The ASUS ROG Strix B550-F Gaming Wi-Fi Motherboard Review: Premium Value
by Gavin Bonshor on July 22, 2020 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
- AMD
- Asus
- ROG
- AM4
- Strix
- Ryzen 3000
- Ryzen 3700X
- B550
- B550-F
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 B550, we are running using Windows 10 64-bit with the 1909 update.
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 testbed 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.
The ASUS ROG Strix B550-F Gaming Wi-Fi performs very well in our power testing, with the best load performance of any AM4 board currently tested, as well as competitive findings in our long idle and idle testing.
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.)
The ASUS model out performs the competition by over 7 seconds at default settings in our non-UEFI POST time test. With non-essential controllers disabled such as networking and audio, we managed to shave an additional 0.7-seconds off the POST time.
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.
We test DPC out of the box with default settings. The ASUS managed to score another major with some of the lowest DPC latency we've managed to record on an AM4 motherboard.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
40 Comments
View All Comments
Death666Angel - Wednesday, July 22, 2020 - link
So, single players games aren't a thing anymore? I game, but I don't play multiplayer modes or games.ZipSpeed - Wednesday, July 22, 2020 - link
I dunno, I'm not a competitive gamer by any means and I've been playing online via Wi-Fi for years with no issue. Maybe I'm just less sensitive to the variation because I honestly can't tell the difference wired and wireless.PeachNCream - Wednesday, July 22, 2020 - link
I haven't noticed a substantial difference, but there is a lot of hair splitting going on out there and it is well supported by marketing departments at hardware companies that want to land sales from people. Higher refresh rates, faster mouse polling, overclocking to gain like 2% more performance, Killer NICs that claim to give your game's data packets priority over other packets and so forth all appeal to people that feel like buying all of those things will make them more competitive so they get to teabag someone's corpse more often and feel proud of themselves when their only accomplishment in life is being at or around the top of a leader board. It's sad, but male competitiveness easy to exploit because the individual experiencing it is typically blind to it and will not think rationally about it. Why else to obese men purchase large pickup trucks or glitter bomb glowing computers except to feel empowered in some small way? The WiFi versus wired ethernet thing is just one more way to proclaim you feel superior to someone that doesn't care enough to throw a twisted pair cable across a room or two.CardiWAP - Tuesday, August 11, 2020 - link
Absolute rubbish.Play any fighting game and you can tell right away when somebody is on Wi-Fi. Same thing in shooters.
Wi-Fi really is awful for anything requiring quick action.
Fighting games are based on frames and you have to be aware at every single moment of the frame data of moves.
Any added latency, jitter or any hiccup and the things you thought should have worked (and would have worked in a low latency wired connection) doesn't anymore. You drop a combo, you fail to punish a move, you fail to party and you die.
This particular example that is familiar to me can be extended to any online game requiring quick action, reflexes and constant known data and behavior.
Not using WiFi in these online games is not about anything you've described. It's just about having the best online experience - meaning one closest to offline. And you obviously wreak havoc playing on WiFi it might also be a question of respect for people playing with/against you.
The part about high refresh rate monitor is as misinformed and far-fetched as the Wi-Fi one.
You simply need to drag a simple window in your favourite OS and switch between 60Hz and 144Hz to understand the wonders of the smoothness in high framerate gaming.
Moreover, the switch to flat screen panels really was in some instances a regression that is somewhat mitigated with high refresh rate panels (in the blur department).
Overclocking has been a core part of PC gaming for decades so I won't even bother going further than this.
You might have a leg to stand on regarding Killer NICs and their drivers but they don't jack up the price of the motherboards they are in so it doesn't matter anyway.
MrVibrato - Wednesday, July 22, 2020 - link
I didn't know that you spell ISP like "WiFI" in your corner of the world. ;-PGastec - Sunday, January 3, 2021 - link
WiFi "kills" more than just gaming performances, it's slower than Ethernet cable connection for everything. A WiFi connection between the computer and the router is useful in certain situations but we can't deny that there is a consistent propaganda campaign to convince the consumers to switch from Ethernet to wireless connections, for a good price of course. The more you buy, the more we profit, after all! :)DanNeely - Wednesday, July 22, 2020 - link
"USB 3.0 (5 Gbps) 2 x Type-A Header (2 x ports)"Type A headers are 2 ports, each so this should either be 1x header, or 4x ports.
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, July 22, 2020 - link
Thanks Dan. That's indeed 1 header.mooninite - Wednesday, July 22, 2020 - link
What about a test network performance? The I225-V has two bad revisions (v1 & v2) and there is no known way to know what version you will buy. A benchmark could confirm it.DanNeely - Wednesday, July 22, 2020 - link
If they're not making it explicit in the specsheet any test Gavin did would be of limited value since there would be nothing stopping Asus from having a silicon lottery where not all production runs use the same version of the controller.