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 manufacturing process and prowess, so these are tested.

Power Consumption

Power consumption was tested on the system while in a single GPU configuration with a wall meter connected to the Corsair HX 750 power supply. This power supply is Platinum rated. As I am in the US on a 120 V supply, leads to ~87% efficiency > 75W, and 92%+ efficiency at 375W, 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)

In our long idle testing, the TUF X299 Mark 1 used the most power in our testing so far, and the OS idle testing also showed the same results as the TUF using more power. When it's loaded up with a Prime 95 blend, however, it settles down in the lower end of power use and hits 208W, over 30W behind the higher boosting MSI boards that implement Multi-Core Enhancement. 

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

Non UEFI POST Time

Post times for the TUF X299 were middle of the pack getting through the POST in 28.1 seconds with everything enabled. The stripped time dropped by over a second to 26.9. 

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.

Due to circumstances currently out of our control, we were unable to get RMAA results for this board. The problem does not lie with the board itself. Once we are able to get it working properly, the space will be updated with data. 

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

DPC Latency is in the expected range, below 300, reading 256us. This results places the TUF Mark 1 in the middle of the pack. 

Benchmark Overview CPU Performance: Short Form
Comments Locked

15 Comments

View All Comments

  • DanNeely - Wednesday, December 6, 2017 - link

    Why are you only reporting on non-UEFI post times?
  • takeshi7 - Wednesday, December 6, 2017 - link

    TUF motherboards should NOT have any electrolytic caps. The whole reason I bought my TUF motherboard was for the all solid-state caps. Asus please stop with this crap. I don't care about "Nichicon gold" audio capacitors. If I did I would buy one of your other boards like ROG. It doesn't make a big enough difference to justify the shorter lifespan, and anyone who cares about audio will have an external amp/DAC anyways.
  • tphb - Wednesday, December 6, 2017 - link

    It looks like a very nice board, but I still don't understand the need for "durable". You're going to put it in a case, right? One that has mounting screws to keep the board straight and one that keeps rocks from randomly flying up to hit the PCI-E mount surround. So why do you need all the extra plastic? It creates heat challenges (that require a fan) for no real benefit.
  • BreakArms - Wednesday, December 6, 2017 - link

    The original TUF Sabertooth back with the X58 chipset had a 5 year warranty and their marketing targeted "Military grade" lingo. I built a system for someone because of the long warranty. Today I'm not sure, it's likely that either they've been skimping on the quality and had to reduce their warranty to 3 years to keep from losing too much money or they had to reduce the warranty to 3 years anyway because their previous TUF boards were costing them too much to support.

    Anyway good job reviewing a board AT, I wish you'd return to regular reviews like this.
  • Ev3rM0r3 - Wednesday, December 6, 2017 - link

    Here in the real world, all that armor on a motherboard is there ONLY for aesthetic reasons. Unless you are mounting it to an open air source but no one is going to do that. It clutters the board and probably adds in a 1/4 of the cost of the entire motherboard. I'd say just include a disk with 3d printable shielding for looks IF I wanted to have it, and then just not put anything on the board. Starting too look like cars with plastic engine covers; those are useless too.
  • Hurr Durr - Wednesday, December 6, 2017 - link

    Can these faux-shield things be removed? I doubt having them provides any practical benefit.
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, December 6, 2017 - link

    The easiest way is probably an equivalently specced board without them. They're the TUF line's main marketing gimmic.
  • Joe Shields - Friday, December 8, 2017 - link

    Yes. But if you do not want them, you can get the less expensive variant without it or a different board.
  • JackNSally - Thursday, December 7, 2017 - link

    Honest question. Can you get a higher performance cooler to really push the CPU and therefore the boards VRM's for overclocking features?
  • Joe Shields - Friday, December 8, 2017 - link

    The cooler isn't really the issue. We can put this under a custom loop, but the temperature improvement would only yield perhaps another 100 MHz or so. Delidding and going bigger would be a better way to do this.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now