The ASUS TUF X299 Mark I Motherboard Review: TUF Refined
by Joe Shields on December 6, 2017 9:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
- Asus
- TUF
- X299
- Skylake-X
- Kaby Lake-X
Benchmark Overview
For our testing, depending on the product, we attempt to tailor the presentation of our global benchmark suite down into what users who would buy this hardware might actually want to run. For CPUs, our full test suite is typically used to gather data and all the results are placed into Bench, our benchmark database for users that want to look at non-typical benchmarks or legacy data. For motherboards, we run our short form CPU tests, the gaming tests with half the GPUs of our processor suite, and our system benchmark tests which focus on non-typical and non-obvious performance metrics that are the focal point for specific groups of users.
The benchmarks fall into several areas:
Short Form CPU
Our short form testing script uses a straight run through of a mixture of known apps or workloads and requires about four hours. These are typically the CPU tests we run in our motherboard suite, to identify any performance anomalies.
| CPU Short Form Benchmarks | |
| Three Dimensional Particle Movement v2.1 (3DPM) | 3DPM is a self-penned benchmark, derived from my academic research years looking at particle movement parallelism. The coding for this tool was rough, but emulates the real world in being non-CompSci trained code for a scientific endeavor. The code is unoptimized, but the test uses OpenMP to move particles around a field using one of six 3D movement algorithms in turn, each of which is found in the academic literature. |
| The second version of this benchmark is similar to the first, however it has been re-written in VS2012 with one major difference: the code has been written to address the issue of false sharing. If data required by multiple threads, say four, is in the same cache line, the software cannot read the cache line once and split the data to each thread - instead it will read four times in a serial fashion. The new software splits the data to new cache lines so reads can be parallelized and stalls minimized. | |
| WinRAR 5.4 | WinRAR is a compression based software to reduce file size at the expense of CPU cycles. We use the version that has been a stable part of our benchmark database through 2015, and run the default settings on a 1.52GB directory containing over 2800 files representing a small website with around thirty half-minute videos. We take the average of several runs in this instance. |
| POV-Ray 3.7.1 b4 | POV-Ray is a common ray-tracing tool used to generate realistic looking scenes. We've used POV-Ray in its various guises over the years as a good benchmark for performance, as well as a tool on the march to ray-tracing limited immersive environments. We use the built-in multi threaded benchmark. |
| HandBrake v1.0.2 | HandBrake is a freeware video conversion tool. We use the tool in to process two different videos into x264 in an MP4 container - first a 'low quality' two-hour video at 640x388 resolution to x264, then a 'high quality' ten-minute video at 4320x3840, and finally the second video again but into HEVC. The low-quality video scales at lower performance hardware, whereas the buffers required for high-quality tests can stretch even the biggest processors. At current, this is a CPU only test. |
| 7-Zip 9.2 | 7-Zip is a freeware compression/decompression tool that is widely deployed across the world. We run the included benchmark tool using a 50MB library and take the average of a set of fixed-time results. |
| DigiCortex v1.20 | 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. |
System Benchmarks
Our system benchmarks are designed to probe motherboard controller performance, particularly any additional USB controllers or the audio controller. As general platform tests we have DPC Latency measurements and system boot time, which can be difficult to optimize for on the board design and manufacturing level.
| System Benchmarks | |
| Power Consumption | One of the primary differences between different motherboads is power consumption. Aside from the base defaults that every motherboard needs, things like power delivery, controller choice, routing and firmware can all contribute to how much power a system can draw. This increases for features such as PLX chips and multi-gigabit ethernet. |
| Non-UEFI POST Time | The POST sequence of the motherboard becomes before loading the OS, and involves pre-testing of onboard controllers, the CPU, the DRAM and everything else to ensure base stability. The number of controllers, as well as firmware optimizations, affect the POST time a lot. We test the BIOS defaults as well as attempt a stripped POST. |
| Rightmark Audio Analyzer 6.2.5 | Testing onboard audio is difficult, especially with the numerous amount of post-processing packages now being bundled with hardware. Nonetheless, manufacturers put time and effort into offering a 'cleaner' sound that is loud and of a high quality. RMAA, with version 6.2.5 (newer versions have issues), under the right settings can be used to test the signal-to-noise ratio, signal crossover, and harmonic distortion with noise. |
| USB Backup | USB ports can come from a variety of sources: chipsets, controllers or hubs. More often than not, the design of the traces can lead to direct impacts on USB performance as well as firmware level choices relating to signal integrity on the motherboard. |
| DPC Latency | Another element is deferred procedure call latency, or the ability to handle interrupt servicing. Depending on the motherboard firmware and controller selection, some motherboards handle these interrupts quicker than others. A poor result could lead to delays in performance, or for example with audio, a delayed request can manifest in distinct audible pauses, pops or clicks. |
Gaming
Our gaming benchmarks are designed to show any differences in performance when playing games.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
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.