Integrated Device Testing
Audio Subsystem Testing
Audio Playback Testing
Using a selection of Hard Rock and Heavy Metal music tracks and Windows Groove Music applet, the audio subsystem playback performance was tested for playback accuracy and fidelity.
Playback using the app provided test sounds and audio test tracks was clear and distortion free with the 7.1 speaker setup going through the integrated analogue audio ports. Note that the Line-In audio port is used for side speaker connection in a 7.1 setup.
Listening tests using the selected audio tracks were performed with a Kingston HyperX Cloud Gaming audio headset as well as a 5.1 speaker setup to exercise the subsystem's audio fidelity. In both cases, audio reproduction was clear, rich, and distortion-free with little quality difference between the listening sessions.
Microphone Port Testing
For testing the board's Microphone input port, the microphone from a Kingston HyperX Cloud Gaming audio headset was used to capture a 30 second spoken phrase with the assistance of the Microsoft Voice Recorder application. The resulting audio file was saved to the desktop and played back using Windows Media Player.
Audio pickup perfect and distortion free without Microphone Boost enabled, requiring a recording volume of 50%. Audio pickup improved by enabling the Perfect Voice tools within ASUS' Sonic Studio II interface, but seemed to suffer when more than one audio steam with present in the pickup.
ATTO Disk Benchmark
To validate that the board’s device ports were functioning correctly, we connected an Samsung 850 EVO 250GB SATA III SSD to the system and ran the ATTO Disk Benchmark against the drive. The SSD was directly connected to the native SATA 3 ports, the SATA-Express device ports, the USB 3.0 ports, and USB 3.1 Gen2 ports. NGFF port testing was performed using an M.2 based Samsung 950 Pro PCIe M.2 2280 256GB SSD. The M.2 device was tested using the board's integrated M.2 slot. USB port testing performed using the SSD in a USB 3.1 Gen 2 compatible enclosure. ATTO was configured to test against transfer sizes from 0.5 to 8192 KB with Total Length set to 512 MB and Queue Depth set to 10. The M.2 SSD selected for testing has a maximum read throughput of 2200 MB/s and a write throughput of 900 MB/s over a PCI-Express x4 bus. The selected SSD has a maximum read throughput of 540 MB/s and a write throughput of 520 MB/s on a SATA III controller. The drive tests were repeated three times with the highest repeatable read and write speeds recorded.
Performance on the Intel-based SATA / SATA-Express ports showed no difference, pushing the SSD's maximums. When connected to the ASMedia SATA port, the SSD performance fell significantly landing just above 400MB/s. The Samsung 950 Pro M.2 drive performed as expected with its performance in the PCIe x4 M.2 slot pushing its performance limits. The performance on the USB 3.1 / 3.0 ports varied greatly most likely resulting from known between different enclosures and the board chipsets rather than actual performance issues with the board ports. The USB 3.1 Type A port performed best with an average of over 500MB/s. The ASMedia USB 3.0 port showed the worst performance at just over 400MB/s, matching that of the ASMedia SATA ports.
SoftPerfect Research NetWorx Speed Test
In conjunction with Windows Performance Monitor, SoftPerfect Research NetWorx Speed Meter application was used to measure the upload and download performance of the motherboards integrated network controllers. Speed Meter was used to measure average network throughput in MB/s with Windows Performance Monitor used to measure average CPU utilization during the tests.
The LanBench network benchmarking software was used to generate send and receive traffic between the local and remote systems over a five minute period with packet size set to 4096 and connection count set to 20. A LanBench server was set up on the remote system to generate or receive traffic for the tests performed. The upload and download tests were repeated three times with the highest repeatable average throughput, the lowest repeatable average CPU utilization, and lowest repeatable performance spike percentages recorded.
Note that that theoretical maximum throughput for a Gigabit Ethernet adapter is 125 MB/s (1.0 Gbps). The theoretical maximum throughput for the integrated wireless AC controller is 108 MB/s (867 Mbps).
The Intel I219-V GigE network controller exhibited the best performance, with average speeds coming close to 120MB/s. The Atheros 802.11ac wireless controller faired worse, averaging 60MB/s during upload and a slightly slower 54MB/s during download tests. The wireless controller performance suffers in comparison to the wired controller because of packet loss and transfer overhead. In both cases, the CPU utilization remained below a manageable 10% during all tests with spikes into the low teens at several points during the runs. The only exception were performance spikes into the low 30's seen during the Intel controller download tests.
It needs ground effects.
It needs ground effects.
I have the V formula. I
I have the V formula. I wouldn’t buy again, no matter how much this seems to be upgraded. Poor build quality and I dont trust ASUS’ software.
$400 for a motherboard??? no
$400 for a motherboard??? no thanks
Just completed a build for a
Just completed a build for a customer and he was very satisfied with the performance and aesthetics of the MB especially the Aura. Personally i’m a fan of Asus products even though software sometimes buggy and all but overall good.
I’ve had this board for a few
I’ve had this board for a few months and I will probably never buy another “gaming” motherboard again. Here are my impressions:
– The included software is lackluster and clunky. All of it has a “tacked-on” feel. Fan Xpert is all I ever really use.
– The onboard audio is really not very good (I ended up using the optical output to connect to an external DAC).
– Overclocking performance (6700k on custom water with Dominator Platinum RAM) hasn’t been terrible, but also hasn’t been great. The silicon lottery strikes again, perhaps.
– Overall system stability was not very good at first, though it seems much better after the last couple of UEFI updates. Kudos to ASUS for the continued support.
– The onboard LED lighting is not very even at all. The armor does look super nice, though.
– The start-up status LEDs are covered by the 24-pin power supply cable and thus unreadable.
– No Thunderbolt? At this price point?
Honestly, my next build will probably be based around a workstation board. Going into the purchase, I was expecting the gaming features to be useful. Not really.
Agree with the AISuite
Agree with the AISuite software, the only really useful feature that works is the fanxpert, but this can all be set in UEFI. AISuite is buggy, support on it is very bad. some features dont work well, and had issues with anniversary update and compatibility. It also pings IP addresses in taiwan, probably update feature.
Agree with onboard audio, its “OK” but dedicated sound card to same crappy speakers, you can hear the difference, big time
Had the previous gen formula, no stability issues, but didnt overclock much with it, had it on water as well
Agree that Asus does a great job with keeping UEFI updates for their products
Their workstation motherboards are less gimmicky, and there really isnt a performance delta at all
Even FanXpert is rather
Even FanXpert is rather spotty sometimes. What I’d REALLY love to see is the CPU/VRM/PCH sensor voltages tied directly to headers so that you could skip all the flaky software altogether!
If there’s not a performance delta between the gaming boards and the workstation boards, I wonder if there’s a stability/longevity delta. If not, the extra cost of the workstation parts might not be justifiable.
Maybe the Sabertooth boards are a good compromise between the gaming and workstation lines?
Couple general questions
Couple general questions about your motherboard tests.
1. How do you go about testing the audio?
2. Do you test the board to see if the claims of the PCB isolation are true?
3. Are all the ports checked to see if they were grounded properly?
4. What amount of noise do you normally see on a board?
audio testing is done using a
audio testing is done using a 5.1 speaker system and headphones with MP3 tracks through Media Player for output tests and the headphone microphone for input tests. Testing is normally done using the ports integrated in to the rear panel.
Thanks for the reply. I
Thanks for the reply. I wanted to check to see if Pcper had any other way of validating the manufacturers claims after I recently discovered that ASRock had a defect in at least one of their board designs from a few years ago.
For most users (gamers and
For most users (gamers and otherwise), the integrated sound stuff is good enough or better. For the super audio-philes though, probably should go the add-in PCIe card route…
Sure, if someone wants higher
Sure, if someone wants higher fidelity audio a sound card or external DAC is always an option. However, as you said, if the motherboard manufacturers have done things right, the onboard sound should be good enough for the average user. When things aren’t done right, manufacturers end up with problems like noise on the ground because they cut corners and don’t have any tests in place to catch these problems.
This was the case with ASRock, and why I’m looking into how much scrutiny reviewers give onboard audio.
$360 uhhhh no thank you
$360 uhhhh no thank you
I like Asus MoBos but the
I like Asus MoBos but the current one I have the is IV Gene with z68 chipset. The thermal sensors that FanXpert uses were terrible. Way off the mark. I use HWMonitor to check temps and the UEFI’s fan profiles to set fan speed.
My question is this: Do the latest Asus boards use the more accurate temp sensors nowadays or the same old outdated ones like on my board?
Who pays 400 dollars for an
Who pays 400 dollars for an AMD motherboard right now? Why?
The same people who buy any
The same people who buy any overpriced sh!t made by Foxconn thanks to marketing pro from Apple.