When mixing it up with the other i7-8700K and their varied Uncore speeds, the N7 (in Orange) and its 4.2 GHz Uncore manged to be the  quickest of the bunch by two seconds. 

Rendering – POV-Ray 3.7: link

The Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer, or POV-Ray, is a freeware package for as the name suggests, ray tracing. It is a pure renderer, rather than modeling software, but the latest beta version contains a handy benchmark for stressing all processing threads on a platform. We have been using this test in motherboard reviews to test memory stability at various CPU speeds to good effect – if it passes the test, the IMC in the CPU is stable for a given CPU speed. As a CPU test, it runs for approximately 1-2 minutes on high-end platforms.

Rendering: POV-Ray 3.7

POV-Ray, though sensitive to frequency, also can use a lot of cores. Again we see i9-7900X results and its 20 threads scoring a lot higher. When compared with the other 8700K results, they are all extremely close. POVRay doesn't respond to differences in Uncore it seems. 

Compression – WinRAR 5.4: link

Our WinRAR test from 2013 is updated to the latest version of WinRAR at the start of 2014. We compress a set of 2867 files across 320 folders totaling 1.52 GB in size – 95% of these files are small typical website files, and the rest (90% of the size) are small 30-second 720p videos.

Encoding: WinRAR 5.40

WinRAR is another test where cores and threads matter, but not quite as much as we have seen above. The NZXT N7 board drives the i7-8700K to complete this benchmark in 40.7 seconds. It ends up a mere two seconds behind the EVGA boards, which again will run this test a bit slower than the other boards. Here Uncore seems to matter more as the 4.4 GHz Uncore is a bit over two seconds faster than the N7 i7-8700K's result. It even manages to beat the i9-7900X.

Synthetic – 7-Zip 9.2: link

As an open source compression tool, 7-Zip is a popular tool for making sets of files easier to handle and transfer. The software offers up its own benchmark, to which we report the result.

Encoding: 7-Zip

Our 7Zip results again show how much difference cores and threads can make. The N7 pushed our i7-8700K to a 39K result, notably behind the tightly packed group of results hitting almost 60K. The N7 i7-8700K's results was ahead of the other two like CPUs here by a small margin. 

Point Calculations – 3D Movement Algorithm Test: link

3DPM is a self-penned benchmark, taking basic 3D movement algorithms used in Brownian Motion simulations and testing them for speed. High floating point performance, MHz, and IPC win in the single thread version, whereas the multithread version has to handle the threads and loves more cores. For a brief explanation of the platform agnostic coding behind this benchmark, see my forum post here.

System: 3D Particle Movement v2.1

3DPM21 has the i7-8700K reaching 1838 Mop/s, with the rest of the 20 thread $1000 CPUs around 2800. Between all three i7-8700Ks the scores were nearly exactly the same. 

Neuron Simulation - DigiCortex v1.20: link

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. Results are taken during the steady state period in a 32k neuron simulation and represented as a function of the ability to simulate in real time (1.000x equals real-time).

System: DigiCortex 1.20 (32k Neuron, 1.8B Synapse)

The DigiCortex results have the i7-8700K coming in at 0.99 here just barely under the threshold for simulations in real-time. The 8700K with the lowest Uncore also managed to be the slowest result. Both the N7's 4.2 GHz and the other i7 8700K's 4.4 GHz managed the same result.

System Performance Gaming Performance
Comments Locked

60 Comments

View All Comments

  • madalice - Friday, January 26, 2018 - link

    There is plenty of scientific evidence that the best outcomes for transgender individuals come from affirmation and supportive medical interventions. See this blog post (https://genderanalysis.net/2018/01/evidence-of-hea... for a decent list of references on that topic. You may find that the expertise of participants in a forum focused on computer hardware and technology is of limited value in a discussion of gender identity.
  • edzieba - Wednesday, January 10, 2018 - link

    The whole paragraph could definitely have benefited from a preface of "we don't have any data for Z370 boards, so X299 is the closest comparison we have". Along with some explanation for where the numbers came from for the "different uncore" 8700ks: are they tested on another motherboard which varies the uncore frequency (that different motherboards do that AT ALL would be worthy of an article in and of itself)? Were they tested on the same board (different CPUs have different uncore frequencies even with the same designation, also worthy of an article), and if so why can't the N7's uncore not be changed for an apples-to-apples test? Are they numbers from the same CPU with the uncore overclocked on the N7 board (if so, why are the numbers everywhere /except/ the 'overclocking' page)?
  • Tunrip - Wednesday, January 10, 2018 - link

    Thank you for the response :) I think maybe you over-worried about what you could/couldn't tell people here quite early on. I appreciate your honest answers and will look forward to reading more of your articles :)
  • viktorborge - Sunday, January 28, 2018 - link

    If you tried to say that this is the first Z370 board you tested, and that you didn't have any other Z370 boards available, so you don't have anything to compare it to, why didn't you just write that? That paragraph sounds like what you write in a research paper when you want to hide some screwup behind jargon.

    You could have compared it to to the data from your initial review of the 8700K:
    https://www.anandtech.com/show/11859/the-anandtech...
    Yeah, yeah, different setup, but it still makes WAY more sense to do this than the i9.
  • Sailor23M - Wednesday, January 10, 2018 - link

    Agree w/ Tunrip, threw me off as well.
  • Slash3 - Wednesday, January 10, 2018 - link

    I re-read it twice as I thought someone had accidentally pasted a paragraph from the conclusion page in the introduction page. I stopped asking myself questions when I got to the graphs containing undefined asterisks.
  • Galcobar - Wednesday, January 10, 2018 - link

    The whole article could have used a copy editor, unfortunately. It's replete with both fragmentary and run-on sentences, incomplete lines of thought, and flat-out missing explanations.

    Aside from the grammatical issues, the concerns commenters raised are typical of a piece written by someone who knows the subject matter. The author thus does not see the jumps from point to point which the reader for lack of background information cannot follow.
  • ApePriori - Wednesday, January 10, 2018 - link

    Yeah, 'Coffe Lake' shows up twice, paragraph and header.
  • :nudge> - Tuesday, January 9, 2018 - link

    One of the most surprising and appealing things I've seen reviewed here in quite a while. I wasn't evening planning on buying a motherboard but am considering getting one. Considering it's their first MB, the price is to be expected. I don't mind the lack of usb3.1 and like the sacrifice of 2 Sata for better M2 support. I hope this clean (no gamer) look starts a trend.
  • l8gravely - Tuesday, January 9, 2018 - link

    The most annoying things about this board is the lack of colors on the audio block, making it more difficult to figure out what goes where. Especially whe it's in the case and around back. The second thing is the shrouds, I worry that the board will get hotter than expected, since air won't be able to flow around it as easily. Plus, when you do (you know you will!) drop a screw and it goes under a shroud, it's going to be a pain to get back out.

    I do like the lack of bling, but that's cause I'm a grumpy old man. Get off my lawn kids! I *never* look into my cases once they're setup, so not having that part is great.

    Being a new vendor, with new BIOS and other features, I'd probably steer clear of this board unless the price was super good, just because the time I waste chasing down problems isn't worth it.

    Can you do some long term stability tests? Maybe put it all into a case with crappy airflow and then let it crank doing some CPU stress tests for 48, 72 or more hours? With lots of IO and stressing of the PCIe busses?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now