Computational Benchmarks

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 – better benchmark results at stock settings (not entirely needed if overclocking is an end-user goal), at the expense of heat and temperature, but 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 which is clearly visible, 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 purchase.

Point Calculations - 3D Movement Algorithm Test

The algorithms in 3DPM employ both uniform random number generation or normal distribution random number generation, and vary in various amounts of trigonometric operations, conditional statements, generation and rejection, fused operations, etc.  The benchmark runs through six algorithms for a specified number of particles and steps, and calculates the speed of each algorithm, then sums them all for a final score.  This is an example of a real world situation that a computational scientist may find themselves in, rather than a pure synthetic benchmark.  The benchmark is also parallel between particles simulated, and we test the single thread performance as well as the multi-threaded performance.

3D Particle Movement Single Threaded

3D Particle Movement MultiThreaded

As the Gryphon does not implement MultiCore Acceleration by default, there is a small gap to the other motherboards in terms of performance, especially during multi-threading.  There is a small discrepancy in terms of single thread efficiency too.

Compression - WinRAR 4.2

With 64-bit WinRAR, we compress the set of files used in the USB speed tests. WinRAR x64 3.93 attempts to use multithreading when possible, and provides as a good test for when a system has variable threaded load.  WinRAR 4.2 does this a lot better! If a system has multiple speeds to invoke at different loading, the switching between those speeds will determine how well the system will do.

WinRAR 4.2

Some Z87 motherboards are in the sub-50 second range, but due to the variable threaded nature of WinRAR the Gryphon does not hit that mark.

Image Manipulation - FastStone Image Viewer 4.2

FastStone Image Viewer is a free piece of software I have been using for quite a few years now.  It allows quick viewing of flat images, as well as resizing, changing color depth, adding simple text or simple filters.  It also has a bulk image conversion tool, which we use here.  The software currently operates only in single-thread mode, which should change in later versions of the software.  For this test, we convert a series of 170 files, of various resolutions, dimensions and types (of a total size of 163MB), all to the .gif format of 640x480 dimensions.

FastStone Image Viewer 4.2

For whatever reason, the Gryphon falters slightly in our FastStone test.  Either it took a little time to ramp up or was flickering in and out of Turbo during in the test.

Rendering – PovRay 3.7

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.

PovRay 3.7 Multithreaded Benchmark

The Gryphon matches our other non-MCT motherboards in PovRay.

Video Conversion - x264 HD Benchmark

The x264 HD Benchmark uses a common HD encoding tool to process an HD MPEG2 source at 1280x720 at 3963 Kbps.  This test represents a standardized result which can be compared across other reviews, and is dependent on both CPU power and memory speed.  The benchmark performs a 2-pass encode, and the results shown are the average of each pass performed four times.

x264 HD Benchmark Pass 1x264 HD Benchmark Pass 2

Grid Solvers - Explicit Finite Difference

For any grid of regular nodes, the simplest way to calculate the next time step is to use the values of those around it.  This makes for easy mathematics and parallel simulation, as each node calculated is only dependent on the previous time step, not the nodes around it on the current calculated time step.  By choosing a regular grid, we reduce the levels of memory access required for irregular grids.  We test both 2D and 3D explicit finite difference simulations with 2n nodes in each dimension, using OpenMP as the threading operator in single precision.  The grid is isotropic and the boundary conditions are sinks.  Values are floating point, with memory cache sizes and speeds playing a part in the overall score.

Explicit Finite Difference Grid Solver (2D)Explicit Finite Difference Grid Solver (3D)

Despite no MCT, our Explicit Finite Difference testing showed preference for the Gryphon over the MSI Z87I.

Grid Solvers - Implicit Finite Difference + Alternating Direction Implicit Method

The implicit method takes a different approach to the explicit method – instead of considering one unknown in the new time step to be calculated from known elements in the previous time step, we consider that an old point can influence several new points by way of simultaneous equations.  This adds to the complexity of the simulation – the grid of nodes is solved as a series of rows and columns rather than points, reducing the parallel nature of the simulation by a dimension and drastically increasing the memory requirements of each thread.  The upside, as noted above, is the less stringent stability rules related to time steps and grid spacing.  For this we simulate a 2D grid of 2n nodes in each dimension, using OpenMP in single precision.  Again our grid is isotropic with the boundaries acting as sinks. Values are floating point, with memory cache sizes and speeds playing a part in the overall score.

Implicit Finite Difference Grid Solver (2D)

Point Calculations - n-Body Simulation

When a series of heavy mass elements are in space, they interact with each other through the force of gravity.  Thus when a star cluster forms, the interaction of every large mass with every other large mass defines the speed at which these elements approach each other.  When dealing with millions and billions of stars on such a large scale, the movement of each of these stars can be simulated through the physical theorems that describe the interactions. The benchmark detects whether the processor is SSE2 or SSE4 capable, and implements the relative code.  We run a simulation of 10240 particles of equal mass - the output for this code is in terms of GFLOPs, and the result recorded was the peak GFLOPs value.

n-body Simulation via C++ AMP

System Benchmarks Gaming Benchmarks
Comments Locked

62 Comments

View All Comments

  • Sivar - Monday, February 3, 2014 - link

    I was kind of hoping for an analysis of exactly how TUF motherboards differ from the rest. Technical details, specific component lists with a look at their manufacturer specifications, you know -- hardcore Anandtech stuff.
    Yes, it has a longer warranty, but is that because the "TUF" voltage regulators are rated for higher temperature environments (and similar), or is it more a marketing gimmick?
  • irusun - Monday, February 3, 2014 - link

    Exactly! I actually strongly considered this board on my last build for a CAD workstation... Reliability and stability were primary factors. In the end, their marketing actually turned me off. The marketing seems to be more about appealing to G.I. Joe / Call of Duty fans with the over-the-top website, colors, and military lingo. I just wanted a "professional" geared board. I get the impression it might be a good board for less than ideal environmental conditions, still no idea if the board really would be any better in a typical office environment.
  • HandsomeChow - Wednesday, February 12, 2014 - link

    If you really want to see what components they are, just remove the top heatsink on the MOSFETS and there should be a product number on the Caps and the Mosfets and you can search them up along with the Inductors.
  • jtd871 - Monday, February 3, 2014 - link

    Bingo. Does the "armor" actually do anything worthwhile? Or is that just an expensive gimmick? I noticed also that the IO plate seems to have an open vent in it. => I think I see a potential path for dust entry into the armor! And how do you get enough cooling air to the heatsinks around the CPU if they're covered by the armor?! Downdraft cooler?
  • khanov - Monday, February 3, 2014 - link

    It's a great addition for people who frequently shoot at their pc's with bb guns. Also for those that open the side of the case and throw hard objects at the motherboard.
  • Iketh - Saturday, February 8, 2014 - link

    i lol'd...wish I could vote this up
  • HandsomeChow - Wednesday, February 12, 2014 - link

    In terms of Heat dissipation, the aim from Asus is to keep external heat sources from conducting to the motherboard. Hence the Armour being made out of plastic. But the internal components on the motherboard also admit some heat so it is a double edged sword. The Armour is more of a Dust protector/Moisture shield. And yes there are potential airflow gaps that will allow dust to enter but it is much less dust compared to a motherboard without the Armour
  • kyuu - Monday, February 3, 2014 - link

    Have to agree with this. We need more info on what exactly the differences are between this and a "run-of-the-mill" Z87 board. Did they use different components (higher quality capacitors, voltage regulators, etc.)? Did they undergo more validation? Does the armor kit do anything worthwhile, and does it hamper cooling in any way?
  • FractinJex - Monday, February 3, 2014 - link

    Here....I have used several for work related builds and one for myself they are awesome!

    TUF Black Metallic capacitors, chokes, and MOSFETs are screened by seven rigorous military-grade tests to ensure superior lifespan even under the most demanding conditions.

    The components used are of about server grade quality in other words its a bit better than a standard board/mid range board 100-250$ range...most boards these days are built to last but most do not come with 5 year warranty either...and someone whos been in the industry most boards are built to last just that so go more some go less etc...

    Currently atm this and the genie are the best matx boards available to date.
  • fokka - Monday, February 3, 2014 - link

    "TUF Black Metallic capacitors, chokes, and MOSFETs are screened by seven rigorous military-grade tests to ensure superior lifespan even under the most demanding conditions." marketing speak much?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now