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 the manufacturing process and prowess, so these are tested.

For X570 we are running using Windows 10 64-bit with the 1903 update as per our Ryzen 3000 CPU review.

Power Consumption

Power consumption was tested on the system while in a single ASUS GTX 980 GPU configuration with a wall meter connected to the Thermaltake 1200W power supply. This power supply has ~75% efficiency > 50W, and 90%+ efficiency at 250W, 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)

The power consumption at full load is marginally higher than the MSI MEG X570 Ace by a single watt, but in both idle and long ide power states, the power consumption is considerably higher. The larger PCB and bigger controller set are contributing factors.

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 starts loading. (We discount Windows loading as it is highly variable given Windows specific features.)

Non UEFI POST Time

As with the MSI MEG X570 Ace model, the MSI MEG X570 Godlike also has extremely long POST times both at default settings and with controllers switched off. We did manage to make the POST time quicker by over two seconds by switching off networking and audio controllers, but this remains disappointing in comparison to other models tested with our AMD Ryzen 7 3700X processor.

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

We test the DPC at the default settings straight from the box, and the MSI MEG X570 Godlike does perform noticeably better than the MSI MEG X570 Ace. The ASRock models do tend to have the upper hand when it comes to out of the box DPC latency. 

Board Features, Test Bed and Setup CPU Performance, Short Form
Comments Locked

116 Comments

View All Comments

  • inighthawki - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link

    The CPU is still quite often the bottleneck for games when running at high framerates.
  • goatfajitas - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link

    Possibly if you bought an $800 VC and have a mediocre $200 CPU, but that isnt realistically what anyone would have bought.
  • inighthawki - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link

    That's just not true. Go play a game at 720p on lowest settings and you'll very quickly see that even high end CPUs produce a noticeable bottleneck for achieving high framerates.

    The numbers are available to you as well. You can very easily go to Anandtech's bench numbers and compare any two high end CPUs and still see a difference in framerate across many games using the same GPU, even on medium to high settings. It's typically also quite apparent in the 95th percentile metrics.

    Sure if the game is poorly optimized and doesn't offer enough control over graphics settings to reduce the GPU load enough, you won't see much of a difference because of course the GPU will remain the bottleneck in those cases. However if you're shooting for high framerates like 240hz, the CPU is almost always the bottleneck.
  • Qasar - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link

    inighthawki um, who would pay $800 for a vid card, and play games at 720P on the lowest settings, regardless what cpu you are running ? that could be done with a $400 vid card depending on the game
  • inighthawki - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link

    Because not all games are well optimized and can require a strong GPU to hit very high framerates even on low settings. Even with top of the line hardware (both CPU+GPU) on lowest settings, many games cant even hit a stable 144hz.
  • Qasar - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link

    i never understood the reason for needing high frame rates with games.. i have played a few of the games i have over the years with new hardware, and been able to get better FPS, and maybe its just me, but i dont notice the difference. inighthawki " many games cant even hit a stable 144hz. " and what does a refresh rate have to do with frames per second ?? my lowly 75hz monitor works just fine when the games i play are above 75 fps or hz
  • 29a - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link

    Low (<60 fps) framerates give me nausea.
  • Qasar - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link

    29a, then i guess you cant play many console games :-) the games i play, even with the eye candy on max, less AA and AF, rarely go below 75 fps on the current hardware i have :-)
  • inighthawki - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link

    >> and what does a refresh rate have to do with frames per second ??

    Just my poor phrasing because I'm typing quickly. I mean that they cannot maintain 144fps on my 144hz display.

    Perhaps you dont play any games where it makes a significant difference, but for a lot of games once you play at 144hz, playing on a 60hz display is like watching a slideshow. Playing over 75fps on your 75hz display may improve input latency for your game but it wont be any smoother.
  • Qasar - Friday, August 30, 2019 - link

    inighthawki on the contrary, it is noticeably smoother, enough where i notice, and turn a few of the eye candy options down a little if it does look choppy. but i have tried playing a few games on monitors like that, and while it is nice.. not something i am after right now.. but as you mentioned.. could be cause of the games i play, dont need it.. i assume, then, you play a lot of 1st person shooters ?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now