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 for the supported frequency of the processor 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

The ROG Strix ended up on the lower side of the results completing our Blender benchmark in 210 seconds. The lack of MCT/E at stock means that some other boards (in exchange for more power) score up to 5% better.

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-Ray often becomes sensitive to immediate frequency, with the MCE boards taking the lead. The Strix rather surprisingly misses the average result, scoring only 4426. In this set of testing, the CPU boosted to 3.6 GHz leaving it a couple hundred points/percent behind the middle of the pack boards which boosted higher or sustained clocks longer. 

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 ROG Strix right in the midle of the pack here at 34.6 seconds. 

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 lagging a couple percent behind a close scoring set of results. In this test, the CPU boosted to 4GHz yet resulted in being behind all the other results. This result is almost as odd as that seen by our MSI top result, but was repeatable. 

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

Similarly, the 3DPM result puts the ASUS at the back of the pack, below the TUF Mark 1 being very surprising. During this test it performs six mini tests with a 10-second gap between them: but our CPU showed 3.3 GHz during the test despite the lack of AVX-512 commands being used.

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 ROG Strix was right behind the TUF other ASUS board with a 1.14 result and is part of a tightly packed set of results. 

System Performance Gaming Performance
Comments Locked

27 Comments

View All Comments

  • MrPoletski - Monday, December 11, 2017 - link

    I can totally see ten of thousands of dollars being spent on this board and a corresponding PC of worthwhile power so the owner can play master of orion 2, nes emulators and minecraft. I know, I'm one of those nobs.
  • peevee - Monday, December 11, 2017 - link

    Somebody has to seriously grow up instead of wasting $400 for a gaming MB (or a few thou for a gaming computer).
  • ddrіver - Monday, December 11, 2017 - link

    "ten of thousands of dollars"? Sounds a bit excessive given that 1 (or 2, where possible) of the most expensive components available still doesn't really get you to $10K. Unless you're buying by sorting for the most expensive anything and taking as many as you can fit in a case.
    Next thing you're going to brag you pay a guy to comment for you.
  • DanNeely - Monday, December 11, 2017 - link

    " The smaller slots are an x1 and two x4 slots (the first runs at 1x) powered by the chipset for add-in cards. "

    This seems backwards since the first x4 is always free to put a card in while the second is blocked by the 2nd GPU.
  • Joe Shields - Monday, December 11, 2017 - link

    Hey Dan, I don't blame you for thinking this way. However, from the specifications it says this...:

    1. PCIEX4_1 max. at x1 mode

    Which is the same for all 44/28/16 lane CPUs.
  • DanNeely - Monday, December 11, 2017 - link

    ok. Just wanted to confirm it was a screwy design on Asus's part, not a transcription error.
  • SanX - Monday, December 11, 2017 - link

    Where the hell are dual CPU mobos? Intel and AMD don't like to sell more chips?
  • Dr. Swag - Monday, December 11, 2017 - link

    Intel has never sold non Xeon products that can be put in dual CPU mobos.
  • PeachNCream - Monday, December 11, 2017 - link

    Google says there were dual Pentium, Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III, and so forth motherboards around so Intel has sold non-Xeon products for dual socket/slot motherboards.
  • DanNeely - Monday, December 11, 2017 - link

    With the exception of the P3 all of those predated the Xeon branding. Dual socket P3 was presumably transitional in their rebranding.

    For modern chips, on the Intel side mainstream parts have neither the on die hardware, nor chip socket support for multi-socket setups because doing so would inflate the costs of the 99.9% of systems that are single socket.

    I'm less sure of the situation with AMD. I suspect that due to the level of die sharing they're doing between TR and Epyc that TR cpu dies themselves have the hardware needed to talk to a second CPU socket. However I'm skeptical that they've also paid extra for a larger/more complex socket on mainstream TR parts. It'd raise costs for the 99.9% of uni-socket systems and cut into sales of their more profitable Epyc line.

    More generally multi-core CPUs have been heavily eroding the market for multi-socket chips over the last 15 years. They require more complex boards, more complex CPUs, in many cases (ie any that need threads on different sockets to talk to each other) they also require additional programming work to perform at their maximum capacity (AMD has a NUMA hit for new multi die but single socket chips, however its worse for their dual socket ones). All of that means that almost any time you can get a single socket system with a suitable performance level it will be more cost effective than a similar dual (never mind quad or 8way) socket system. With dozens of cores available on Intel and AMD's current high end platforms small core count dual socket systems rarely make sense outside of cases where you need huge amounts of ram and don't really care about CPU performance.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now