CPU Performance, Short Form

For our motherboard reviews, we use our short form testing method. These tests usually focus on if a motherboard is using MultiCore Turbo (the feature used to have maximum turbo on at all times, giving a frequency advantage), or if there are slight gains to be had from tweaking the firmware. We leave the BIOS settings at default and memory at JEDEC (DDR4-2133 C15) for these tests, making it very easy to see which motherboards have MCT enabled by default.

Rendering - Blender 2.78: link

For a render that has been around for what seems like ages, Blender is still a highly popular tool. We managed to wrap up a standard workload into the February 5 nightly build of Blender and measure the time it takes to render the first frame of the scene. Being one of the bigger open source tools out there, it means both AMD and Intel work actively to help improve the codebase, for better or for worse on their own/each other's microarchitecture.

Rendering: Blender 2.78

Rendering – POV-Ray 3.7: link

The Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer, or POV-Ray, 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.

Rendering: POV-Ray 3.7

POV Results have the TUF X299 in the middle of the pack. A negligible difference behind the Gaming Pro Carbon AC, while the Tomahawk Arctic runs away with this benchmark again due to the MCT/E implementation. 

Compression – WinRAR 5.4: link

Our WinRAR test from 2013 is updated to the latest version of WinRAR at the start of 2014. We compress a set of 2867 files across 320 folders totaling 1.52 GB in size – 95% of these files are small typical website files, and the rest (90% of the size) are small 30-second 720p videos.

Encoding: WinRAR 5.40

WinRAR results put the TUF in a tie for the second-best time at 33.6 seconds between the two MSI offerings. 

Synthetic – 7-Zip 9.2: link

As an open source compression tool, 7-Zip is a popular tool for making sets of files easier to handle and transfer. The software offers up its own benchmark, to which we report the result.

Encoding: 7-Zip

7-Zip results have our ASUS board in the middle of the pack tightly grouped pack. 

Point Calculations – 3D Movement Algorithm Test: link

3DPM is a self-penned benchmark, taking basic 3D movement algorithms used in Brownian Motion simulations and testing them for speed. High floating point performance, MHz, and IPC win in the single thread version, whereas the multithread version has to handle the threads and loves more cores. For a brief explanation of the platform agnostic coding behind this benchmark, see my forum post here.

System: 3D Particle Movement v2.1

The TUF lands towards the bottom of the 3DPM tests. 

Neuron Simulation - DigiCortex v1.20: link

The newest benchmark in our suite is DigiCortex, a simulation of biologically plausible neural network circuits, and simulates activity of neurons and synapses. DigiCortex relies heavily on a mix of DRAM speed and computational throughput, indicating that systems which apply memory profiles properly should benefit and those that play fast and loose with overclocking settings might get some extra speed up. Results are taken during the steady state period in a 32k neuron simulation and represented as a function of the ability to simulate in real time (1.000x equals real-time).

System: DigiCortex 1.20 (32k Neuron, 1.8B Synapse)

In the DigiCortex testing the TUF was towards the lower end of another tightly packed set of results. 

System Performance Gaming Performance
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