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 put the memory settings at the CPU manufacturers suggested frequency, making it very easy to see which motherboards have MCT enabled by default.

For Z490 we are running using Windows 10 64-bit with the 1909 update.

Update: A Note About Z490 and Turbo

Normally we test our motherboards with out of the box settings. This means that the performance will get boosted based on whatever default algorithm each motherboard vendor implements with regards turbo time and boost power. Intel actively encourages this - the numbers it puts in for turbo time and turbo power are recommendations, rather than specifications, and Intel wants motherboard vendors to engineer their products to the turbo and power that each vendor deems acceptable for their product. As a result, a lot of motherboards will implement an aggressive turbo algorithm.

For this generation, ASUS has done something different. ASUS' enthusiast motherboards offer two different options on first boot: Intel recommendations, or ASUS recommendations. This means that there is a small performance delta between the two, especially for ASUS' high-end motherboards. ASUS has put this into the product based on customer feedback and how motherboard vendors have slowly drifted over the last decade to well beyond what Intel recommends.

For our testing methodology, we try to leave as much as we can on default, because this is part of what makes a motherboard different to any other, and the motherboard vendor has to decide how aggressive it must be. Also, for non-enthusiasts who daren't enter the BIOS, or understand even what turbo or a CPU or what memory channels are, they will just end up with the non-XMP default settings. It is unclear what such a person might select when presented with the ASUS default option.

On the side of Supermicro, as we've noted earlier in the review, whereas most vendors will adjust Intel's recommendations for power limits and turbo, Supermicro appears to adhere to them strictly. This means some performance differential, more akin to ASUS's option for Intel defaults.

Rendering - Blender 2.7b: 3D Creation Suite

A high profile rendering tool, Blender is open-source allowing for massive amounts of configurability, and is used by a number of high-profile animation studios worldwide. The organization recently released a Blender benchmark package, a couple of weeks after we had narrowed our Blender test for our new suite, however their test can take over an hour. For our results, we run one of the sub-tests in that suite through the command line - a standard ‘bmw27’ scene in CPU only mode, and measure the time to complete the render.

Blender 2.79b bmw27_cpu Benchmark

Rendering – POV-Ray 3.7.1: Ray Tracing

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 1-2 minutes on high-end platforms.

POV-Ray 3.7.1 Benchmark

Rendering - Crysis CPU Render

One of the most oft used memes in computer gaming is ‘Can It Run Crysis?’. The original 2007 game, built in the Crytek engine by Crytek, was heralded as a computationally complex title for the hardware at the time and several years after, suggesting that a user needed graphics hardware from the future in order to run it. Fast forward over a decade, and the game runs fairly easily on modern GPUs, but we can also apply the same concept to pure CPU rendering – can the CPU render Crysis? Since 64 core processors entered the market, one can dream. We built a benchmark to see whether the hardware can.

For this test, we’re running Crysis’ own GPU benchmark, but in CPU render mode. This is a 2000 frame test, which we run over a series of resolutions from 800x600 up to 1920x1080. For simplicity, we provide the 1080p test here.

Crysis CPU Render: (6) 1920x1080

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.

3D Particle Movement v2.1

NAMD ApoA1

One frequent request over the years has been for some form of molecular dynamics simulation. Molecular dynamics forms the basis of a lot of computational biology and chemistry when modeling specific molecules, enabling researchers to find low energy configurations or potential active binding sites, especially when looking at larger proteins. We’re using the NAMD software here, or Nanoscale Molecular Dynamics, often cited for its parallel efficiency. Unfortunately the version we’re using is limited to 64 threads on Windows, but we can still use it to analyze our processors. We’re simulating the ApoA1 protein for 10 minutes, and reporting back the ‘nanoseconds per day’ that our processor can simulate. Molecular dynamics is so complex that yes, you can spend a day simply calculating a nanosecond of molecular movement.

NAMD 2.31 Molecular Dynamics (ApoA1)

System Performance Gaming Performance
Comments Locked

17 Comments

View All Comments

  • Deicidium369 - Thursday, January 7, 2021 - link

    They do CPU testing - did someone take them and sell them on Ebay?
  • Ian Cutress - Friday, January 8, 2021 - link

    We don't all work in a singular office. Ryan and I are several thousand miles away. We started the Intel 400-series testing with the 8 core and it's continued through.
  • anomalydesign - Friday, January 8, 2021 - link

    I'm surprised to see this review now with Z590 coming out in less than a week (and Gigabyte leaking their own Aorus lineup today, in fact).

    I guess it could still be a useful board to try and find on clearance for Rocket Lake (z590 doesn't seem to offer anything that you can't find on Z490, as far as I can tell), but testing a board of this level with a mid-tier CPU seems kind of crazy to me. I was wondering why the numbers looked so off until I realized I'd overlooked the 10700k in the testing notes. Very odd choice, for VRM analysis.
  • fogifds - Monday, January 11, 2021 - link

    Shouldn't I wait for Z590?
  • Tom Sunday - Friday, January 29, 2021 - link

    It does make sense to wait until the new Z590 boards hit the deck. Making sure that there are extra worth while boxes to be checked and seen and before making any $$$ jump. But we already know to get ready for sticker shock. Looked at the Z590 ASUS HERO VIII and this baby checks out at a cool $500. While BH has the Z490 Hero at around $379. If I only had the cash...but you know that drill.
  • rubi - Tuesday, January 12, 2021 - link

    wonder to see your stuff, i learned a lot of new things.
    https://odindownloads.net
  • NDRE28 - Monday, March 8, 2021 - link

    Yeah.
    Gigabyte is a very serious vendor.
    I own a Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Master, and it runs flawlessly.
    I also had other Gigabyte motherboards (non-Aorus) in the past and they all worked well.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now