System Performance

Power Consumption

Power consumption was tested on the system while in a single MSI GTX 770 Lightning GPU configuration with a wall meter connected to the OCZ 1250W power supply. This power supply is Gold rated, and as I am in the UK on a 230-240 V supply, leads to ~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 Consumption: Long Idle with GTX 770

Power Consumption: Idle with GTX 770

Power Consumption: OCCT Load with GTX 770

With the added PLX switches and LSI RAID controller, the Extreme11 was from the outset not going to be overly great when it came to power consumption. The same conclusions came from the ASRock X99 WS-E/10G with its power hungry 10G chip, and as a result these boards match each other both at idle and CPU load.

Windows 7 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 7 starts loading. (We discount Windows loading as it is highly variable given Windows specific features.) 

Windows 7 POST Time - Default

Windows 7 POST Time - Stripped

The extra controllers cause a small bump in POST time, with the final result being near the bottom of our testing results.

Rightmark Audio Analyzer 6.2.5

Rightmark:AA indicates how well the sound system is built and isolated from electrical interference (either internally or externally). For this test we connect the Line Out to the Line In using a short six inch 3.5mm to 3.5mm high-quality jack, turn the OS speaker volume to 100%, and run the Rightmark default test suite at 192 kHz, 24-bit. The OS is tuned to 192 kHz/24-bit input and output, and the Line-In volume is adjusted until we have the best RMAA value in the mini-pretest. We look specifically at the Dynamic Range of the audio codec used on board, as well as the Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise.

Dynamic Range of X99 Extreme11 at 100% volume

Rightmark: AA, Dynamic Range, 24-bit / 192 kHz

Rightmark: AA, THD+N, 24-bit / 192 kHz

The Extreme11 results match what we have seen before on other ASRock X99 boards with Realtek ALC1150 audio codecs – around 103 dB for dynamic range and above -78 dB for THD+N.

USB Backup

For this benchmark, we transfer a set size of files from the SSD to the USB drive using DiskBench, which monitors the time taken to transfer. The files transferred are a 1.52 GB set of 2867 files across 320 folders – 95% of these files are small typical website files, and the rest (90% of the size) are small 30 second HD videos. In an update to pre-Z87 testing, we also run MaxCPU to load up one of the threads during the test which improves general performance up to 15% by causing all the internal pathways to run at full speed.

USB 2.0 Copy Times

USB 3.0 Copy Times

USB 2.0 performance is somewhat middling, but USB 3.0 performance on the PCH is some of the best we have seen.

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.

DPC Latency

LSI 3008 Performance

Unlike our X79 Extreme11 review, I unfortunately did not have a series of SSDs on hand to test in a similar manner. Nevertheless, the implementation for the X99 version is the same as the X79, and to recap our X79 Extreme11 results gives the following for peak sequential read speeds. The legend gives our X79 setup in terms of SATA 6 Gbps ports + SATA 3 Gbps ports (thus 2+0 gives a RAID-0 array of two SATA 6 Gbps ports), with the final eight being solely populated on the LSI controller.

This in order to match the best PCH performance in this setup, it required three drives in RAID-0 on the LSI ports. Similar results can be extrapolated for X99 whereby six of the 10 SATA ports on the PCH are capable of RAID, and a similar number on the LSI would be needed to match it. Unfortunately any RAID array that crosses both the PCH and the LSI ports needs to be from software.

In The Box, Test Setup and Overclocking CPU Performance
Comments Locked

58 Comments

View All Comments

  • wyewye - Friday, March 13, 2015 - link

    "this system is just a confused jumble of parts slapped together"
    This is the best conclusion for this mobo.

    I think they hope marketing/sales guys will be able to bamboozle dummies to sell this as a 18 port raid server mobo. Anyone who spends 600$ on a high-end mobo without reading a review, deserves whats coming to them.
  • swaaye - Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - link

    That chipset fan is cheesy. They most definitely could have come up with a better cooling solution.
  • Hairs_ - Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - link

    As pointed out above, this board doesn't answer a single question any user is asking, and it doesn't fulfill any logical useage case.

    I'm struggling to see why it was reviewed other than the possible reason "reviewer only wants to review weird expensive stuff". Getting in a board whose supposed only reason to exist is the number of storage ports, then not yet the storage, and say " in sure it's the same as the one I reviewed a few years ago " is... Troubling. What was the point of getting it in for review at all??
  • ClockHound - Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - link

    What's the point?

    It's the new Anandtech, where the point is clicks! Catchy headlines with dubious content, it's how Purch is improving a once great review site. Thanks, Purch!
  • ap90033 - Friday, March 13, 2015 - link

    I think you may be on to something! Sad to see..
  • Stylex - Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - link

    I don't understand how motherboards still have usb2 ports. Did it seriously take this long for it to transition from usb1.1 to usb2?
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - link

    At the USB1.1-2.0 transition time, Intel chipsets had at most 6 ports; and since the new standard didn't need any more IO pins so they could cut over all at once. Not needing any more IO pins is important because it's been the the limiting factor for chipset cost for a number of years; with the die size being determined by the number of output pins added.

    The bottleneck for USB3 has been the chipsets. Pre-IVB they had no USB3. IVB added support for 4 ports, haswell bumped it to 6, the 9x series chipsets that were supported to launch with broadwell were essentially unchanged from the previous model. As a result, mobo makers who wanted to add more USB3 have had to spend extra money on 3rd party chips to do so. Initially it was on USB3 controllers which generally ate a PCIe lane for every pair of ports added. More recent designs are using 4 port USB hub chips; which give better bang for the buck but still drive prices up.

    When skylake launches later this year, the situation should improve; its higher end versions will offer up to 10 ports. That might be enough ports to make all USB3 configurations possible in the mid range without either using a very small total number of ports or driving the board price up with extra controller chips. High end boards will probably still have some ports attached to a controller though, because Intel's expanding it's use of flexible IO ports and native USB3 will be competing with PCIe storage for IO pins. In both cases though, I suspect a number of boards will also expose the 4 remaining 2.0 ports; probably 1 internal header and 2 external ports. That won't be just a case of 'gotta use them all'; older OSes (eg win7) without native support for USB3 are easier to install if you've got a few 2.0 ports available; and there will be residual demand for 2.0 headers from people with older cases or internal card readers.

    The situation is similar with AMD chipsets. But due to their being only able to compete in the value segment of the market, they're behind Intel; topping out at 4 native USB3 ports.
  • Stylex - Friday, March 13, 2015 - link

    Ah, the pin count makes a lot of sense, thanks for that insight!

    But still, how much more could it possibly drive up the price to use a third party controller, $5-10? I'd pay that for all usb3, especially on a board like this one.
  • DanNeely - Sunday, March 15, 2015 - link

    Estimates I've seen over the last few years put a 2 port USB3-PCIe controller as adding $10 to the retail price of a board; a 4 port USB3 hub chip added $5. The caveats are that hubs only add ports not total bandwidth; which is fine if you're only interested in being able to plug a USB3 device into any port but use sufficiently few of them that sticking multiple high speed devices on the same hub isn't a problem. Controllers don't have that problem; but do need PCIe lanes. Those tend to be in short supply on intels 8x/9x chipsets. Using a 4-8 lane PLX on the chipset relieves that pressure somewhat but is another $10 or $20 to the board price. The situation there will be better for skylake due to the 100 series chipets having 28 high speed IO lanes instead of only 18; but that's partially counter balanced by m2/SataExpress connections needing several lanes each.

    The lack of native 3.1 support means that the next generation of mobos will probably go the controller route; not hubs to bump up the port count. With Intel rarely doing any major updates on the Tock versions of the chipset, it will probably be at least 2017 before external USB3 controllers mostly go way.
  • darkfalz - Thursday, March 12, 2015 - link

    You have a keyboard, mouse or gamepad that requires 100 MB/sec bandwidth, do you?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now