Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Three-Way X99 LGA 2011-v3 ATX Motherboard Shootout
By ,
1. More, Less Or Just Different?

Let's say you read Intel Core i7-5960X, -5930K And -5820K CPU Review: Haswell-E Rises, and really liked the idea of Intel's latest-gen enthusiast-oriented processors. But what's the price premium on X99 motherboards (not to mention DDR4), and what does it get you? A quick look at the specs show that LGA 2011-v3-based platforms priced between $240 and $300 sport close to the same added features as a Z97-based board selling between $120 and $180.

At least from the motherboard angle, that sounds like a fairly mainstream recipe to me. But it's the technology built into Intel's newest Core i7s that make them so high-end.

You get up for 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes, for example, allowing advanced graphics configurations like four-way SLI. You’d have to pay an extra $60 to get a lane-multiplying switch enabling that feature from Z97 Express, and the price premium on these boards is only twice as high. You also get ten SATA 6Gb/s ports, and the extra four ports are connected directly to the X99 PCH instead of sharing a couple of 5 Gb/s PCIe lanes, as they would on Z97. And then there are those four channels of DDR4 memory, compelling motherboard companies to build beefier circuit boards.

Perhaps the biggest cost-adding feature on X99-based desktops is all of that PCIe connectivity. You actually pay twice for it, since the controller is built into your expensive Core i7 processor. If that doesn’t make complete sense, consider that the entry-level LGA 2011-v3 processor, Intel’s $390 Core i7-5820K, has only 28 lanes rather than 40. If you want the same number of cores to connect all 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes, you’re forced to buy the $590 -5930K.

Yet, the motherboard market is so competitive that price-gouging is nearly impossible. Intel consequently gets credit for adding most of the complexity and performance, and then getting to charge for it. You can’t have one without the other.  And now that we’ve acclimated ourselves to the high cost of a mainstream motherboard for Intel’s high-end socket, we’re ready to look at how motherboard manufacturers have addressed its additional interfaces.

X99 Mainstream Motherboard Features
 ASRock X99 Extreme4Gigabyte X99-UD4MSI X99S Gaming 7
PCB Revision1.021.03.1
ChipsetIntel X99Intel X99Intel X99
Voltage Regulator12 PhasesSix PhasesEight Phases
BIOSP1.34 (08/26/2014)F7 (08/26/2014)V17.2 (08/29/2014)
100.0 MHz BCLK99.94 (-0.06%)100.19 (+0.19%)99.98 (-0.02%)
I/O Panel Connectors
P/S 2121
USB 3.0468
USB 2.0442
Network111
CLR_CMOS Button1None1
Digital Audio OutOpticalOpticalOptical
Digital Audio InNoneNoneNone
Analog Audio555
Other DeviceseSATA 6Gb/sAntenna BracketNone
Internal Interfaces
PCIe 3.0 x16
(-5960X, -5930K)
3 (x16/x16/x8, x16/x16/M.2)
SLI x3, CrossFireX x3
4 (x16/x0/x16/x8, x8/x8/x16/x8)
SLI x4, CrossFireX x4
4 (x16/x16/x0/x8*, x8/x16/x8/x8*)
SLI x4, CrossFireX x4
*Forces M.2 to PCIe 2.0 x2
PCIe 3.0 x16
(Core i7-5820K)
3 (x16/x8/x4, x16/x8/M.2)
SLI x2, CrossFireX x3
4 (x16/x0/x8/x4, x8/x8/x8/x4)
SLI x3, CrossFireX x4
4 (x16/x8/x0/x4*, x8/x8/x8/x4*)
SLI x3, CrossFireX x4
*Forces M.2 to PCIe 2.0 x2
PCIe 2.0 x161 (4-pathways)NoneNone
PCIe 2.0 x113 (+1x M.2 WIFI)2
USB 3.01 (2-ports)1 (2-ports)2 (4-ports)
USB 2.02 (4-ports)2 (4-ports)2 (4-ports)
SATA 6Gb/s10 (Shares M.2, SATA-E)10 (Shares M.2/SATA-E)10 (Shares M.2/SATA-E)
SATA ExpressNone1 (Uses 2x SATA)1 (Uses 2x SATA)
4-Pin Fan255
3-Pin Fan4NoneNone
FP-Audio111
S/PDIF I/ONoneOutput OnlyNone
Internal ButtonsNoneNonePower, Reset, OC-Genie
Internal SwitchNoneNoneAudio power source
Diagnostics PanelNumericNoneNumeric
Other DevicesUltra M.2 (SATA x1 or PCIe 3.0 x4), TB Header, Serial COM portM.2 (Shares SATA-E), TB HeaderUltra M.2 (SATA x2 or PCIe 3.0 x4 or PCIe 2.0 x2), Sup. Audio Power
Mass Storage Controllers
Chipset SATA10x SATA 6Gb/s
(Includes M.2, SATA-E)
10x SATA 6Gb/s
(Includes M.2, SATA-E)
10x SATA 6Gb/s
(Includes M.2, SATA-E)
Chipset RAID Modes0, 1, 5, 100, 1, 5, 100, 1, 5, 10
Add-In SATANoneNoneNone
USB 3.0Chipset-onlyuPD720210 PCIeVL805 PCIe
ASM1042 PCIe
Networking
Primary LANWGI218V PHYWGI218V PHYKiller E2205 PCIe
Secondary LANNoneNoneNone
Wi-FiNoneNoneNone
BluetoothNoneNoneNone
Audio
HD Audio CodecALC1150ALC1150ALC1150
DDL/DTS ConnectDTS ConnectNoneNone
WarrantyThree YearsThree YearsThree Years

MSI doesn’t call its X99S Gaming 7 a four-way SLI board, and there are a couple reasons for that. Still, our experience with multi-GPU graphics arrays suggests three cards is often the sweet spot for big-spending gamers. We’re not going to go too hard on MSI’s technical marketing team over the nomenclature (or the missing quad-SLI bridge), but this does leave Gigabyte’s X99-UD4 as the only four-way SLI-capable solution in our round-up.

One of the companies you might have expected to appear told us that it wanted a few more days for firmware development before seeding review sites with its most price-appropriate model. Sure enough, the other three manufacturers all sent new firmware builds a few days after we started testing. Unfortunately, catering to every firmware change starts an update loop that keeps us from completing stories, since updates are often issued in the middle of our comprehensive testing.

2. ASRock X99 Extreme4

The least-expensive of today’s contenders, ASRock leans exclusively on chipset features to provide four I/O panel and two front-panel USB 3.0 ports, along with a slew of USB 2.0 ports spread across internal and external connectors, in addition to 10 SATA 6Gb/s ports shared with M.2 and eSATA.

A CLR_CMOS button on the I/O panel is handy for overclockers, as are the two socket-mounted firmware ROMs along the X99 Extreme4’s bottom edge. Thanks to a selector switch, users who really screw up their firmware can switch, reboot, switch again, and hot-flash the other chip without the risk of removing components on a powered-up system. And if you somehow kill both parts, the sockets allow you to replace them with pre-programmed ICs. Any of those advanced techniques are “at your own risk” operations best left to the most experienced hands.

You’ve probably noticed that the X99 Extreme4 has four PCIe x16 slots. But the forth slot wasn’t mentioned in the introduction. That’s because it’s wired as a two-lane PCIe 2.0 link and located as the motherboard’s second slot. An included three-way SLI bridge bypasses it entirely to connect the first, third, and fourth x16-length slots, since those are the X99 Extreme4’s only SLI-compliant interfaces.

You probably also noticed that Ultra M.2 connector located between the first and second x16-length slots. It supports PCIe 3.0 x4 by robbing the bottom slot of four lanes when you drop in a PCIe-based M.2 SSD. ASRock disables the expansion slot whenever PCIe is enabled over the M.2 interface, knocking the X99 Extreme4 down to two-way SLI or CrossFire support.

Do you want M.2 and three-way SLI? Communication through SATA is also an option for the X99 Extreme4’s M.2 interface. But ASRock only powers the slot using a single 6 Gb/s port, which is shared with the third standard SATA connector so that only one can be used at a time. The eSATA port is similarly shared with the second internal SATA port.

Other three-way SLI exclusions include the use of a 28-lane (Core i7-5820K) CPU. The reduced lane count drops board’s slots to x16/x8/x4 (as opposed to its full x16/x16/x8 configuration), and Nvidia requires at least eight lanes for each card in an SLI array. AMD’s not as fussy, so you’re still able to use three Radeons in CrossFire with your lower-cost CPU.

ASRock knows a good layout, placing its first and third x16-length interfaces with triple-slot spacing to allow extra-large graphics coolers in concert with two-way SLI or CrossFire. And since the third slot is also SLI-capable (whenever you’re not using a PCIe M.2 card), ASRock makes sure that all of the headers along the board’s edge support crush-friendly cables. USB 3.0 is the one cabled interface that can't be bent over, so ASRock puts a header along the X99 Extreme4’s front edge, just above the board’s center line.

Looking harder for layout problems, we find only that the front-panel audio connector is placed in the bottom-rear corner, where Intel thinks it should be. The reason that’s a potential problem is that the cables of some cases are around ½” too short to reach the corner.

We’d have also liked to see an extra fan header near the top edge, since many cases have a pair of top-mounted fans.

Are you still having trouble thinking of any DDR4-supporting three-way SLI motherboard as being mainstream? Then take a look at the X99 Extreme4’s cable kit, which only includes four SATA cables to serve its 10 SATA headers. At least ASRock was kind enough to include a two-drive power cable to connect its HDD Saver power-control software.

3. ASRock X99 Extreme4 Software

ASRock’s A-Tuning software includes a few basic modes that can save you about a watt (Power Saving) or keep Turbo Boost “on” more often (Performance mode), plus advanced modes with factory-programmed overclock settings and auto-tuned overclock settings.

Programed overclocks include 4 GHz at 1.15 V (292 W full-system in our CPU load test), 4.2 GHz at 1.17 V (315 W), 4.4 GHz at 1.25 V (384 W), and 4.5 GHz at 1.30 V (crashing at around 430 W system power).

The auto-tuning method found a supposedly-stable 4.3 GHz at 1.1 V, but I managed to crash it with an AVX-optimized run of Prime95.

A-Tuning’s Tools menu includes submenus for most of the board’s included software, such as XFast RAM (RAM disk), XFast LAN packet prioritization, FAN-Tastic Tuning, and USB Key security.

OC Tweaker gives users access to firmware-level clock and voltage controls from Windows. Our small changes worked, and were instantly recognized by CPU-Z.

A-Tuning’s System Info menu shows all of the clock, thermal, and voltage levels that we care about when overclocking, also providing quick access to a visual representation of installed parts that can help troubleshoot if something isn’t connected properly. Unfortunately, the visual map did not identify our memory modules.

Seen in A-Tuning, ASRock X-Fast LAN is an interface for cFos’ prioritization software. X99 Extreme4 software also includes the original version of that interface.

4. ASRock X99 Extreme4 Firmware

The X99 Extreme4’s OC Tweaker menu opens to a group of factory-programmed overclocks similar to those of its software, but with a slightly different voltage slope. Turbo 4.5 GHz ramps up 50 mV past our desired 1.30 V limit, so we started our overclock with the more longevity-friendly Turbo 4.4 GHz setting.

The highest frequency we’ve been able to reach with this Core i7-5960X sample and a 1.30 V core is 4444 MHz, give or take a few MHz of BCLK rounding error, based on a 101 MHz BCLK setting at 44x CPU multiplier. The X99 Extreme4 gets us there, rounding down to 4543 MHz.

Because data rates exceeding 2666 MT/s require an increased base clock, the DRAM Configuration submenu includes a redundant BCLK setting. The X99 Extreme4 picked 125 MHz x 24 as the appropriate setting for our DDR4-3000, but our CPU couldn’t take the strain.

Dropping to 124 MHz BCLK at that same multiplier helped us to reach a stable DDR4-2975.

A 1.30 V CPU core setting was spot-on according to CPU-Z, and our thermal readings were consistent with other motherboards using these same settings at full load.

Other firmware-integrated applications allow users to download drivers, update the firmware, set fan slopes, or even send an email to ASRock tech support before the OS is loaded.

5. Gigabyte X99-UD4

For a few dollars more than ASRock’s board, Gigabyte’s X99-UD4 upgrades buyers to four-way SLI capability, dual M.2, one onboard SATA Express connector, and an added pair of USB 3.0 ports. You'll even find a Wi-Fi antenna bracket to use with your M.2 Wi-Fi card.

Those previous three words are important to note, as the second M.2 slot is PCI Express-only, and designed exclusively for notebook wireless cards. The only real-world advantage I can find over the earlier mini-PCIe standard is that it’s a little narrower, though I’m sure the M.2 name will win over some customers. And I thought the point of M.2 was to simplify the whole mini-SATA-versus-mini-PCIe debacle.

The upper M.2 slot is the real deal, and by that I mean it’s for storage. It’s not an “Ultra M.2” PCIe 3.0 x4 device, so it won’t steal valuable lanes away from any four-way SLI configuration. On the other hand, being limited to either two SATA or two PCIe 2.0 lanes means that its “M.2_10G” label indicates a noteworthy bandwidth disadvantage compared to the Ultra slot on ASRock's board.

The only way to break the X99-UD4’s four-way SLI capability is to install a Core i7-5820K, since it only gives you 28 of the platform’s 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes.Downgrading from a 40- to 28-lane CPU also drops the X99-UD4 from x8/x8/x16/x8 to x8/x8/x8/x4 mode. Remember, SLI requires at least eight lanes per card. Conversely, AMD's CrossFire technology runs on four PCIe 3.0 lanes without protest.

Hardware limitations imposed by sharing are mostly confined to the “M.2_10G” slot, with both SATA ports and both PCIe ports also connected to the board’s SATA Express connection. And, since SATA-E uses two standard SATA connectors, your SATA Express cable fills two of the board’s 10 SATA 6 Gb/s ports.

It's nice that Gigabyte doesn't force us to explain a cluster bomb of resource conflicts. But that’s not to say that there aren’t any mechanical conflicts with four-way graphics arrays. Gigabyte places the X99-UD4’s only front-panel USB 3.0 header at its bottom edge, where it'd get covered by the heat sink on almost any graphics card. The inflexibility of USB 3.0 cable ends means that anyone who wants this feature will essentially be stuck with a three-way motherboard.

And then there’s the occasional front-panel audio connector problem, where the cables of some cases are just a little too short to reach the motherboard’s bottom-rear corner. Case manufacturers carry most of the responsibility for this issue, but some motherboard designers previously slid the connector forward a little to compensate for a case maker’s poor judgment.

Gigabyte generously  includes two three-way SLI bridges at different slot spacing, a four-way SLI bridge, along with two-way CrossFire and SLI flexible bridges in its X99-UD4 installation kit. On the other hand, a mere four SATA cables don’t represent the same completeness. And while some motherboard manufacturers have added multiple CPU power connectors for extreme overclocking power loads, Gigabyte beefs up its single eight-pin input and adds a three-to-one power combiner cable.

6. Gigabyte X99-UD4 Software

Gigabyte’s OC Tuner continues to provide users with a wide range of Windows-based overclocking functions that are also reflected in firmware. Some changes, such as DRAM multiplier, still require a reboot in order to take effect through firmware, but base clock, CPU multiplier, and voltage levels are all ready-to-go.

Manufacturer-configured overclocks for Intel’s Core i7-5960X include 3.70 GHz at 1.10 V, 3.90 GHz at 1.15 V, and 4.10 GHz at 1.20 V. These settings appear almost ideal for our CPU, as its Auto Tuning app also finds a stable maximum of 4.10 GHz at 1.20 V. We’re not certain how accurate the term Extreme is though, since we feel safe up to 1.30 V CPU core.

Apart from the DRAM configuration that required a reboot, manual settings we tried were quickly reflected in CPU-Z.

Gigabyte’s Cloud Station includes a server application that lets you access system settings from an iOS or Android device.

 

Cloud Station’s remotely-controlled menus can also be accessed from the desktop via Cloud Station Client. These settings include remote overclocking, monitoring, and management.

Besides monitoring, Gigabyte System Information Viewer also includes a few settings, such as fan slope.

Vintage apps like “Smart Recovery 2” and “USB Blocker” remain, but we were also surprised to find a universal graphics overclocking tool among the X99-UD4’s applications.

Gigabyte Smart Switch adds a traditional start menu to desktop mode.

7. Gigabyte X99-UD4 Firmware

Gigabyte’s M.I.T. menu continues as a launch point for multiple submenus, where actual adjustments can be made.

Our processor is cable of approximately 4444 MHz at 1.30 V, fully loaded, with an actual result of 4451 MHz on the X99-UD4 thanks to its slight rounding error of our selected 101 MHz BCLK.

Because Haswell-E’s top DRAM practical data rate multiple is 26.66 times base clock, the X99-UD4 attempted to reach our memory’s rated DDR4-3000 at 125 MHz x 24. Following a boot failure, we tried reducing the BCLK in 1 MHz steps, eventually giving up on the 1.25x BCLK strap.

Somewhere in the middle of all that is where X99-UD4 overclocking falls apart. Every boot failure resulting from too-high of a BCLK triggered the motherboard’s “Corrupt BIOS” detection, causing it to automatically reflash the main firmware ROM from an old firmware image on the backup ROM. There is no workaround for this, as the board doesn’t have a way to disable the feature (for manual CLR_CMOS) or even a simple jumper to select between ROMs. Over an hour of re-updating firmware with the correct image finally got us to the point where we could define a DRAM limit of DDR4-2832 at the board’s highest-stable "1.00x strap" base clock (106 MHz) and a memory data rate ratio of 26.66x.

 

CPU-Z showed that the 1.30 V firmware setting produced the expected voltage, and RealTemp confirmed similar overclocking temperatures compared to the two competing products.

8. MSI X99S Gaming 7

A great-looking product with four PCIe 3.0 graphics card slots, the X99S-Gaming 7 is both the most feature-packed and expensive product in today’s round-up. A $30 premium over the competing Gigabyte sample buys another four USB 3.0 ports, a four-lane Ultra M.2 PCIe 3.0 slot, a Killer E2205 network controller and, for a limited time at Newegg, a free MSI Steelseries Mouse valued at $30.

X99S Gaming 7 owners also get a digital system code display, on-board power/reset/OC-profile buttons, and a selector switch to choose between two soldered-on firmware ROMs. Even if we ignore the temporary single-vendor mouse offer, the X99S Gaming 7 looks like it just might be worth more than its $30 price premium.

Yet, MSI is also the company known for most blatantly inflating its slot count through PCIe pathway sharing, and the X99S Gaming 7 is no exception. The Ultra M.2 interface shares lanes with the fourth PCIe 3.0 slot, so that installing a card there turns off all of the M.2 interface’s PCIe 3.0 lanes. Your PCIe-based SSD doesn't disappear though, because the X99S Gaming 7 instead switches it over to two of the chipset’s PCIe 2.0 lanes.

The illusions don’t end there. Supposing you have a 40-lane CPU like the Core i7-5960X or -5930K, MSI wants you to configure your three-way SLI in the motherboard’s first, second, and fourth slots. That gets you a x16/x16/(x0)/x8 configuration, while crippling the bandwidth of the M.2 slot.

Anyone who thinks that’s a rude thing to do to a potentially-32 Gb/s SSD will want to use the first, second, and third PCIe 3.0 slots for their graphics cards. The third slot borrows half of the first slot's lanes, yielding a x8/x16/x8 graphics configuration, no lanes to the bottom slot, and full PCIe SSD performance.

Value-minded enthusiasts who opt for the Core i7-5820K’s 28 lanes instead get a x16/x8/x0/x4 configuration. You'd need to drop to x16/x8/x0/x0 (no card in the forth slot) to get full Ultra M.2 performance, but you can still donate half of the top slot's bandwidth to the third slot for a x8/x8/x8/x0 three-way SLI configuration. Apart from the middle slot having only eight lanes, this is the configuration MSI recommended against when using a 40-lane CPU.

Could all of these marketing-based configuration recommendations be the reason why MSI calls this a three-way, rather than four-way board? Perhaps it’s just as likely that the single-slot spacing between PCIe 3.0 slot three and four is the culprit. Either way, MSI could have avoided the mixed configuration recommendations and M.2 bandwidth inconsistencies by leaving out the fourth slot. We might not prefer the board to have that alteration, but at least I wouldn’t have spent three paragraphs explaining it and an hour or so with a graphics card and an SSD confirming it.

The rest of the X99 Gaming 7’s layout is close to spot-on, including a forward-facing USB 3.0 front-panel header that tucks easily under the top graphics card, and a second USB 3.0 header above that serves two more front-panel ports.

If we consider this a three-way SLI/CrossFire product, layout deficits become extremely minor. The upper half of the X99X Gaming 7 only has three fan headers (including CPU and rear panel) where we’d have preferred four, and the front-panel audio jack is still just a little too far into the bottom-rear corner to connect with the slightly-short cables of certain cases.

MSI provides a generous six SATA cables in two different lengths with the X99S Gaming 7, and even adds an optional power input cable to help boost audio output current. But the company is not as generous when it comes to SLI bridges. Rated for three-way SLI, the board lacks the extra-long third cable needed to jump from the top card to the bottom card.

9. MSI X99S Gaming 7 Software

"MSI Gaming App" is a shortcut to one overclocking profile, in this case 3.7 GHz at 1.05 V, which was already on the installation DVD when we received our motherboard sample.

MSI Command Center wasn’t included on the X99S Gaming 7’s installation DVD, but that’s probably because the firm needed a few more days to update its overclocking and management suite. By the time we did our tests, version 1.0.0.79 was available on the motherboard’s download page.

Changes to CPU base clock and core voltage were quickly detected by CPU-Z, but DRAM ratios were stuck. We also had to wait a few seconds for the application of clock multiplier changes.

MSI’s RAMDisk software made a nice little partition on some of our spare memory.

Additional voltage controls are available through an “Advanced” pop-up menu.

The “Settings” button links to extra fan and system logging pop-ups.

MSI Mobile Control provides remote access to overclocking functions briefly mentioned in our previous motherboard round-up.

10. MSI X99S Gaming 7 Firmware

Our CPU reached its approximate 4444 MHz 1.30 V limit at an actual 4446 MHz on the X99X Gaming 7, thanks to a slight rounding difference on the 101 MHz base clock setting.  

The X99S Gaming 7’s 1.30 V CPU core setting was detected as such by CPU-Z, and the full-load temperatures produced were very close to that of the other two contenders in today’s comparison.

The X99S Gaming 7 tried to set our DDR4-3000 RAM using the CPU’s 1.25x strap to run 125 MHz with a 24x multiplier. Failing that, we reduced our BCLK to 124 MHz at DDR4-2976.

Everything about the DRAM is adjustable per-channel, including the voltage level. Fortunately, selecting “Link” as the main menu’s “DRAM Timing Mode” allows us to set identical timings for both channels, without manually entering those values twice.

Like some of its competitors, MSI allows custom fan slopes to be configured in firmware. Unlike other competitively-matched features, such as overclocking profile registers, MSI does its fan control a little more stylishly.

MSI even adds “Board Explorer” to show the detected location of each connected device. A mouse-enabled interface, hovering over the highlighted areas reveals more information about devices attached there. This is great for builders who can’t figure out whether or not a component is being detected.

11. How We Tested X99 Motherboards
Test System Configuration
CPUIntel Core i7-5960X (Haswell-E): 3.0-3.5 GHz, 20 MB L3 Cache, LGA 2011-v3
CPU CoolerSwiftech Apogee GTX, MCP 655b, Triple-Fan Radiator Kit
RAMG.Skill F4-3000C15Q-16GRR (16 GB) DDR4-3000 Quad Channel Kit
GraphicsPowerColor LCS AXR9 290X 4GBD5-PPDHE: 1060 MHz GPU, 4 GB GDDR5-5400
Hard DriveSamsung 470 Series MZ-5PA256, 256 GB SSD
SoundIntegrated HD Audio
NetworkIntegrated Gigabit Networking
PowerAntec HCP-1200: ATX12V v2.3, EPS12V, 80 PLUS Gold
Software
OSMicrosoft Windows 8 Professional RTM x64
GraphicsAMD Catalyst 14.4
ChipsetIntel INF 9.4.2.1019

Swiftech’s ancient Apogee GTX keeps appearing in my “Big Socket” reviews, and for good reasons: it has monster capacity, and it’s built into my test bench.

This Prescott-era workhorse was updated six years ago with an LGA 1366 bracket, and today uses that same bracket with newer spring-loaded screws to fit both LGA 2011 and LGA 2011-v3 support mechanisms.

Rumored power-on troubles with C7s-enabled motherboards and certain power supplies finally hit home when I tried to pair our earlier SS-760KM unit with one of the boards in today’s test. Since my newer AX860i was already being used to test other parts, I hauled Antec’s HCP-1200 out of storage. Success!

PowerColor’s LCS AXR9 290X runs quietly on a second cooling loop.

This is a new platform, so memory and the CPU couldn’t be pulled from spare parts. G.Skill’s quad-channel F4-3000C15Q-16GRR DDR4-3000 kit was added with Intel’s Core i7-5960X to today’s parts list.

12. Results: 3DMark, PCMark And Sandra

3DMark

Since this CPU has already been separately reviewed, today’s test looks for performance differences attributable to minor variations in memory timing and power controls unique to each motherboard. Covert overclocking would be the only reason for a major performance increase, and misconfiguration the only reason for a major decrease, so no news is good news for all three manufacturers.

Futuremark’s 3DMark shows the expected level of performance consistency.

PCMark

I had minor trouble running PCMark (this was prior to a patch addressing issues with X99-based platforms), yet the most important storage score remains consistent between all three contenders. Minor storage performance differences between this configuration and previous Z97 tests are attributable to my use of an older-model SSD, where the newer SSD is being used to test more Z97 motherboards.

Sandra

Covert overclocking and/or incidental underclocking (due to mismanaged power settings) are most easily found in Sandra’s CPU tests. Fortunately, we find no issues here.

The X99-UD4 falls noticeably behind in Sandra's Memory Bandwidth module. Some manufacturers use slower tertiary timings to allow added stability, so we’ll see how that works for Gigabyte in our overclocking tests.

13. Results: 3D Gaming And Encoding

3D Gaming

Remember the X99-UD4’s slightly lower Sandra Bandwidth scores? They’re reflected in games, albeit barely, at our least-stressful settings. Not that anyone really cares about a few averages FPS at such high performance levels.

Audio And Video Encoding

The X99S Gaming 7 falls one second behind in both iTunes and Lame, which are best known for being single-threaded and frequency-optimized. We enabled all of Intel’s energy-saving schemes; perhaps this motherboard isn’t resuming as quickly?

14. Results: Adobe CC, Productivity And File Compression

Adobe Creative Cloud

The X99 Extreme4 take a small lead in After Effects, though the actual scale of the difference is probably being disguised by the benchmark’s short duration. A millisecond is all it takes to round a number up or down!

The X99-UD4 falls slightly behind in Photoshop’s OpenCL-optimized filters. That difference might be tied to its slightly lower memory bandwidth, as retesting validated this result.

The X99 Extreme4 comes out on top of Acrobat XI as well, though the longer benchmark time make the one-second lead appear smaller.

Productivity

The X99 Extreme4 takes marginal leads in a few benchmarks, but it pulls ahead a little further in 3ds Max. The X99S Gaming 7 gets a small lead in ABBYY FineReader.

File Compression

The X99-UD4 falls slightly behind in 7-Zip and WinZip EZ, which could be due to its lower memory bandwidth.

15. Results: Power, Heat And Efficiency

ASRock’s X99 Extreme4 has the lowest power consumption at both zero and full load conditions. MSI’s power consumption looks a little high, though it does pull along a couple of extra controllers.

The X99 Extreme4 also demonstrates the lowest thermal readings, so there’s a chance that its superior energy savings could be due to below-spec voltage. We’re happy with slightly less voltage when it doesn’t hurt stability.

Average performance gains of less than 1% are tied to average power savings of just over 5%, giving the X99 Extreme4 a 6.2% lead in efficiency.

16. Results: Overclocking

BIOS Frequency and Voltage settings (for overclocking)
 ASRock X99 Extreme4Gigabyte X99-UD4MSI X99S Gaming 7
Base Clock90-300 MHz (0.1 MHz)80-333 MHz (0.01 MHz)91-300 MHz (0.05 MHz)
CPU Multiplier12x-120x (1x)12-80x (1x)12-80x (1x)
DRAM Data Rates800-2666 (200/266.6 MHz)800-2666 (200/266.6 MHz)1333-2666 (200/266.6 MHz)
CPU Vcore0.80-2.00V (1 mV)0.50-1.70V (1 mV)0.80-2.10V (1 mV)
VCCIN1.20-2.30V (10 mV)1.00-2.70V (10 mV)1.20-3.04V (1 mV)
PCH Voltage0.90-1.50V (25 mV)0.65-1.30V (5 mV)0.70-2.32V (10 mV)
DRAM Voltage1.00-1.80V (10 mV)1.00-2.00V (10 mV)0.60-2.80V (10 mV)
CAS Latency4-31 Cycles5-31 Cycles4-31 Cycles
tRCD5-31 Cycles1-31 Cycles4-31 Cycles
tRP5-31 Cycles1-31 Cycles4-31 Cycles
tRAS10-63 Cycles1-63 Cycles9-63 Cycles

All three mid-priced X99-based motherboards reach the same 44 x 101 MHz base clock setting, though fractional differences in actual base clock could create the illusion of leadership. We call this a tie.

After seeing that none of the test samples were stable at the 125 MHz needed by our RAM to reach the highest DDR4 data rates, we scratched the test off our list and stuck to a 100 MHz strap. We found that Gigabyte’s X99-UD4 could potentially push a “locked” processor a little further, if Intel ever introduces one.

Not that we’d want to overclock with the X99-UD4, though. Going over the edge caused it to read a firmware error and reflash the chip with an old backup copy. If our hardware required new firmware to function (as sometimes happens after the introduction of a new CPU), we would have been stranded.

Our inability to reach DDR4-3000 at 125 MHz x 24, and Haswell-E’s inability to run 30x data rate ratios meant that we were stuck going backwards from 125 MHz to find each motherboard’s highest data rate, at 124x 24 for both the X99 Extreme4 and X99S Gaming 7. All of those re-flashes on the X99-UD4 eventually pushed us to try the board’s class-leading 106 MHz base clock in conjunction with the CPU’s highest 26.66x data rate multiple, for a grand total of 2832 MT/s.

The lack of a DDR3-2800 setting again forced us to use Haswell-E’s 26.66x maximum memory ratio to find each board’s peak bandwidth. This test was added to a previous platform after finding out that a brand not represented here today was using hobbled timings to win overclocking competitions, but Gigabyte was first to fall behind on this occasion.

17. Picking A Mid-Priced X99 Winner

Value is an important consideration in most round-ups. But it's not as simple a conclusion to reach as a performance-per-dollar chart might show. After all, these charts don’t reflect differences in on-board features or overclocking. These days, there's very little point to performance-per-dollar on a motherboard, and much more reason to judge based on functionality. Yet, when it comes to quantifiable comparisons, our options are few.

The X99S Gaming 7, for example, only needs a 10% “better” feature set than the X99 Extreme4 to claim realistic value leadership. We can’t arbitrarily call one feature 10% more valuable than another, but we can say that all of those added controllers and switches probably added 10% or so to MSI’s manufacturing cost. Buyers must make the final decision of cost-versus-worth. However, we see the X99S Gaming 7 and X99 Extreme 4 as a value tie at two slightly different equipment levels.

But what about the X99-UD4? It’s the only board in today’s round-up to properly support four-way SLI. This used to be considered the “killer feature” for any high-end platform. We even thought it might be the one capability to set the X99-UD4 apart for a higher award level. Unfortunately, you can’t use four-way SLI and front-panel USB 3.0 at the same time, and the latter of those two is a basic feature. May the Force be with anyone who tries to run DDR4-3000 on this thing. Your system might never boot again!

Gigabyte claims to have solved similar firmware-reflashing issues in past products through firmware updates, so our overclocking fiasco might just be unfortunate timing. After all, Intel did pull in the Haswell-E launch by almost two weeks, forcing vendors to hustle to hit the introduction. We’d probably consider re-examining the board after it gets a few firmware updates. But it's hard to forgive that one layout feature I keep harping on.