Computation Benchmarks

Readers of our motherboard review section will have noted the trend in modern motherboards to implement a form of MultiCore Enhancement / Acceleration / Turbo (read our report here) on their motherboards.  This does several things – better benchmark results at stock settings (not entirely needed if overclocking is an end-user goal), at the expense of heat and temperature, but also gives in essence an automatic overclock which may be against what the user wants.  Our testing methodology is ‘out-of-the-box’, with the latest public BIOS installed and XMP enabled, and thus subject to the whims of this feature. It is ultimately up to the motherboard manufacturer to take this risk – and manufacturers taking risks in the setup is something they do on every product (think C-state settings, USB priority, DPC Latency / monitoring priority, memory subtimings at JEDEC).  Processor speed change is part of that risk which is clearly visible, and ultimately if no overclocking is planned, some motherboards will affect how fast that shiny new processor goes and can be an important factor in the purchase.

For reference, the MSI Z87 XPower does apply MCT when XMP is enabled.

Point Calculations - 3D Movement Algorithm Test

The algorithms in 3DPM employ both uniform random number generation or normal distribution random number generation, and vary in various amounts of trigonometric operations, conditional statements, generation and rejection, fused operations, etc.  The benchmark runs through six algorithms for a specified number of particles and steps, and calculates the speed of each algorithm, then sums them all for a final score.  This is an example of a real world situation that a computational scientist may find themselves in, rather than a pure synthetic benchmark.  The benchmark is also parallel between particles simulated, and we test the single thread performance as well as the multi-threaded performance.

3D Particle Movement Single Threaded3D Particle Movement MultiThreaded

While the MSI falls behind on our single threaded test, it does a reasonable job in multithreaded.

Compression - WinRAR 4.2

With 64-bit WinRAR, we compress the set of files used in the USB speed tests. WinRAR x64 3.93 attempts to use multithreading when possible, and provides as a good test for when a system has variable threaded load.  WinRAR 4.2 does this a lot better! If a system has multiple speeds to invoke at different loading, the switching between those speeds will determine how well the system will do.

WinRAR 4.2

Again, MSI does well, this time on a variable threaded test.

Image Manipulation - FastStone Image Viewer 4.2

FastStone Image Viewer is a free piece of software I have been using for quite a few years now.  It allows quick viewing of flat images, as well as resizing, changing color depth, adding simple text or simple filters.  It also has a bulk image conversion tool, which we use here.  The software currently operates only in single-thread mode, which should change in later versions of the software.  For this test, we convert a series of 170 files, of various resolutions, dimensions and types (of a total size of 163MB), all to the .gif format of 640x480 dimensions.

FastStone Image Viewer 4.2

FastStone rarely shows much variation between motherboards.

Video Conversion - Xilisoft Video Converter 7

With XVC, users can convert any type of normal video to any compatible format for smartphones, tablets and other devices.  By default, it uses all available threads on the system, and in the presence of appropriate graphics cards, can utilize CUDA for NVIDIA GPUs as well as AMD WinAPP for AMD GPUs.  For this test, we use a set of 33 HD videos, each lasting 30 seconds, and convert them from 1080p to an iPod H.264 video format using just the CPU.  The time taken to convert these videos gives us our result.

Xilisoft Video Converter 7

Rendering – PovRay 3.7

The Persistence of Vision RayTracer, or PovRay, 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 2-3 minutes on high end platforms.

PovRay 3.7 Multithreaded Benchmark

Video Conversion - x264 HD Benchmark

The x264 HD Benchmark uses a common HD encoding tool to process an HD MPEG2 source at 1280x720 at 3963 Kbps.  This test represents a standardized result which can be compared across other reviews, and is dependent on both CPU power and memory speed.  The benchmark performs a 2-pass encode, and the results shown are the average of each pass performed four times.

x264 HD Benchmark Pass 1x264 HD Benchmark Pass 2

There is a surprising leap in performace for x264 in the first pass.

Grid Solvers - Explicit Finite Difference

For any grid of regular nodes, the simplest way to calculate the next time step is to use the values of those around it.  This makes for easy mathematics and parallel simulation, as each node calculated is only dependent on the previous time step, not the nodes around it on the current calculated time step.  By choosing a regular grid, we reduce the levels of memory access required for irregular grids.  We test both 2D and 3D explicit finite difference simulations with 2n nodes in each dimension, using OpenMP as the threading operator in single precision.  The grid is isotropic and the boundary conditions are sinks.  Values are floating point, with memory cache sizes and speeds playing a part in the overall score.

Explicit Finite Difference Grid Solver (2D)Explicit Finite Difference Grid Solver (3D)

Grid Solvers - Implicit Finite Difference + Alternating Direction Implicit Method

The implicit method takes a different approach to the explicit method – instead of considering one unknown in the new time step to be calculated from known elements in the previous time step, we consider that an old point can influence several new points by way of simultaneous equations.  This adds to the complexity of the simulation – the grid of nodes is solved as a series of rows and columns rather than points, reducing the parallel nature of the simulation by a dimension and drastically increasing the memory requirements of each thread.  The upside, as noted above, is the less stringent stability rules related to time steps and grid spacing.  For this we simulate a 2D grid of 2n nodes in each dimension, using OpenMP in single precision.  Again our grid is isotropic with the boundaries acting as sinks. Values are floating point, with memory cache sizes and speeds playing a part in the overall score.

Implicit Finite Difference Grid Solver (2D)

Point Calculations - n-Body Simulation

When a series of heavy mass elements are in space, they interact with each other through the force of gravity.  Thus when a star cluster forms, the interaction of every large mass with every other large mass defines the speed at which these elements approach each other.  When dealing with millions and billions of stars on such a large scale, the movement of each of these stars can be simulated through the physical theorems that describe the interactions. The benchmark detects whether the processor is SSE2 or SSE4 capable, and implements the relative code.  We run a simulation of 10240 particles of equal mass - the output for this code is in terms of GFLOPs, and the result recorded was the peak GFLOPs value.

n-body Simulation via C++ AMP

System Benchmarks Gaming Benchmarks
Comments Locked

35 Comments

View All Comments

  • jardows2 - Monday, August 12, 2013 - link

    Interesting to read about these high-end boards, but I would like to see someone build a high-end performing board without all the extra "features" that will never get used. 10 SATA ports? Really? If you are doing serious workstation computing and need that many hard drives in a RAID array, you are going to get a SAS RAID controller. If you are just using the computer as a storage server, you won't be spending $400 on the motherboard. All the USB 3.0 ports are going to collect dust for most users. I have several computers with multiple onboard USB ports that have never had anything connected. Add mediocre audio, combined with wireless add-on (practically worthless for such a high-end machine, especially when you have a high-end Ethernet controller on board) it seems like the manufacturers are subscribing to a "more is better" approach, when a "less is more" board, I think, would sell far more. Give me a motherboard with the graphics and overclocking performance that this board can offer, without all the extra stuff, and you will have a winner!
  • 529th - Monday, August 12, 2013 - link

    Exactly! Well said.
  • Optimalpc - Wednesday, January 29, 2014 - link

    ditto that, jardows2! Stick with what a lot of us want - Full x16 bandwidth for GPUs, Good digital Power. Better Audio, including good headphone AMP. Ability to support the fastest memory available. Overclocking with mature tools. Min 3-year warranty. Game Ports. High-end Ethernet controller (Killer). Quit wasting money and real estate on too many SATA ports, USB Ports, sub-par wireless, and crappy audio! I don't need 14 USB ports (or even 8). Hardwired to the network, why even add the cost of wireless at all, UNLESS you are providing the latest in 802.11 standards (ac)?
  • jeffb98 - Monday, August 12, 2013 - link

    How's MSI when it comes to Linux? Do they test compatibility at all for at least Red Hat and SUSE enterprise targeted Linux distros? Would they look into/fix BIOS issues when it comes to Linux?

    I know Asus and Gigabyte tell you they don't do any Linux testing and support when it comes to their consumer motherboards even when there's clearly a Linux compatibility issue. I know most people "never had a problem" but that's most people who don't really do much and probably don't even need a high end board.
  • nathanddrews - Monday, August 12, 2013 - link

    Quad-SLI/CF benchmarks? Seeing as this board caters to people that actually do that kind of thing.
  • IanCutress - Monday, August 12, 2013 - link

    My fourth 7970 is in the process of being RMA'ed.

    Ian
  • nathanddrews - Monday, August 12, 2013 - link

    D'oh! Sorry to hear that.

    I was about ready to pull the trigger on a 780, but now that the 7990 is only $699 (and with improved drivers), I'm thinking of getting on of those instead given the potential of getting a second in a year or so. Thoughts?
  • yasamoka - Tuesday, August 13, 2013 - link

    Quad-SLi / CF does not always scale too well. Plus you're more likely to hit a CPU bottleneck if you're running any single monitor resolution and hovering above 60FPS with a target of 120FPS.

    Plus, this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7990...

    Not recommended except if you water-cool for the heat issues. But then you get left with the other issues. Quad uses AFR + SFR so the microstutter fix is not going to be difficult as it already exists for dual GPU SFR. Quad is similar in that respect as each 2 GPUs use SFR and the groups of 2 GPUs use AFR.
  • nathanddrews - Tuesday, August 13, 2013 - link

    My current setup does most games maxed at 1920x1200@96Hz (at 96fps), but I'm looking to do over 120Hz (at 120fps) with a new 120Hz Lightboost LCD or try out some of the overclockable 1440/1600p displays. My FW900 is going to die someday and I need to be ready. :|
  • rpg1966 - Monday, August 12, 2013 - link

    OK, this is probably a dumb question - but as implied on the first page, if this board has an additional 2 sockets of space between the port cluster and the PCIe sockets, won't you need a case that is specifically designed for such a long (tall?) motherboard?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now