Benchmark Testing
Synthetic Benchmark Testing
SiSoft Sandra 2015 SP2b
The Sandra benchmarks remain a fast and easy way to determine system quality from a CPU and memory subsystem perspective. As expected, the X99-M WS motherboard performed in-line with the other tested Intel X99-based systems, indicating proper CPU and memory subsystem operation.
Intel Linpack Benchmark v11.3.0.004
The current version of the Intel Linpack benchmark comes with a batch file to run from the command-line interface for running the Linpack tests. It serves as a good indicator of proper system CPU functioning and is considered one of the most intensive CPU benchmarks currently available. This test was repeated three times with the highest repeatable GFlops (Giga-Floating Point Operations Per Second) score recorded.
This CPU torture test is a proven method for identifying possible issues with the CPU to motherboard interface layer. Again, we see the X99-M WS able to hold its own in comparison to the other Intel X99 test systems, further reinforcing the quality of the board design.
Multimedia and System Benchmark Testing
Maxon Cinebench R15
Maxon’s Cinebench R15 benchmark can be used determine a system's ability to render 3D content based on their Cinema 4D animation software. The CPU benchmark test was run three times, with the highest reproducible Cinebench points score recorded.
The X99-M WS continues to perform similarly to the other Intel X99-based systems.
FutureMark PCMark 8
FutureMark Corporation’s PCMark 8 can be used to reliably ascertain a system’s performance in a Windows 10-based use environment. The benchmark tests chosen for benchmarking included the Home test, Creative test, Work test, and Applications test in conjunction with Adobe Creative Suite 6.0). All test suites within the PCMark 8 benchmark were run three times, with the highest reproducible PCMark scores recorded.
The X99-M performs very well with respect to the performance of the other Intel X99-based systems, closing out the benchmark tests with top scores. The performance differences when compared to the Z170 and Z97 boards has more to do with the respective CPU clock speeds of those systems rather than any issue to be concerned with.
Those finned heatsinks used
Those finned heatsinks used to cool VRM are really neat. Its hard to see those good old finned heatsinks on recent motherboards.
on page 2 -> “ASUS designed
on page 2 -> “ASUS designed the X99-M WS board with a total of eight SATA 6 Gb/s ports, all controlled by the Intel Z170 chipset.”
it should rather be X99 chipset 😉
Agree.
Appears to be a typo
Agree.
Appears to be a typo on the “Features and Motherboard Layout” page where “[…] 6 Gb/s ports, all controlled by the Intel Z170 chipset. […]” should say X99 chipset. As far as I know, ASUS hasn’t made any revision to the chipset.
You are correct, thanks for
You are correct, thanks for pointing it out. So much for my iron clad review methods…
I’ve built a pc with this
I’ve built a pc with this mobo. I love the board. Only down side would be the fact that older m.2 (x2, not 32gbps) was used.
Totally agree, I’m looking
Totally agree, I’m looking forward to build a small powerful system, and this motherboard would have been great, but the m.2 slot is already dated and lagging behind current SSDs.
If you are only using one
If you are only using one video card, I would think that you could get an m.2 to PCIe adaptor card for about $20 to $30. For full speed you would need to use one of the x16 or x8 slots, either of which would prevent use of a second video card unless you have a single slot card.
i hope to correct your
i hope to correct your confusion here. m.2 is a slot, and ssd is a type of storage. m.2 theoretically can reach a transfer rate of 32 gb/s. On the other hand, the most common form of today’s ssd in computer main storage ultiliszes the sata III slot that reaches a transfer rate of 6 gb/s. PCIe based ssd will reach the same performance as m.2. The storage board that you use for m.2 slot is ssd too. sata 3 is slower but not lagging behind anything because sata 4 doesn’t not exist and the use of PCIe is slowly replacing sata. m.2 is faster than sata. which ssd drives were you referring to? please understand the logic of form and function.
Thank you Morry Teitelman for
Thank you Morry Teitelman for the Review! Been waiting for it 🙂
Wow, I didn’t know the antenna came with it 🙂
Does this board support Dual Channel memory if only using a Dual Channel memory kit of 2 sticks or more? My understanding was that this board only supports Quad. If it supports both, what are the pros and cons? You didn’t go in much details when OC the memory.
What is your opinion on the OC socket compared to the competitors options? Did you feel it provided better stability?
Thanks 🙂
It appears to only have 3
It appears to only have 3 PCIe X16/8, but supports Quad SLI?
That’s a neat trick.
Its supports Quad SLI when
Its supports Quad SLI when using two dual GPU cards…
Ah, i totally forgot about
Ah, i totally forgot about that.
As always unique &
As always unique & interesting perspective from Morry.
Sadly board is a bit hit and miss. mATX is not exactly good for advanced RAID setups (and I don’t mean 2 SSDs in non-redundant ‘RAID’ 0 on chipset controller because that’s how most home users see RAID) or anything in general except SLI/CF. One of the things I don’t get it. “WS” doesn’t equal SLI/CF gaming machine.
Can’t slap more than one RAID card as it’ll be totally impossible to provide enough cooling to keep RoC cool (unless liquid cooled, but still not enough space for 2 controllers or expander). Even with less power-hungry HBAs for drive pools 1 card is max.
WS moniker with mATX/mITX boards is a bit overinflated. It’s not very good at everything workstation should do or at least be prepared to do. That’s why I just read ‘micro/mini’ reviews for flavor sake. Definitively not my cup of tea. But if your “workstation” is a gaming one, go ahead. 😀
Hello
thank very much Morry
Hello
thank very much Morry for the review and also the review of the big X99-WS board, I know it is very late, but I had to disconnect my internet for a few months for the sake of passing in college *sigh*
One more I have one little parts question: does the add-in card stack up against the onboard 3.1 ?
Is there a board similar to
Is there a board similar to this but with the m.2 x4?
The only x99 mATX board that
The only x99 mATX board that I know of is the EVGA X99 Micro2, here:
http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=131-HE-E095-KR
What about the two ASRock
What about the two ASRock boards? They also feature M.2 with PCIe 3.0 x4 bandwidth.
ASRock X99M Extreme4:
http://asrock.com/mb/Intel/X99M%20Extreme4/index.us.asp
ASRock Fatal1ty X99M Killer/3.1:
http://asrock.com/mb/Intel/Fatal1ty%20X99M%20Killer3.1/index.us.asp
Asus is really testing my
Asus is really testing my loyalty, not releasing an x99 ROG branded MATX mobo. I’m in love with my Fractal Define Mini, and refuse to change it.
Maybe they should do a
Maybe they should do a refresh on x99 platform and remove that useless data exspress port. It’s what’s kept me from upgrading my x79 rig something bout useless tech on board bugs me too much to buy in why I waiting for z170ws but it’s $600 cnd atm a gut punch at that price.maybe kabby lake will cause a refresh and data exspress will go the way of FireWire,and be ripped of chipset and outa BIOS.
Not sure that I follow what
Not sure that I follow what you’re saying.
As far as I know, this board doesn’t support sata express ports. It does have a lot of sata ports to support multiple raid setup.
Which they believe is more important on a WS board than fewer high performance data transferring storage drives.
Weaknesses
*Lack of
It does have an integrated CMOS clear switch. It’s the red button situated beneath the lower PCI-E x16 slot.