CPU Performance

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, including better benchmark results at stock settings (not entirely needed if overclocking is an end-user goal) at the expense of heat and temperature. It 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, 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 system build.

For reference, the ASUS X99-A does not implement Multi-Core Turbo.

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 wins in the single thread version, whereas the multithread version has to handle the threads and loves more cores.

3D Particle Movement: Single Threaded

3D Particle Movement: MultiThreaded

Compression – WinRAR 5.0.1: 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.

WinRAR 5.01, 2867 files, 1.52 GB

Image Manipulation – FastStone Image Viewer 4.9: link

Similarly to WinRAR, the FastStone test us updated for 2014 to the latest version. FastStone is the program I use to perform quick or bulk actions on images, such as resizing, adjusting for color and cropping. In our test we take a series of 170 images in various sizes and formats and convert them all into 640x480 .gif files, maintaining the aspect ratio. FastStone does not use multithreading for this test, and thus single threaded performance is often the winner.

FastStone Image Viewer 4.9

Video Conversion – Handbrake v0.9.9: link

Handbrake is a media conversion tool that was initially designed to help DVD ISOs and Video CDs into more common video formats. The principle today is still the same, primarily as an output for H.264 + AAC/MP3 audio within an MKV container. In our test we use the same videos as in the Xilisoft test, and results are given in frames per second.

HandBrake v0.9.9 LQ Film

HandBrake v0.9.9 2x4K

Rendering – PovRay 3.7: link

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.

POV-Ray 3.7 Beta RC4

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.

7-zip Benchmark

System Performance Gaming Performance
Comments Locked

37 Comments

View All Comments

  • Aibohphobia - Monday, December 22, 2014 - link

    Could you make more clear that while all the fan headers will power a PWM fan only the CPU headers actually function in PWM mode?

    You can look in the manual and see that all the Chassis headers are +5V on the fourth pin (100% duty cycle) and is using only voltage on the second pin for speed control. Of the Asus X99 boards only the Extreme has PWM control on all headers.
  • GeorgeH - Monday, December 22, 2014 - link

    Asus is bragging about the "OC Socket" in their X99 motherboards, but so far it seems like snake oil. Any further comment beyond what was in the Deluxe review?
  • Rajinder Gill - Monday, December 22, 2014 - link

    The manual needs updating. Full PWM and DC control is offered on all CPU and chassis fan headers on the ASUS X99 series.

    -Raja
  • Aibohphobia - Monday, December 22, 2014 - link

    I know both PWM and DC fans can be controlled, but is there an actual PWM signal on the 4th pin?

    The ROG Z97 boards were supposed to be full PWM control too but the Maximus VII Impact manual was updated in October and it still shows +5V on the 4th pin for the chassis headers as well.
  • vred - Monday, December 22, 2014 - link

    Z97-WS can control PWM-fans using PWM signal, since I connect multiple fans to the same chassis header via the splitter which takes power from a Molex plug, and PWM signal from the motherboard, and RPM control works. I would assume X99 motherboards have the same functionality. Must be an error in the user manual.
  • Rajinder Gill - Tuesday, December 23, 2014 - link

    There is full pwm and dc mode on the headers - user selectable(it is a pwm signal on the pin when pwm mode is set for the header). The manual is wrong and needs correcting.
  • Aibohphobia - Tuesday, December 23, 2014 - link

    Awesome, that's great to hear. I got both a EVGA and Gigabyte X99 board recently and I was disappointed to find both had only PWM on the CPU header. I'll look forward to possibly switching back to Asus in the future.
  • Grayfenix - Friday, January 9, 2015 - link

    That is incorrect. All fan headers are capable of pwm. Switching back and forth in bios now.
  • DanNeely - Monday, December 22, 2014 - link

    What's with the Gigabyte board's horrible score in the 2nd Rightmark Audio test? There're a pair of **'s on the graphic implying a footnote explanation; but I can't find one.
  • HollyDOL - Tuesday, December 23, 2014 - link

    I would be interested in that too... it though seems like malfunctioned product judging by values presented.
    It would be also nice to see comparison with dedicated sound cards both synthetically and on ear test. I have yet to hear an integrated audio that doesn't sound terrible if you try to play it on a higher range amplifier (Hi-Fi/audiophile) and speakers (with appropriate cables). But that can hardly be evaluated objectively, we all hear a bit different.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now