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.

Power: Long Idle (w/ GTX 980)Power: OS Idle (w/ GTX 980)Power: Prime95 Blend (w/ GTX 980)

The ASRock B550 Taichi performs very well in our power consumption testing, with some of the lowest results of all the AM4 boards tested at full load. The Taichi also outputs some competitive long idle and idle power state performance.

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

The ASRock sits middle of the road in our POST time test with a respectable booting time of 20.6 seconds at default settings. We managed to shave off an additional 1.7 seconds by disabling nonessential components such as onboard audio and networking controllers.

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 DPC latency out of the box with default settings, and the ASRock outputs another strong showing here with a low latency of 106.7 microseconds. This puts it as one of the better AM4 models for out of the box DPC latency we have tested so far.

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

61 Comments

View All Comments

  • Irata - Saturday, August 22, 2020 - link

    You also have x4 PCIe 4.0 plus several USB ports connected directly to the CPU with Ryzen. There is an Aorus board that allows the x8 plus three times x4 for nVME connection all directly from the CPU.

    If the Ampere and RDNA2 only need the bandwidth provider by 8x PCIe 4 / 16x PCIe 3, you can run the GPU and three nVME at full speed that way, plus USB devices connected to the CPU *and* still have the x4 PCIe 3 lanes for the chipset to CPU connection for everything else on B550.

    I'd say this is where Ryzen 2 and 3 shine vs the competition that is much more limited with PCIe 3 and four fewer lanes from the CPU.
  • Death666Angel - Saturday, August 22, 2020 - link

    I'm curious, what would be your use case for two x8 slots? Multi GPU is dead and are there any peripheral cards that need an x8 slot from the CPU? :)
  • MrVibrato - Sunday, August 23, 2020 - link

    There are x8 HBAs / RAID controllers.So, if one wants to use a GPU and such a HBA / RAID controller, two available x8 slots can make sense...
  • sandtitz - Friday, August 21, 2020 - link

    "...and the slightly older Intel AX200 [vs AX201]"

    According to Intel ARK, they're both the same product, released at the same time. Only the system connectivity differs.

    No reason to prefer either.
  • invinciblegod - Friday, August 21, 2020 - link

    What does system connectivity mean?
  • dotes12 - Friday, August 21, 2020 - link

    I think that Intel's AX200 does Wi-Fi through PCI-E and Bluetooth through USB, while Intel's AX201 uses CNVi for both in one CNVio link. I might have the 200/201 numbers reversed, but that's the idea as far as I understand it.
  • Hyoyeon - Friday, August 21, 2020 - link

    CNVi (intel proprietary) modules are often soldered, so I prefer the AX200.
  • jabber - Saturday, August 22, 2020 - link

    I must admit for me the PCIe slot setup I'd prefer is

    1 x 16
    4 x 4

    More practical for my use. Boards come with way too many 16 and 1 slots for my liking. The x4 slot is underappreciated.
  • Gigaplex - Saturday, August 22, 2020 - link

    x4 cards fit in an x16 slot. There's not really much benefit in putting a physical x4 slot on the board - may as well just put an x16 slot and have it share lanes with some of the other slots, dropping down to x4 active.
  • jabber - Monday, August 24, 2020 - link

    Ahhh well you see I want to just have SET slots. I don't want that "if X is in Y then V is x4 or disabled and if Y is in V then C is X16 and if X is in V then its x8 but if you have NVMe in Slot B its disabled" nonsense.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now