Latest from Tom's Hardware in Intel-core-i7-8700k

MORE: All CPUs Content

Hardware-Based Security Fixes, Architecture & Test Setup

Much like the Cascade and Whiskey Lake processors we recently covered, Intel's Coffee Lake refresh comes with hardware-based mitigations for the Meltdown and L1TF (Foreshadow) vulnerabilities. Current Spectre and Meltdown mitigations, which Intel delivers via software and microcode patches, can reduce performance by up to 10% on newer CPUs, with older hardware suffering even larger losses. The new mitigations, baked directly into the silicon, should reduce or even eliminate the performance impact for a few vulnerabilities.

Vulnerability	Coffee Lake Refresh/Whiskey Lake Mitigation	Cascade Lake Mitigation
Variant 1 (Spectre)	Operating System	Operating System/VMM
Variant 2 (Spectre)	Microcode + Operating System	In-Silicon + Operating System/VMM
Variant 3 (Meltdown)	In-Silicon	In-Silicon
Variant 3a	Microcode + Operating System	Firmware
Variant 4	Microcode + Operating System	Microcode + Operating System/VMM
L1TF (Foreshadow)	In-Silicon	In-Silicon

As we're learning, it may take several processor generations before the fixes for all vulnerabilities are applied at a silicon level. Intel's ninth-gen CPUs do still need a combination of microcode and operating system patches. But at least Meltdown and L1TF Foreshadow are patched fully in hardware.

Architecture

Although we don't have much new information about Coffee Lake refresh architectural changes, David Schoor at WikiChip says the new chips use a familiar ring bus, an internal high-speed pathway connecting the cores and cache.

This stands in contrast to the mesh architecture (deep dive here) that Intel uses on its high-end desktop models, including the eight-core Core i7-7820X. We've found that the mesh architecture has a negative impact on some desktop applications, including games, which Intel acknowledges. The mesh architecture was designed to increase scalability as it expands to higher core counts in the Xeon family.

Overclocking, Rounds One and Two

We tapped Corsair's H115i v2 to test our Core i9-9900K sample in the U.S. lab. This liquid cooler afforded enough headroom to sustain a 5.0 GHz overclock with a 1.33V Vcore and a Load Line Calibration 4 setting. It kept the chip at a steady 85°C during extended non-AVX stress tests. Folding in AVX instructions did, unfortunately, overwhelm the all-in-one. To reign in the thermal output, we set the AVX offset to -2, meaning the chip ran at 4.8 GHz during AVX-optimized workloads and 5.0 GHz in the absence of AVX instructions. We maintained a temperature of 95°C during three hours of Prime95 using those settings.

To model real-world settings attainable by enthusiasts with closed-loop liquid coolers, we applied the -2 AVX offset for our 5.0 GHz overclock in the gaming, office and productivity, and rendering tests.

We did not use an offset for the workstation graphics, compute, power consumption, and temperatures sections.

MEG Z390 Godlike

We're using MSI's MEG Z390 Godlike as our test platform for all Intel processors. This pricey board retails for $600, but has the power delivery subsystem to support aggressive overclocking.

Comparison Products

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Intel Core i7-8700K

Intel Core i7-7820X

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Germany Intel LGA 1151 (Z390)Intel Core i9-9900K, i7-9700K, i5-9600K, i7-8700K, i5-8600K, i5-8400MSI MEG Z390 Godlike2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 & DDR4-3466AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC 2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 2066 Intel Core i7 MSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC 4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666All SystemsGeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Gaming) Nvidia Quadro P6000 (Workstation)1x 1TB Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, System SSD) 4x 1TB Crucial MX300 (Storage, Images)be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11, 850W Windows 10 Pro (All Updates)U.S. Intel LGA 1151 (Z390)Intel Core i9-9900K, i7-9700K, i5-9600K, i7-8700K, i5-8600K, i5-8400MSI MEG Z390 Godlike2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 & DDR4-3466Intel LGA 2066Intel Core i9-7820XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666, DDR4-3200AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen 5 2600XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933All SystemsEVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500WWindows 10 Pro (All Updates)
Cooling	GermanyAMD Wraith RipperAlphacool Ice Block XPXEnermax LiqTech 240 TR4Thermal Grizzly KryonautU.S.Wraith RipperCorsair H115iEnermax Liqtech 240 TR4 II
Power Consumption Measurement	Contact-free DC Measurement at PCIe Slot (Using a Riser Card) Contact-free DC Measurement at External Auxiliary Power Supply Cable Direct Voltage Measurement at Power Supply 2x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500 MHz Digital Multi-Channel Oscilloscope with Storage Function4x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 Current Probe (1mA - 30A, 100 kHz, DC) 4x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10:1 Probes, 500 MHz) 1x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 Digital Multimeter with Storage Function
Thermal Measurement	1x Optris PI640 80 Hz Infrared Camera + PI Connect Real-Time Infrared Monitoring and Recording
Acoustic Measurement	NTI Audio M2211 (with Calibration File, Low Cut at 50Hz) Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for Microphones)Creative X7, Smaart v.7 Custom-Made Proprietary Measurement Chamber, 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2m (L x D x H) Perpendicular to Center of Noise Source(s), Measurement Distance of 50cm Noise Level in dB(A) (Slow), Real-time Frequency Analyzer (RTA) Graphical Frequency Spectrum of Noise

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

VRMark, 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

The Core i9-9900K's eight cores easily beat Ryzen 7 2700X during the DX12 and DX11 CPU benchmarks. For perspective, the Core i9-9900K has the same 4.7 GHz all-core boost frequency as the Core i7-8700K's single-core boost, which is quite impressive. As expected, tuning Core i9-9900K propels it into a league of its own.

In the DX12 test, we see a nice step forward from Core i7-9700K compared to its predecessor, the Core i7-8700K. That improvement is despite a loss of Hyper-Threading technology on the new Core i7 model.

Architecturally, the Core i5-9600K is very similar to Core i5-8600K. They offer the same number of cores. But the newer chip's higher clock rates deliver tangible gains.

UL's VRMark test lets you gauge your system's suitability for use with the HTC Vive or Oculus Rift, even if you don't currently own an HMD. UL defines a passing score as anything above 109 FPS. The Core i7-9700K posts a surprisingly strong frame rate, beating the overclocked -9900K. That implies this benchmark runs best on eight physical cores.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation is a computationally intense title that scales well with thread count. A stock Core i9-9900K beats the rest of the processors, except for an overclocked Core i7-8700K.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

Civilization VI's AI test measures CPU performance in a turn-based strategy game and tends to favor per-core performance.

The Ryzen processors trail due to their lower per-core performance, defined by instructions per clock (IPC) throughput and frequency. Intel's Coffee Lake microarchitecture already dominates in comparisons of IPC, but bolstering it with higher clock rates extends the design's lead. Notice that the Core i5 and Core i7-9700K also perform exceedingly well, indicating this test runs best on physical cores.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

Core i7-9700K takes the lead once again. The Coffee Lake-based Core i7 models remain impressive, though. As you'll see throughout our gaming suite, Intel's Skylake-X-based Core i7-7820X is no match for the mainstream processors' much higher frequencies.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Ryzen 7 2700X is more competitive in the Warhammer 40,000 benchmark, largely because this game responds well to threading. Core i9 is a powerful chip, but the Core i7-8700K challenges it after some overclocking. Intel's Core i7-9700K essentially ties the Core i7-8700K, reminding us that its product stack remains carefully segmented.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry 5, GTA: V & Hitman

Far Cry 5

Although the overclocked Core i9 leads, a tuned Core i7-8700K offers similar performance. More than likely, the extra $118 you pay for a Core i9 probably isn't worth it for gamers.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates.

The -9900K leads in convincing fashion. The Core i7 and i5 models also enjoy a healthy speed-up.

Hitman

Our Hitman benchmark was rendered almost useless by a patch that imposed a 90 FPS performance cap. A subsequent update restored our test to its prior glory.

Given its price point, the Core i5-9600K appears to be a phenomenal chip for gaming, even without taking overclocking into consideration. Notice that the new i5 often outperforms Intel's previous-gen Core i7-8700K. Really, that isn't surprising given both chips' multi-core Turbo Boost ratios. A lack of Hyper-Threading also helps in some games.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Shadow Of War & Project CARS 2

Middle-earth: Shadow Of War

Shadow of War leans heavier on graphics resources than host processing, so we don't see large deltas between the fastest and slowest CPUs. This is another reminder that most games are limited by your GPU, so plan accordingly if you're running into a bottleneck.

Project CARS 2

Although Project CARS 2 is purportedly optimized for threading, clock rates obviously affect this title's frame rates. Intel's per-core performance advantage pays big dividends in this title, but Core i5-9600K inexplicably trails the previous-gen -8600K. Repeated testing confirmed the results.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office & Productivity

Adobe Creative Cloud

Even though this suite has a few parallelized workloads, its final score is heavily influenced by the lightly-threaded tasks common in most desktop applications.

Core i9-9900K takes a commanding lead throughout these tests. However, the Core i7-9700K proves to be an adept competitor. It should come close to matching the Core i9-9900K after overclocking in these types of lightly-threaded tasks.

Web Browser

Intel's single-threaded advantage is clear. Once again the -9700K offers a nice step up from the -8700K, while Intel's Core i5-9600K proves its mettle. Our overclocked Ryzen 7 2700X trails the stock configuration in many of these tests because it offers a higher boost clock rate in stock form.

Productivity

The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Other platform-level considerations affect this test as well, including the storage subsystem. Core i7-7820X lags the rest of the test pool, possibly as a byproduct of its mesh architecture. Meanwhile, the Core i7-8700K and -9900K are closely matched.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized. This application responds well to the Ryzen 7 2700X, which scores a rare win against the stock Core i9-9900K.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding & Compression

Rendering

Intel’s processors extend their lead in the single-threaded POV-Ray and Cinebench tests. However, it's easy to see that AMD’s extra cores help offset their lower IPC in threaded benchmarks.

The Core i9-9900K sets a new high water mark for mainstream desktop performance at stock and overclocked settings in the threaded POV-Ray and Cinebench benchmarks.

Encoding & Compression

Our threaded compression and decompression metrics work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation. Ryzen 7 2700X is competitive in these workloads, especially after overclocking. But Intel's Core i9-9900K carves out a commanding lead.

y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes pi, is a great test to use for measuring the affect of AVX instructions. Core i7-7820X sports two 256-bit AVX FMA units per core that operate in parallel, so it isn't surprising to see that CPU leading through the multi-threaded test. Core i9-9900K is still highly competitive, but we dialed back its all-core AVX frequency to 4.8 GHz for our overclocked configuration. Consequently, the tuned -9900K is outperformed by the stock configuration, which benefits from the dual-core 5.0 GHz AVX frequency.

Core i9-9900K leverages high clock frequencies to dominate the HandBrake x265 test, which relies heavily on AVX instructions, and the H.264 test. Notice that the tuned -9900K outpaces the stock configuration in these tests despite our 4.8 GHz AVX offset. That's because the stock setup drops to an all-core 4.7 GHz under full utilization.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Workstation Graphics

While workstation graphics are a niche for most readers, some might consider using the -9900K's eight cores and 16 threads for professional tasks. Really, though, there aren't many threaded applications for real-time graphics output. These benchmarks mostly benefit from high IPC and frequency.

Cinebench profits equally from more cores and higher clock rates. That makes it one of the very few benchmarks able to show off what Core i9-9900K can do compared to Core i7-8700K.

The older versions of Maya and Catia appear to be bottlenecked, despite the potent Nvidia Quadro P6000 being pushed to its limit. In the end, it makes no difference whether the CPU is overclocked or not. The differences are marginal from the Core i7-8700K upward.

The Blender loop relies on OpenGL and real-time graphics, but host processing power still helps. However, these applications use hardly more than four cores, so high per-core performance pays off.

The same could be said for the GPU composite score of 3ds Max because, in the end, the highest clock rate wins. Multi-threading is not really in demand.

To summarize, we could say there is little added value in upgrading from a fast quad-core to a slightly faster eight-core CPU in these types of applications.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Workstation Compute

The CPU composite score of SolidWorks combines render and compute performance. Multi-core scaling isn't the emphasis. Rather, per-core performance moves the needle furthest.

If the workload consists of strictly rendering, then Core i9-9900K is hard to beat.

Interestingly enough, AMD's CPUs dominate the 3ds Max composite score (this program seems better-optimized for AMD's architecture in general). For the first time, Core i7-8700K doesn't stand a chance against the Core i9.

Intel's CPUs bounce back in the rendering test, whereas AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X drops a few spots.

Creo reminds us that maximizing work done per clock cycle is critical. It'll probably take a very long time for developers to optimize for threading.

Almost everything in this application is perfectly parallelized, so a combination of threads and per-core performance form a brutal alliance.

Aside from the render workloads, there's no reason to buy a Core i9 over the older Core i7-8700K. But then the entire platform is out of place and you might want to consider a real workstation instead.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Power Consumption

Power consumption measurements are always a bit tricky, but as long as the 12V supply (EPS) readings and the sensor values of the power supply of the mainboard plus voltage transformer losses plausibly coincide, everything is fine. Therefore, we again rely on the pure package power to avoid possible influences from the motherboard. The values of the PWM controller are really very reliable if taken as averages over a period of a few minutes.

At idle, everything is perfectly fine. Both the stock and overclocked Core i9-9900K sip power. The fact that the Ryzen 5 2600X lands at the top of our chart is confirmed by our bad sample. This is definitely not a general AMD problem though, as the Ryzen 7 2700X shows. In general, however, all the CPUs are quite economical.

Both -9900K configurations are still in good shape during the CAD workload: the chip's power consumption is only slightly higher than the Core i7-8700K. So far, the very high voltage needed for stable operation does not make a disturbing impression. Everything is still in the green.

Power consumption is also within the expected values during the gaming loop, especially since the game does not fully utilize all cores. Although a comparison test with Assassin's Creed Origins did yield much higher values (up to 20W more), that game is so poorly optimized that we measure completely different values each time.

Five measurements with five strongly diverging results are not something that would be apt for a fair comparison. However, at 5 GHz, the Core i9-9900K never really crossed the 100W limit, so it was still cool enough to make ends meet. At least for games.

But power becomes more of an issue in some productivity applications because a constant load on all cores at high clock rates is almost too much. And to be clear, the Core i9-9900K gets super hot faced with Prime95 and AVX instructions (205W stock, 250W overclocked), exceeding the specified TDP.

We measured 137W (232W) during the Cinebench test, and we topped 145W (241W overclocked) under the larger Blender workload. We even pushed past 120W (198W overclocked) with various CAD plug-ins for Creo and SolidWorks. The limits of normal all-in-one compact water cooling solutions are in sight during standard operation at 4.7 GHz on all cores, but you can easily overwhelm cheaper AIOs during overclocking.

Finally, and because we like the additional detail, here are the line charts corresponding to our long-term measurements.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Temperatures

As we did in the past with Intel's Core i7-8700K, we again created absolutely identical test and measurement conditions. We use the same type of CPU cooler (Alphacool XPX), the same Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut TIM, and the Alphacool Ice Age 2000 chiller that, as always, provides exactly 20°C water temperature. We weigh the thermal paste (0.15 grams) on a laboratory balance to further ensure accuracy. Thus, our older test results are usable for comparisons to the Intel Core i9-9900K.

Thermal Grease Vs. Solder

We have an important preliminary about the change from the thermal paste TIM on the Core i7-8700K to the solder of the Core i9-9900K. Since the height of the CPU has remained absolutely the same with the new chips, one can also assume that Intel uses the same heatspreader as the older CPUs. The distance between the die and heat spreader was previously relatively high due to the design, as the chips have a relatively thick layer of thermal paste.

Therefore, we can assume the solder layer also turns out to be a bit thicker than it would actually have needed. This fact, and the significantly smaller heat spreader (surface area) compared to the LGA 2066 CPUs, will certainly explain why the results that follow are the same as they were. Good, but not perfect.

The Intel Core i7-8700K achieves just under 160 watts in the stress test with Prime95, so we ran the Intel Core i9-9900K with a similar load. The Core i9-9900K did not always use all its cores fully, so slight fluctuations occur despite the same average waste heat over the entire time. But these remain negligible. Logically, the Intel Core i9-9900K runs much cooler than with Solder TIM:

With nearly identical power dissipation and identical cooling conditions, we calculate a mean package temperature of 57°C for the Intel Core i9-9900K and 75°C for the Intel Core i7-8700K. This results in a delta of 18°. Tests of the delidded Intel Core i7-8700K show that this is not necessarily optimal – the delta was at least 20° (better by 2°). In either case, even the industrial solder solution is always worth more than the thermal paste of the previous CPU generation.

Leakage at different temperatures but same load

CPUs are thermistors, where the internal resistance decreases with rising temperature instead of rising. That makes it interesting to see how the temperatures, and thus the leakage currents (and consequently the power loss), develop with the same applied load. To measure this, we have the Core i9-9900K overclocked under Prime95 run once with chiller and with a normal AiO compact water cooling (Corsair H110i).

The result turns out as expected. While the chiller the CPU is at an average of 63° C, but the 90° C with the AiO is already near the absolute limit. Mind you, this result is at stock settings with an AVX load. Interestingly, when using SSE, the delta of 27°C remains nearly the same, as it is still 25°C on average.

But back to the AVX load, because what does the almost 30° C temperature difference ultimately mean for power consumption? Here, too, we are amazed to a certain extent, because between the 205W with chiller and the 229W with the AiO compact water cooling, there is a difference of 24W. We can only attribute that to the now stronger leakage currents.

You can see the remaining power consumption figures on the previous page, but under almost ideal conditions. The better the cooling, the better the power consumption. However, we were only able to record these large differences at package temperatures above 80°C, which then almost rise like an avalanche. This would dissuade us from air cooling, even if the Intel Core i9-9900K should not be overclocked any further. The 4.7 GHz all-core and a constant load are quite sufficient to make air cooling absurd.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Conclusion

Intel's Core i9-9900K answers several requests from the enthusiast community. It sports more cores, higher clock rates, and effective Solder TIM. The delayed 10nm process could be a liability as AMD works feverishly to respond with new 7nm processors. But for now, these 14nm++ CPUs are winners.

In the chart below, we plot gaming performance with both average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we then convert into a frame-per-second measurement. Bear in mind that we tested with a Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 at 1920x1080 to alleviate graphics-imposed bottlenecks. Differences between our test subjects would shrink with higher resolutions.

Core i9-9900K takes the crown as the fastest gaming processor on the market, and it proves to be highly capable in the threaded workloads that AMD's Ryzen processors used to dominate. Pricing is still a problem for Intel, though. You pay dearly for the extra cores, while a majority of games don't fully utilize them. The Core i7-9700K, even at stock settings, is competitive with the -9900K in most titles, especially considering the $115 you save by stepping down a notch. We haven't overclocked our -9700K yet, though, so the small deltas observed between the two chips may shrink further.

Although AMD's second-gen Ryzen processors narrowed the gap with Intel's Coffee Lake-based line-up, these ninth-generation Core chips redefine the playing field. The $263 Core i5-9600K at stock settings regularly beat an overclocked $329 Ryzen 7 2700X in games, and we expect even more performance from the Core i5 once we overclock it. Ryzen 7 2700X does come with a capable cooler, but the Core i5’s lower price diminishes AMD’s value proposition for gaming.

In the end, Core i9-9900K serves up impressive performance across our benchmark suite. If you regularly run heavily-threaded applications, it's probably worth paying a premium for. But if you need real workstation-class features, you should step up to an appropriate platform.

And make no mistake, the Core i9-9900K requires expensive accommodations. You need a premium motherboard with robust power delivery, particularly if you plan on overclocking. The -9900K can drop into existing Z370 motherboards, but we’re sure that many of them will struggle with the chip’s voracious appetite for current. Also plan on investing in a high-end PSU.

The -9900K proved to be an impressive overclocker, largely due to its Solder TIM. Don't think that means you can skimp on cooling, though. High temperatures hampered our overclocking efforts, and a more capable cooler could have facilitated additional headroom. Intel even threw in new packaging to help win back the hearts and minds of enthusiasts.

Now the question is whether Intel can satisfy enthusiast demand. After all, we've already heard reports of delayed pre-order shipments. Even though the company assures us that it can accommodate demand for eight-core CPUs, this doesn't bode well for availability as the company grapples with an ongoing shortage of 14nm manufacturing capacity.

The Core i9-9900K has no direct rival on a mainstream platform, but its high price point encroaches into the realm of AMD’s upcoming $649 12-core Threadripper 2920X (which has hefty platform requirements of its own). That chip isn't available yet, so its performance remains shrouded in mystery. For something more readily available, look to the previous-gen Threadripper 1920X.

Unless you regularly use heavily-threaded applications, it’s hard to justify stepping up to Core i9-9900K from any modern four- or six-core CPU. With that said, Core i9-9900K is the fastest mainstream processor on the market. Plenty of enthusiasts opt for the best possible performance in both single- and multi-threaded workloads at any price. There, the Core i9-9900K doesn’t disappoint.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Save $500 (25%) on this RTX 2070 powered Zotac Gaming PC

zak.storey@futurenet.com (Zak Storey) — Mon, 15 Jul 2019 09:10:02 +0000

A 1440p gaming rig for less than $1500?

Amazon Prime Day has arrived and the deals are flowing fast and steady. Tired of building your own rigs? After a modern day spec for a low price? Well Zotac has you covered with its Gaming Mek Ultra pre-built system.

Zotac’s Gaming Mek Ultra Gaming PC is available at amazon.com for $1500 (25% off)

This thing is a monster, at $1500 for Prime members, it packs in a Zotac Gaming GeForce RTX 2070 8GB GPU, a stock clocked Intel Core i7-8700K complete with 6 cores and 12 threads, 16GB of DDR4, a 240GB NVMe PCIe SSD, a 2TB old school spinning hard drive, a 240mm AIO liquid-cooler, 1000W 80+ Gold PSU, an ASRock Z370 Extreme4 mobo and of course a Windows 10 home install as standard in a mid-tower chassis. That ain't half bad.

To put that into context, if you were to build that yourself, using identical parts from the likes of PC Part Picker, you’d still be down $181 before you even built the machine ($226 if you forget about the MIRs). That’s a significant figure, especially when factoring in that you have to then build it, With your own parts, you’ll likely not get a warranty either.

Any hangups?

So what don’t we like about it? Well, if we’re honest, the case looks a bit cheap. If anything that’s likely where the majority of the cash has been saved. After all, you can pick up an NZXT H500 ATX tower these days for around $70 or so, which is hardly bank breaking. On top of that, it’s also featuring one of Intel’s 8th gen Core i7s, which are, well there’s no kind way of saying this, really really warm.

That aside, as for the value proposition, not only is it a good deal compared to its own retail price, but it also beats out the do-it-yourself builder in his or her garage. Couple that with that RTX 2070 GPU that can hold its own at 1440p and 4K, with a hint of DLSS on the side, and this thing is sure to make any PC gamer happy.

For more savings, check out our list of best Amazon Prime Day deals and best pc hardware deals overall as well as dedicated lists of current sales on ssds, cpus, gpus and gaming laptops.

Image Credits: Zotac / Tom's Hardware

Intel Performance Maximizer (IPM) Tested: One-Click Overclocking Comes to 9th-Gen CPUs

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 22:08:01 +0000

Overclock All (Some?) of the Things

Enthusiasts know the headaches associated with CPU overclocking all too well, like intense research, repetitive reboots and motherboard firmware adjustments, not to mention the possibility of a corrupted operating system. Intel's new free Performance Optimizer (IPM) software tool, which is a needed feature to grapple with AMD's auto-overclocking Precision Boost Overdrive, aims to eliminate those frustrations, thus delivering the goodness of overclocking to the less-technically savvy. It aims to deliver one-click overclocking through a simple-to-use software utility that automatically tunes and overclocks your processor.

The utility is now available to the public for free, so we put the Core i9-9900K to the test to see how Intel's tool compares to other overclocking options. We came away with surprisingly impressive results.

Intel Performance Maximizer Installation and Requirements

The IPM comes with several limitations. For starters, it only works with Intel's 9th-gen K-series processors, of which there are currently only three models available: The Core i9-9900K, the i7-9700K, and the i5-9600K. Intel also supports the F-series models of each respective SKU, but our testing has shown that these graphics-less versions of the chips are nearly identical to their full-fledged counterparts, so we don't expect major differences. As with all of Intel's overclockable processors, you'll also need a Z-series motherboard (Z390 in this case) to unlock the overclocking features.

Intel hasn't shared the reasoning behind the limited support (which could be due to some type of physical aspect on the chip, like advanced sensors), but the company says it will follow up at a later date with more information. We do know that Intel plans to extend support to its future K-series processors and its high end desktop (HEDT) lineup, but we aren't sure if the software will eventually support previous-gen processors. For now, the software overclocks the processor to its highest sustainable frequency on all cores, but a future update (due out this year) will tune each core individually based on its capabilities.

Model	Cores / Threads	Base Clock / Boost Clock	Cache	TDP	RCP
Core i9-9900K	8 / 16	3.6 GHz / 5.0 GHz	16MB	95W	$488 - $499
Core i9-9900KF	8 / 16	3.6 GHz / 5.0 GHz	16MB	95W	$488 - $499
Core i7-9700K	8 / 8	3.6 GHz / 4.9 GHz	12MB	95W	$374 - $385
Core i7-900KF	8 / 8	3.6 GHz / 4.9 GHz	12MB	95W	$374 - $385
Core i5-9600K	6 / 6	3.7 GHz / 4.6 GHz	9MB	95W	$262 - $263
Core i5-9600KF	6/6	3.7 GHz / 4.6 GHz	9MB	95W	$262 - $263

Intel also has restricted support to Microsoft Windows 10 x64 Edition Version RS5 (and newer). You'll also need a minimum of 8GB of system memory and 16GB of unallocated storage capacity. You can use the software to automatically create a new partition with a portion of your drives' unused storage space if the system drive is already fully provisioned. The software also requires the motherboard to be set to UEFI boot mode and be updated to the latest motherboard firmware (versions unspecified). You also have to disable all other software overclocking utilities before proceeding, and use the correct version of the install executable (one is for Hyper-Threaded chips, the other for chips without).

With those requirements met, the software installation is fairly straightforward. Intel's disclaimer reminds you that overclocking is an inherently dangerous pursuit: Increased voltages and frequency can kill components and result in system instability, along with threatening data integrity, so you proceed at your own risk. Intel doesn't provide warranty support for overclocking-induced chip death, but the company is happy to sell you a Performance Tuning Protection Plan (PTPP) that gives you a one-time return if your overclocked chip dies. That extra warranty comes at an additional cost of $20 for the 9th-Gen K-series models, and it only applies to boxed processors bought at retail outlets.

The software creates an 8GB GPT partition during the installation process, and after a glance at the Device Manager to verify the driver is installed correctly, you're off to the races. After installation, the minimalist user interface presents you with two options: Continue or Exit. There is a settings option in the utility, but that only lets you remove the IPM icon from the system tray. Aside from that, the interface doesn't have any options -- it's obviously designed to be simple.

After continuing to the tuning process, the software reboots the computer into a pre-boot Performance Optimizer UEFI application. The application automatically steps through a series of tests that apply various voltage and frequency settings and conducts stress tests to find the maximum stable overclocked all-core frequency. Enthusiasts typically test overclock stability through a series of stress tests conducted from inside the operating system, and frequent BSODs during the extensive trial and error phase can damage the operating system. As such, Intel's pre-boot testing approach removes the lion's share of risk to your OS from the equation during the overclocking phase, though you still run the normal risk associated with overclocking of OS instability when you use your system.

Onward to 5.0 GHz

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

	Base	1 Core	2 Cores	3 Cores	4 Cores	5 Cores	6 Cores	7 Cores	8 Cores
IPM-Overclocked Core i9-9900K	3.6	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0
Stock Core i9-9900K (GHz)	3.6	5.0	5.0	4.8	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.7	4.7
Core i7-9700K (GHz)	3.6	4.9	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.6

The overclocking process took two hours on our Core i9-9900K, and the system crashed and rebooted several times during the process, which is expected. The pre-boot environment gives you the option to cancel the test before each iteration in case you encounter hardware difficulties during testing.

After testing, the system rebooted into the operating system and presented us with the results of its efforts: A 4.8 GHz overclock for the first test, and a 4.9 GHz overclock after a successive run. After remounting our cooler and tweaking the fans to full speed, we pulled off our final 5.0 GHz overclock with the tool.

The Core i9-9900K typically boosts to 4.7 GHz when more than five cores are active, so an additional 300 MHz of frequency is incredibly impressive, especially considering we've topped out at the same 5.0 GHz through exhaustive manual tuning. We also noticed that unlike a typical manual all-core overclock, the clock rates continue to fluctuate during operation. That means you still get the goodness of the rare 5.0 GHz dual-core boost if you're cooling system can't support the full 5.0 GHz overclock. It's also notable that the utility doesn't tune memory settings, so we left the system at the default DDR4-2666 for our tests.

Densely-packed AVX workloads are power-hungry, and thus generate far more heat than non-AVX tasks. The offset is responsible for pulling frequency back when the processor executes AVX instructions, allowing you to achieve higher overclocks without worrying about AVX workloads causing instability. The IPM utility tunes the AVX offset, too, so it increased the i9-9900K's all-core AVX offset to 4.7 GHz, which is a handy feature. Intel's IPM applied a VID of 1.267 (under load), which is much better than the 1.385V vCore setting we used for our manual overclock. We chalk the difference up to our manual configuration's lack of an AVX offset, meaning the processor runs at the full 5.0 GHz regardless of instruction type, which requires more voltage to ensure stability. In either case, AVX offsets are an often-unused yet powerful tuning parameter, even with enthusiasts, so this is a nice addition to the tool.

For now, the tool applies an all-core overclock, but Intel will expand the tool to per-core overclocking in the future to wring as much performance out of each core as possible. The tool modifies the WinOS registers, meaning the software doesn't make changes to the motherboards' firmware. This also means that you'll only get the goodness of the overclock from within the operating system, so dual-booters will need to install and run the tool within each of their OS installs. You'll also have to uninstall the utility to reverse the overclocked settings.

Of course, our results are influenced by the usual vagaries associated with the silicon lottery, meaning that each chip will reach different overclocking ceilings based on silicon quality, cooling, and power delivery accommodations. We tested with the MSI Z390 Godlike motherboard that has a robust power delivery subsystem, but we didn't uncork the extreme power delivery parameters in the motherboard firmware that we employed with our manual overclock. We're testing an auto-overclocking feature for noobs, after all. We also used a powerful custom watercooling setup (with two 360 radiators) that can cool the hottest processors on the market with ease, and a 1600W EVGA Supernova T2 power supply.

We also tested the software with the beefy Noctua NH-C14S air cooler, but the utility reported that our thermal solution wasn't up to the task for overclocking. That means you'll have to bring your liquid-cooling A-game when it comes to tweaking the Core i9-9900K: Air coolers need not apply.

MORE: Best CPUs for Gaming

MORE: CPU Benchmarks

MORE: All CPUs Content

IPM vs. Precision Boost Overdrive and MCE, Test Setup

Intel Performance Maximizer vs. Precision Boost Overdrive

AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive is a boon to enthusiasts with its adaptive overclocking approach, and it's making its way from the Threadripper platform to all of AMD's Ryzen 3000 processors. The software allows the processor to communicate with the platform to modulate performance based on the motherboard's power delivery subsystem and thermal dissipation capabilities.

The processor monitors Package Power Tracking (PPT) and Thermal Design Current (TDC) variables, measuring available margin to the motherboard's maximum power output and current, respectively. Electrical Design Current (EDC) also indicates the maximum current possible from the VRMs during peak/transient conditions. A control loop feeds real-time telemetry data back to the processor, which then dynamically adjusts performance based on thermal and power conditions. AMD also exposes some of these monitoring features with its Ryzen Master overclocking software.

In contrast, Intel's Performance Maximizer is a one-click auto tuner that finds the maximum attainable all-core overclock and then applies fixed settings based upon many of the same variables, like the power delivery and cooling capabilities. Like AMD's implementation, you still get the benefit of boost clocks that outstrip the all-core frequency when the processor isn't fully loaded, but Intel's overclock will not improve based upon a change in conditions, like the installation of a better power supply or cooler that could unlock higher clocks. In that case, you'll have to run the application again.

Intel's tool also monitors the system to detect if it has BSODs within three minutes of booting up. If the system generates more than three blue screens, the tool will no longer apply the overclock and send a message that it has reverted due to instability. It also gives the option to re-run the utility to regain a stable overclock.

Intel Performance Maximizer vs. Multi-Core Enhancement (MCE)

Intel's motherboard partners have already infused their boards with predefined all-core boost profiles that go by many names, such as Multi-Core Enhancement (MCE) with ASUS motherboards and Enhanced Turbo with our MSI motherboard. These features are largely referred to as MCE, but the functionality remains the same: These settings essentially apply an all-core overclock to the processor that is defined by the maximum Turbo Boost bin supported by the processor. This setting modifies the CPU's clock rate and voltage to deliver higher performance, which is basically factory-sanctioned overclocking.

Motherboard vendors predetermine the voltage settings at the factory, meaning the settings do not take chip quality into account. Instead, the vendor bins a large number of CPUs in each respective SKU and sets the parameters based on the worst common denominator. As such, these settings typically use a much higher voltage than required for even chips of "normal" quality, which can reduce the chips' lifespan and result in a hotter and noisier system.

Again, MSI turns this on by default in its BIOS, similar to most of its competition. Performance, power consumption, and heat are all affected, naturally. We manually disable this feature for our stock CPU testing to best reflect Intel's specifications, but we're enabling it for some of this testing to compare its performance with the IPM tool.

MEG Z390 Godlike

We're using MSI's MEG Z390 Godlike as our test platform. This pricey board retails for $600, but has the power delivery subsystem to support aggressive overclocking.

The MEG Z390 Godlike sits at the top of MSI's motherboard hierarchy on Intel's mainstream platform. It has a decked-out 18-phase power delivery subsystem that's designed to squeeze every drop of performance out of Intel's new processors.

As mentioned, we left the memory settings at DDR4-2666 to reflect a normal users' one-click overclocking efforts. We disabled the Multi-Core Enhanced feature for all tests, except those explicitly listed.

Comparison Products

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Intel Core i5-9600K

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Intel LGA 1151 (Z390)Intel Core i9-9900K, i7-9700KMSI MEG Z390 Godlike2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863EVGA Supernova 1600 T2Windows 10 Pro (All Updates)Operating system and motherboard firmware fully patched for all vulnerabilities
Cooling	Custom Loop, EKWB Supremacy EVO waterblock, Two 360mm radiators

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark and AotS: Escalation

Test Notes

We tested with the Core i9-9900K in several configurations, as listed in the performance charts. The "MCE @ 5.0" entry reflects our Multi-Core Enhancement configuration that uses the motherboard's predetermined voltage and frequency profile to overclock all cores to the maximum Turbo Boost bin (5.0 GHz). The "IPM 5.0" entry denotes the Intel Performance Maximizer's auto-overclocked 5.0 GHz setting paired with a powerful custom watercooling setup. Meanwhile, the "@ 5.0" entry contains our manually tuned all-core 5.0 GHz overclocking results.

VRMark, 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

The IPM settings fall within 1.2% of our manually-tuned configuration in the DX12 CPU test and 0.72% in the DX11 physics test. That's within the noise of the benchmarks, which have a 3% expected variance, so the IPM configuration provided nearly the same performance as our painstakingly curated manual overclock.

The IPM configuration also fell within 1% of the manual overclock during the inherently lightly-threaded VRMark workload.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation is a computationally intense title that scales well with thread count. MSI's automatic MCE setting takes the lead, but we see little difference between our manually-tuned processor and the IPM-imposed overclock. In either case, we only see a maximum boost of ~3% over the stock configuration.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry 5, GTA: V and Hitman

Far Cry 5

The differences between the Core i9-9900K configurations are slight as we encounter a graphics-imposed bottleneck that is common in many AAA titles.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates. This benchmark exposes a more tangible lead for the manually tuned processor, while the MCE and IPM configurations fall within 1% of each other.

Hitman

Slight differences between the overclocked Core i9s boil down to typical run-to-run variance for this benchmark, meaning the differences in performance are largely imperceptible.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding and Compression

Rendering

Loading the cores up with the heavily-threaded Corona benchmark exposes a tie between the manually overclocked and IPM configurations. The 4% increase over the stock configuration isn't incredibly impressive, but we are only dealing with an additional 300 MHz boost to all-core performance. We see a larger improvement of ~7% during the multi-threaded Cinebench test.

Our single-core Cinbench test exposed an odd errata with the IPM-imposed 5.0 GHz overclock. During this test, our Core i9-9900K fell below both its 5.0 GHz all-core overclock to 4.8 / 4.7 GHz, and the issue is repeatable. It's hard to pin the issue on the software. It could just as easily be an issue with the motherboard firmware, but we've followed up with Intel for more information. We're working to identify the issue and will update as necessary.

Encoding and Compression

The IPM configuration trailed the MCE and manually-overclocked configurations during the HandBrake test by 2.45%. Those configurations also outstripped the IPM system during the compression workload. The auto-overclocked system redeemed itself in the decompression and lightly-threaded LAME workload, but the delta fell within the expected standard run-to-run variation for this test.

Y-Cruncher

Y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes pi, is a great test to use for measuring the affect of AVX instructions. It also exposes the main advantage of manual tuning: The potential for higher frequencies during AVX-enabled workloads.

Our manually overclocked configuration stays at the same 5.0 GHz all-core frequency during the multi-threaded y-cruncher test while the IPM and MCE configurations downshift to 4.7 GHz via the AVX offset. That hands the manually overclocked system a 19.6% advantage during the test.

All three overclocked systems score within the expected variance during the single-thread y-cruncher test.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Thoughts

Intel's Performance Maximizer tool is great for non-technical users who want a simple and easy "free" performance upgrade for their K-series 9th-Gen Intel processors. Unfortunately, limited support for 9th-Gen processors takes some of the shine off of the tool, although we're sure the millions of other users with previous-gen K-series processors would appreciate access to the feature.

The tool competes with AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive that will come standard with all Ryzen 3000-series processors. In contrast, AMD's dynamic real-time alterations appear to be more sophisticated than Intel's IPM tool, which sets a single voltage/frequency profile for long-term use, but we'll have to see how AMD's implementation handles on its new chips before passing judgment. We do know that it is limited to a 200 MHz improvement that might not impart the impressive performance boosts we could see with manual tuning. In contrast, we achieved an extra 300 MHz with Intel's tool, and there are no limits on frequency uplift - the tool will give you as much performance as the processor and its surrounding components can support.

The software itself is as pain-free as imaginable. The option-less software greatly simplifies the process and makes user error an impossibility: Even your parents couldn't mess this one up (although you may have to install it for them first).

We ran the tool several times and received varying overclocks of 4.8 GHz, 4.9 GHz, and finally a full-on 5.0 GHz frequency. We did encounter reduced performance with the IPM-imposed 5.0 GHz setting during the single-core Cinebench test. During that test, our Core i9-9900K fell below its 5.0 GHz all-core overclock to 4.8 / 4.7 GHz, and the issue is repeatable. It's hard to pin the issue on the software, it could just as easily be an issue with the motherboard firmware, but we've followed up with Intel for more information. We're working to identify the issue and will update as necessary.

The MCE feature on our motherboard generally provided similar performance to the settings imposed by the IPM tool, and within a similar voltage range. The MCE-imposed overclock also survived extended stress tests, which serves as anecdotal evidence that it offers the same stability as Intel's optimized settings.

But IPM offers a true advantage over the MCE features embedded in most high-end motherboards. MCE implementations vary wildly by manufacturer, and there doesn't appear to be a set of strictly-defined rules from Intel on the matter. That has led to sloppy implementations that have given the feature a bad reputation with many enthusiasts, but it varies by the motherboard. We tested MCE with the highest-end power supply, cooler, and motherboard we could get our hands on, so the impact of excess heat or VRM-triggered throttling could be more of an issue on lower-end boards.

In either case, all forms of overclocking yielded impressive speed-ups in several of our application tests, but the impact wasn't as explosive in the game titles we tested -- Intel is already pushing its 14nm process to the limits, which is part of the reason we crowned the Core i9-9900K the fastest gaming processor we've tested. As a result, there isn't much headroom to play with.

(Image credit: Intel)

But that could improve. Intel says the tool is still under development and it will add per-core overclocking that could unlock more performance in various workloads. It would be nice if Intel eventually pairs the tool with Turbo Boost 3.0, which targets the fastest cores with lightly-threaded workloads, for its mainstream processors. That feature is currently confined to Intel's high end desktop models but would be a great addition to mainstream platforms. Intel does say it will expand IPM to its HEDT processors, so we will see the capabilities of the combined features soon.

The IPM tool is available today for free, but because Intel still doesn't warranty damage due to overclocking, you still assume all of the risks of manual overclocking.

We're sure most non-technical users will appreciate a customized one-click overclock, and there the IPM tool delivers with a more nuanced approach than the built-in profiles on motherboards that can overwhelm the system with excessive voltage.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Intel Core i9-9900KF Review: Disabled Graphics and No Discount

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:00:00 +0000

No Graphics and No Discount

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Core i9-9900KF marks a shift in Intel's strategy as the company begins selling processors with disabled graphics engines for the first time. The -9900KF isn't really new at all, though. Rather, it features the same 8C/16T configuration as Intel's celebrated Core i9-9900K. Aside from the lack of on-die graphics, both chips should be otherwise identical.

That's good news for the -9900KF because Core i9-9900K is a winner. It barreled onto the scene last year to become Intel's highest core count model for mainstream platforms. Armed with eight cores and 16 threads, Core i9-9900K established itself as the fastest desktop processor we've ever tested.

But despite impressive performance, Intel can't keep its most popular CPUs on store shelves. The company is grappling with a production shortage of 14nm parts due to record demand and painful setbacks delaying its 10nm process. As a result, many models are marked up severely or simply unavailable.

Surprisingly, Intel decided to boost output by selling new F-series processors with disabled on-die graphics engines. These CPUs suffered defects during manufacturing that would have rendered their graphics subsystems unusable. In the face of a severe shortage, however, Intel figured out how to boost production by resurrecting chips that would have otherwise been considered defective.

Now, you'd expect to pay less for a CPU with fewer features. But Intel assigns its F-series models the same MSRP as existing processors with functional graphics. This gives vendors the green light to charge premium prices for handicapped chips, which is exactly what's going on. The Core i9-9900KF isn't widely available on Newegg or Amazon. However, when you do find it available for preorder on sites like B&H Photo, the processor oddly commands a ~$55 premium over Intel's standard -9900K.

Core i9-9900K (Left), Core i9-9900KF (Right)

Intel isn't sampling the Core i9-9900KF to press. Fortunately, we were able to borrow one from extreme overclocker Allen "Splave" Golibersuch for review. Splave lapped the chip, meaning he thinned the integrated heat spreader by sanding it down, to improve thermal transfer efficiency. Otherwise, as you can see in the picture above, both models are physically identical.

As far as we can tell, the only reason to buy a -9900KF is immediate availability when you see it in stock. Otherwise, the chip offers nearly the same performance as Intel's graphics-equipped Core i9-9900K, meaning it serves up the best performance you can get on a mainstream desktop. Just be ready to pay an exorbitant price tag for the CPU, a beefy motherboard, high-end cooling, and a capable PSU.

Intel Core i9-9900KF

We covered the Core i9-9900K in our original review, so head there for deeper analysis of its architecture. Just like that CPU, the -9900KF is manufactured on Intel's 14nm++ node. It sports an unlocked ratio multiplier (denoted by the "K" suffix) for easy overclocking and support for up to 128GB of dual-channel DDR4-2666 memory. The new "F" suffix indicates that this is a graphics-disabled part.

	Core i9-9900KF	Core i9-9900K	Core i7-9700K	Core i5-9600K
Architecture	Coffee Lake	Coffee Lake	Coffee Lake	Coffee Lake
Socket	1151	1151	1151	1151
Cores / Threads	8 / 16	8 / 16	8 / 8	6 / 6
Base Frequency (GHz)	3.6	3.6	3.6	3.7
Boost Frequency ( Active Cores - GHz)	1-2 Cores - 5.04 Cores - 4.8 8 Cores - 4.7	1-2 Cores - 5.04 Cores - 4.8 8 Cores - 4.7	1 Core - 4.92 Core 4.8 4 Core 4.78 Core 4.6	1 Core - 4.62 Core - 4.54 Core 4.46 Core 4.3
L3 Cache	16MB	16MB	12MB	9MB
Process	14nm++	14nm++	14nm++	14nm++
TDP	95W	95W	95W	95W
Memory Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2666
Memory Controller	Dual-Channel	Dual-Channel	Dual-Channel	Dual-Channel
PCIe Lanes	x16	x16	x16	x16
Integrated UHD Graphics GT2 (Base/Boost MHz)	No Graphics	350 / 1200	350 / 1200	350 / 1150
Recommended Customer Pricing	$488 - $499	$488 - $499	$374 - $385	$262 - $263

As mentioned, the Core i9-9900KF lacks an integrated UHD Graphics 630 engine, which Intel marks prominently on its packaging. That's fine by us, since Intel's on-die graphics subsystems are notoriously unfit for even mid-level gaming. But just be sure your build includes an add-in GPU before spending money on the Core i9-9900KF.

	Base	1 Core	2 Cores	3 Cores	4 Cores	5 Cores	6 Cores	7 Cores	8 Cores
Core i9-9900KF (GHz)	3.6	5.0	5.0	4.8	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.7	4.7
Core i9-9900K (GHz)	3.6	5.0	5.0	4.8	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.7	4.7
Core i7-9700K (GHz)	3.6	4.9	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.6

The -9900KF comes with enthusiast-pleasing solder-based thermal interface material, which improves the chip's ability to dissipate thermal energy and augment overclocking. Better heat dissipation also facilitates the same impressive multi-core Turbo Boost clock rates as Core i9-9900K. Both models stretch up to 5.0 GHz when two cores are active. These high clock rates extend Intel's advantage in lightly-threaded tasks like gaming. Meanwhile, the extra cores help Intel compete against Ryzen in more taxing workloads.

As expected, the -9900KF's cores are accompanied by 16MB of L3 cache. The -9900KF drops into existing 300-series motherboards after a BIOS update, though Intel's partners also have a slew of Z390 motherboards available, which you can see here. The Core i9 models draw enough power to make VRM selection an important factor in your motherboard purchase, especially if you plan on overclocking. Luckily, most high-end Z390 motherboards already employ beefier power circuitry than the Z370 models.

Plan on buying a beefy cooler for Core i9-9900KF, too. The eight-core die hides beneath the same heat spreader used on previous-gen six-core models, meaning that even with Solder TIM, thermal density presents challenges. Intel's official spec sheet lists a 130W cooler as the entry-level solution. If you plan on tuning, open- or closed-loop liquid cooling is a must. Even then, thermal output could be what limits your overclock.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Overclocking and Test Setup

Overclocking

We originally used a Corsair H115i v2 cooler to test Core i9-9900K, but encountered thermal limitations that restricted our overclocking efforts. For this round, we used a custom watercooling loop with an EKWB Supremacy Evo waterblock paired with a 360mm radiator to remove thermal limitations from the equation.

With the standard Core i9-9900K, this facilitated a slightly higher 1.35V Vcore that allowed us to run the processor at an all-core 5.0 GHz overclock without an AVX offset, registering slight gains over our previous 4.8 GHz AVX offset. The beefier cooling solution kept the chip at a steady 82°C during extended AVX stress testing, so thermal output was not a limiting factor. Instead, prodigious amounts of extra voltage didn't prove stable at higher clock rates, meaning we simply reached the processor's limits.

As mentioned on the previous page, Intel didn't sample Core i9-9900KF to press. Instead, we sourced a chip from our resident extreme overclocker Allen "Splave" Golibersuch. Splave lapped the processor, meaning he sanded down the integrated heat spreader to reduce its thickness before testing. As with any lapped processor, improved thermal performance enables higher overclocking potential, but unfortunately also makes apples-to-apples comparisons with retail CPUs impossible.

(Image credit: Splave)

We encountered problems measuring power consumption through familiar software utilities. It appears that they aren't yet optimized for Intel's new configuration. We're troubleshooting this issue and speaking with ISVs to find a solution, but we don't expect significant changes compared to the figures we recorded from Intel's Core i9-9900K.

As such, we can't really report definitive thermal or overclocking comparisons between the two chips. Splave did bin a relatively large sample set of 200 Core i9-9900Ks against a smaller pool of five Core i9-9900KFs, and found that a larger percentage of KF models binned to higher frequencies. That anecdotal evidence suggests that Core i9-9900KF could be attractive to overclockers chasing the top overclocking records.

Our Core i9-9900KF is a cherry piece of silicon, though. We were able to attain an all-core 5.242 GHz overclock with no AVX offset and a 1.37V Vcore setting. Paired with our custom loop, the chip hovered at an outstanding 71°C during extended AVX stress testing, highlighting the combined benefits of the -9900KF's solder TIM and the lapped IHS.

MEG Z390 Godlike

We're using MSI's MEG Z390 Godlike as our test platform for all Intel processors. This pricey board retails for $600, but has the power delivery subsystem to support aggressive overclocking.

(Image credit: MSI)

The MEG Z390 Godlike sits at the top of MSI's motherboard hierarchy. It has a decked-out 18-phase power delivery subsystem that's designed to squeeze every drop of performance out of Intel's new processors. It also comes with a few nifty accessories like an M.2 PCIe riser card and an HDMI streaming card.

Comparison Products

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Intel Core i5-9600K

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Intel LGA 1151 (Z390)Intel Core i9-9900KF i9-9900K, i7-9700K, i5-9600KMSI MEG Z390 Godlike2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667 & DDR4-3466AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen 5 2600XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933All SystemsEVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500WWindows 10 Pro (All Updates)
Cooling	U.S.Corsair H115iCustom Loop, EKWB Supremacy EVO waterblock, 360mm radiator

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark, AotS: Escalation, Civilization VI and Warhammer 40K

VRMark, 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

The DX11 and DX12 CPU test results show the Core i9-9900KF and the -9900K essentially tied at stock settings, maintaining Core i9's commanding lead over the Ryzen models. The tuned KF CPU takes a slight lead over its counterpart, which comes courtesy of its extra 200 MHz of overclocking headroom.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation is a computationally intense title that scales well with thread count. At stock settings, the -9900K and KF models score a perfect tie during the benchmark, but the KF model takes an almost unnoticeable lead after tuning.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

Again, we see negligible differences between the two Core i9 processors at both stock and overclocked settings.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Ryzen 7 2700X is more competitive in the Warhammer 40,000 benchmark, largely because this game responds well to threading. But the delta between Core i9 models remains slight.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry 5, GTA: V, Hitman, and Project CARS 2

Far Cry 5

The differences between Intel's processors are slight as we encounter a graphics-imposed bottleneck.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates. This benchmark exposes a slight lead lead for the -9900KF in an overclocked configuration.

Hitman

Slight differences between the two Core i9s boil down to typical run-to-run variance for this benchmark.

Project CARS 2

Although Project CARS 2 is purportedly optimized for threading, clock rates obviously affect this title's frame rates. Intel's per-core performance advantage pays big dividends in this title.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office and Productivity

Adobe Creative Cloud

Even though this suite has a few parallelized workloads, its final score is heavily influenced by the lightly-threaded tasks common in most desktop applications.

Core i9 takes a commanding lead throughout these tests. The Adobe suite is very sensitive to clock rates, so we begin to see more differentiation emerge between the stock and overclocked Core i9 models.

Web Browser

Productivity

The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Other platform-level considerations affect this test as well, including the storage subsystem. The -9900KF does take a slightly more pronounced lead over the standard model. However, these results fall within PCMark's three percent variance.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized. Spreading an extra 200 MHz of frequency across all eight of the -9900KF's cores equates to slightly larger leads using overclocked settings.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding and Compression

Rendering

An extra 200 MHz of headroom provides slight advantages to the -9900KF during the suite of threaded rendering benchmarks, though the gains are predictably slight.

Encoding and Compression

Our threaded compression and decompression metrics work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation. Core i9-9900KF again benefits from its slightly higher overclocked frequencies, but the extra headroom does little to change the competitive positioning.

Core i9-9900K leverages high frequencies to dominate the HandBrake x265 test, which relies heavily on AVX instructions, and the H.264 test. In our prior testing, we were unable to reach a stable overclock on the standard -9900K without a 4.8 GHz offset. But we do receive a nice bump from the steady all-core 5.0 GHz gained from additional tuning.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Conclusion

Intel's F-series processors represent a new tactic for the company as it struggles with an ongoing shortage of 14nm production capacity. These new models lack integrated graphics. And while we're told they are in high demand at silicon-starved OEMs, they'll soon be available at retail, too, though Intel hasn't given a firm date. Unfortunately, the only benefit these defeatured processors offer over the fully-fledged models appears to be availability. Yet, F-series processors are listed for preorder at a premium price. At least for now. Clearly, the lack of value is a big problem for Intel.

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

First, it is obvious that you should only consider this processor if you plan on pairing it with a discrete GPU. Intel's integrated graphics, while wholly unsuitable for AAA gaming, are still incredibly useful for troubleshooting when add-in cards fail.

Aside from the obviously poor value proposition of paying more money (or even the same amount of money) for fewer features, the Core i9-9900KF and Core i9-9900K are largely the same, meaning the newer model doesn't do anything to change the competitive landscape when it comes to performance comparisons. With that said, both CPUs are the fastest you can buy for gaming when you pair them with high-end graphics cards from AMD and Nvidia. They're also highly capable in the threaded workloads that AMD's Ryzen processors used to dominate. Unfortunately, you pay dearly for the extra cores, which most games don't fully utilize. For instance, the Core i7-9700K, even at stock settings, is competitive with the Core i9 models in most titles. And it saves you considerable money in the process.

In the end, the Core i9-9900KF serves up the same impressive performance as Core i9-9900K across our benchmark suite, and may facilitate slightly better overclocking potential. Splave binned a relatively large sample set of 200 Core i9-9900Ks and a smaller pool of five Core i9-9900KFs, finding that a larger percentage of KF models achieved higher frequencies. That anecdotal evidence suggests that Core i9-9900KF could be attractive to overclockers looking for more headroom as they chase records.

As with the Core i9-9900K, the Core i9-9900KF requires expensive accommodations. You need a premium platform with robust power delivery, particularly if you plan on overclocking. The chips can drop into existing Z370 motherboards, but we’re sure that many of them will struggle with the chip’s voracious appetite for current. Also, plan on investing in a high-end PSU and cooling solution.

The Core i9 series has no direct rival on a mainstream platform, at least until AMD's Ryzen 3000 series comes to market. But its high price point dampens our enthusiasm. We don't think the KF series represents a good value, particularly at the currently inflated pricing. However, many enthusiasts will opt for the defeatured processors simply because the standard -9900K isn't available. Like the Core i9-9900K, the KF model does provide the best mixture of single- and multi-threaded performance on the market. Unless it shows up at a lower price point than the complete Core i9-9900K, though, there's no real reason to recommend it.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Intel Core i7-8700K Price Climbs to $400

Zhiye Liu — Tue, 02 Oct 2018 17:58:02 +0000

Amidst the shortage of 14nm Intel processors, major hardware retailers around the U.S. have bumped the Intel Core i7-8700K's price significantly to $400.

Core i7-8700K (Image credit: PCPartPicker)

When the Intel Core i7-8700K first came out a little over a year ago, you could find the processor for $359 - $370, depending on where you lived. However, those days are long gone. With the recent shortage of Intel processors, specifically those that are produced under the 14nm manufacturing process, the Intel Core i7-8700K's price tag has gone up to $400.

Core i5-8400 (Image credit: PCPartPicker)

The Core i5-8400 is another processor that has suffered the same fate as the Core i7-8700K. Retailers have upped the price for the Core i5-8400 from $182 to $225, which represents a 23.6 percent increase.

In response to the shortage of 14nm processors, Intel has delegated some of its 14nm product testing responsibilities to its manufacturing facility in Vietnam. The chipmaker recently revealed its plan to inject $1 billion into its 14nm manufacturing sites in Oregon, Arizona, Ireland and Israel to expand their production capacities.

To Buy or Not to Buy?

So, the million-dollar question is: If you're on the market for a Core i7-8700K, should you pull the trigger now? Well, it depends on how bad you want it. If you want to play the waiting game, Intel's 14nm processor shortage could last until the second half of 2019, according to Martin Wong, president and CEO of ODM Compal Electronics. In the meantime, the Core i7-8700K's price will likely continue to rise. However, there are other viable options if you're willing to switch over to the red team.

AMD Alternatives

The Ryzen 7 2700X is the Core i7-8700K's closest rival. Unlike the Core i7-8700K, the Ryzen 7 2700X's pricing has remained pretty stable, and the octa-core processor is currently available for $300. If productivity is your priority and you can settle for a slightly less gaming performance, the Ryzen 7 2700X is a good candidate for an upgrade or a new build.

Alternatively, the first generation Threadripper 1920X now has a suggested retail price of $400 and is selling on NextWarehouse for $413.72, putting it in the price range of the Core i7-8700K. The Threadripper 1920X gives you twice as much cores and threads as the Core i7-8700K, quad-channel memory support and 64 PCIe lanes. The drawbacks are that X399 motherboards aren't known for being cheap, and with the current prices for memory, you might think twice before buying a quad-channel memory kit.

Falcon Northwest Tiki Review: Small, Powerful and Stylish

Derek Forrest — Thu, 13 Sep 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Introduction and Product Tour

The Falcon Northwest Tiki is back and more powerful than ever. The company didn’t hold back with our review sample’s configuration, cramming an overclocked and liquid-cooled Intel Core i7-8086K processor, 32GB of DDR4-3000 memory and an Nvidia Titan Xp graphics card into a small, custom-designed and painted aluminum chassis. Although this particular configuration is high priced, we enjoyed the craftsmanship, intelligent design and performance that Falcon Northwest put into the Tiki.

Specifications

Processor	Intel Core i7-8086K
Motherboard	Asus ROG Strix Z370-I mini-ITX
Memory	32GB (2 x 16GB) G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3000
Graphics	Nvidia Titan Xp 12GB GDDR5X
Storage Options	1.5TB Intel Optane 905p U.2 PCIe SSD
Optical Drive	DVD-RW
Networking	Intel I219V Gigabit Ethernet; Intel Wireless-AC 3168 802.11ac WiFi + Bluetooth 4.2
Interface	Rear: (1) USB 3.1 Gen1 Type-C, (3) USB 3.1 Gen1 Type-A, (4) USB 2.0, (1) S/PDIFTop: (2) USB 3.1 Gen 1 Type-A
Video Output	Motherboard: (1) DisplayPort 1.3, (1) HDMI 2.0GPU: (3) DisplayPort 1.4, (1) HDMI 2.0
Power Supply	650W Silverstone SFX
Case	Tiki (Custom Designed)
Cooling	Asetek Liquid Cooling 550LC 120mm AIO CPU Cooler
Operating System	Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit
Dimensions	13.5 x 4.0 x 13.3 inches
Other	Exotix Paintwork (+$375), RGB LED Light Strip (Free), CPU Overclock (Free)
Price As Configured	$6,308.00

Exterior

The small form factor (SFF) Tiki chassis is both sturdy and stylish, with an aluminum body and matching base measuring in at 13.5 x 4.0 x 13.3-inches. The case is adorned with Falcon Northwest’s Exotix paint work (in this case, Cloud Red), which adds a hefty $938 to the total bill.

However, this pricing is for the most sophisticated paintwork the company offers (Cloud is a special application, and it looks quite stunning), and single-color applications are available for $375; that is cheaper than paint jobs from some other custom shops. The aesthetic value of a professionally applied finish is worth it for those looking to make their next gaming PC reflect their personal tastes, and Falcon Northwest’s best available paintwork is impressive, albeit expensive.

The left side panel sports a single 120mm vent and acts as the CPU cooler’s exhaust, dispersing the excessive heat of the overclocked CPU from the compact interior (more on that later). The panel also sports a small window on its upper edge that shows off the graphics card (in this case, a TItan Xp). The acrylic plastic window can be styled with a cutout (ours is the Nvidia logo), and is bathed in RGB LED lighting from a strip inside the case.

The top panel has styled ventilation and the I/O consists of two USB 3.1 Gen 1 Type-A ports and microphone and headphone jacks, in addition to illuminated power and reset buttons. Don’t be fooled by the reset button’s design - we hit it thinking it was some kind of cool audio feature (it looks like a pair of headphones), but no, it’s just a reset button.

The backside of the chassis sports the motherboard’s I/O, which consists of a USB 3.1 Gen 1 Type-C, three USB 3.1 Gen1 Type-A and four USB 2.0 ports. There’s also an S/PDIF interface and surround audio jacks, in addition to HDMI 1.4 and DisplayPort 1.3 ports. However, you’ll want to connect your display(s) to the primary GPU’s outputs, which in this case are three DisplayPort 1.4 ports and an HDMI 2.0 port.

Interior

The inside of the Tiki is compact with little space for the powerful hardware under the hood. However, Falcon Northwest crammed a liquid-cooled Intel Core i7-8086K processor on an Asus ROG Strix Z370-I mini-ITX motherboard. Opening the right side (solid) panel, the 120mm AIO CPU cooler is mounted to the panel’s vent, exhausting the heat from the chassis. The cooler itself is of the Asetek variety (a 550LC), and its rubber tubing fits snugly around the pump mounts when you close the case back up thanks to some expert cable/tube management.

A 32GB (2 x 16GB) kit of G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3000 sits in the motherboard's only two DIMM slots, giving this configuration the maximum available memory capacity for the Tiki’s available mainstream platforms (AMD X470 and Intel Z370). However, you can get up to 64GB of memory from a configuration equipped with an X299 mini-ITX motherboard with four SO-DIMM slots (the AsRock X299E-ITX/AC).

The Nvidia Titan Xp 12GB GDDR5X graphics card is mounted in the opposite chamber by way of a riser card, and only the backplate is exposed in the main chamber. The opposite side panel (left side) exposes the blower-style fan intake with an etched acrylic window, which is illuminated by an RGB LED light strip mounted under the GPU.

The 1.5TB Intel 905p U.2 PCIe SSD is mounted to the crossbar of the interior chassis, and although the pricey storage offers a lot of capacity, some gamers may opt for a smaller, less expensive option in the Tiki configurator. There’s no secondary storage for this particular configuration, but there’s room for one 3.5-inch or two 2.5-inch drives, in addition to two M.2 ports on the back of the motherboard (supports PCIe x4) and above the PCIe x16 slot (supports SATA and PCIe x4).

The Tiki’s 600W Silverstone SFX power supply sits under the case’s crossbar. The PSU’s intake fan is exposed to the right side panel’s vent, and the heat is exhausted through the case’s ventilated back panel. The 80 Plus Gold certified PSU matches the recommended wattage of the Titan Xp, and it can handle most any other graphics card currently on the market, including the Titan V and the upcoming GeForce RTX cards.

Software and Accessories

The Falcon Northwest Tiki doesn’t come with any bloatware or trial software, but the company set a few helpful shortcuts (including a link to customer service and a disc eject icon for the DVD-RW drive) on the desktop and installed Asus Aura to control the RGB LED strip. Aside from that, the Windows 10 Pro installation is clean.

The Tiki comes with an impressive welcome package - a Falcon Northwest branded coffee mug (that wouldn't be complete without company-branded coffee), mousepad and leather binder (with all the extra cables and component manuals) are neatly packed in a sleek box, and it's one little detail that we feel goes a long way (other custom shops are not as fancy with their "extras" packaging). We also snooped around the Tiki’s BIOS to see how the company overclocked the already speedy Core i7-8086K. To our delight, Falcon Northwest manually tweaked the core multipliers individually, setting the clockrate to 5.3GHz for single-core and 5.0GHz for dual-core operation.

The CPU will operate at 4.8GHz when engaging more than two cores on up to all six cores (and 12 threads). This is a savvy tweak, and it’s refreshing to see a custom shop fine tune its CPUs on a per-core basis. It’s especially exciting to know that Falcon Northwest overclocks the Tiki free of charge, which is almost unheard of in the custom shop space.

MORE: Best Gaming Desktops

MORE: How To Build A PC

MORE: All PC Builds Content

Synthetic, Productivity and Gaming Benchmarks

We tested the Tiki against the recently reviewed Corsair One Elite, which sports a similar form factor (extremely small) and full-sized desktop components. With its overclocked Core i7-8700K and GeForce GTX 1080 Ti graphics card, it should give you an indication of how much more performance your money would get if you went with a Titan Xp and the faster-clocked anniversary edition Core i7-8080K processor.

Comparison Products

Origin PC Millennium

Acer Predator Orion 9000

Test System Configuration

We also included the data from our Z270 test bench, loaded with an Intel Core i7-7700K processor, 16GB of Kingston HyperX Fury DDR4-2133, and a single EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Black Edition graphics card to see how a single GTX 1080 Ti and older CPU compares against the newer counterparts and the mighty Titan Xp.

Fire Strike & Time Spy

The Tiki starts our test suite with a strong lead against the Corsair One Elite and our reference system in the synthetic 3DMark Fire Strike and Time Spy benchmarks. The Tiki’s higher-clocked CPU and full-board Pascal-based Titan Xp easily outperforms the GTX 1080 Ti-equipped competition, albeit by a small margin.

Cinebench R15

The CPU focused synthetic tests of Cinebench R15 gives the Tiki’s overclocked Core i7-8086K another opportunity to shine. With a single-core clockrate of 5.3GHz, the Tiki outperforms the Corsair One’s i7-8700K, which is set to its default clockrates and Turbo binning (4.7GHz on one core). The Tiki continues this trend in the multi-threaded tests, with all six CPU cores (and 12 threads) hitting 4.8GHz and netting 188.84 points more than its competition.

CompuBench

The Tiki is handed its first loss in the Video Processing portion of the synthetic CompuBench tests, falling behind even our test system. However, the Corsair One Elite also falls behind our test rig in that particular portion of the test and only leads the Tiki by less than 1 FPS. The bitcoin mining test favors the Titan Xp inside the Tiki over the GTX 1080 Ti-equipped contenders, but not by a considerable amount.

Storage Test

The 1.5TB Intel Optane 905P U.2 NVMe SSD easily outperformed the other storage devices inside the Corsair One Elite and our test rig (a 512GB Samsung PM961 M.2 NVMe SSD and a 480GB Kingston HyperX Savage SATA 6GB/s SSD, respectively), especially in random read and write performance (Optane’s staple).

Although we tested the drive at queue depth 2 (QD2 - what we consider to be indicative of an average user’s workloads and tasks), these numbers aren’t in line with Intel’s rated performance (the company rates random read and write performance over 500,000 IOPS) However, applications that use all of the available threads (higher queue depths) to perform storage tasks will certainly get their money’s worth from the over $2,200 component,and will likely hit that advertised performance threshold. However, we wouldn’t recommend configuring a system with this drive unless you absolutely need that level of random storage performance, but even then, the ridiculously high price tag is hard to justify.

Sandra Memory Bandwidth

The Tiki’s 32GB (2 x 16GB) kit of G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3000 has noticeably higher total memory bandwidth than the One Elite’s kit of Corsair Vengeance LP DDR4-2666, which shouldn’t be a surprise given the higher frequency. Most gamers will find a less expensive 16GB kit of memory to be just as potent for their primary workloads..

PCMark 8

Our review sample’s speedy CPU, memory and storage contribute to higher productivity scores in the PCMark 8 application benchmarks, which run canned workloads using legitimate installations of Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative programs. The expensive configuration (a Core i7-8086K, 32GB DDR4-3000, 1.5TB Optane SSD) is certainly no slouch in these workloads.

Gaming Benchmarks

The Falcon Northwest Tiki review sample in our lab easily bested the other PCs in the field with its overclocked CPU and top-end (the very top) Nvidia graphics card.

Configuration Options

The Falcon Northwest Tiki’s tiny footprint and unique design don't come without a price, with default AMD X470, Intel Z370 and X299 configurations starting at $2,492, $2,580, and $3,351, respectively. The mainstream platforms (AMD X470, Intel Z370) support up to 32GB (2 x 16GB) of memory, but the X299-equipped Tiki can house up to 64GB (4 x 16GB) of DDR4 SO-DIMM memory.

The company’s Exotix paintwork starts at $375 for a single color. Special paint mixes called Rain, Flames and Clouds (included on our review sample) will add $688, $750 and $938 to the total, respectively.

Falcon Northwest doesn’t charge for the RGB LED strip or the overclocking. The company stated that although they are happy to overclock the CPU and GPU for their customers upon request, it can add a few days to the build process due to the additional stability testing required before shipping.

The Bottom Line

The Falcon Northwest Tiki is still as awe-inspiring as before, and its small footprint and powerful components make it desirable even for seasoned PC builders. You’d be hard pressed to find a DIY chassis that small that can accommodate everything inside the Tiki, and you’d be even harder pressed to find one with custom paint options quite like this.

We can’t blame the company for equipping our review sample of the Tiki with the absolute best components possible (at least, for the time being, until RTX cards come out) - it easily bested the comparable competition (in size and performance tier) with its Core i7-8086K, Titan Xp graphics card, and 1.5TB Intel Optane 905P SSD (which in itself, adds over $2,200 to the bill). The Tiki’s total price tag looks a lot better without these particular components in it, and Falcon Northwest’s “all or nothing” approach to this configuration is both an advantage (performance) and a detriment (price), and we wouldn’t recommend this particular setup to a gamer.

The CPU overclocking is also available sans service charge - something we’ve haven’t seen from another custom shop PC builder to date. Most companies will charge anywhere from $50 to $100 per component, but Falcon Northwest will overclock your processor (and GPU, upon request) for free so long as you don’t mind waiting a few more days so it can be properly stress tested for stability.

Although the $6,308 configuration of the Tiki in our lab is an out-of-reach purchase for most gamers, it’s a shining example of Falcon Northwest’s PC building acumen, which ranks as high as the benchmark results in our book. We can’t think of too many PC builders that dive into the custom-designed chassis waters, and the Tiki can swim with the other sharks in that ocean with its intelligent design, small footprint, and impressive paintwork. It may not be in everyone’s budget, but the Falcon Northwest Tiki is an incredible custom gaming PC anyone would be proud to own, if they can afford it.

MORE: Best Gaming Desktops

MORE: How To Build A PC

MORE: All PC Builds Content

Asus ROG Strix Z370-G Gaming WI-FI AC Review: Top Micro-ATX Z370 Performance

Thomas Soderstrom — Tue, 11 Sep 2018 13:00:00 +0000

ROG Strix Z370-G Gaming Features

The second Micro-ATX motherboard we’ve tested for Coffee Lake CPU overclocking, the Asus ROG Strix Z370-G Gaming adds SLI capability and improved voltage regulator cooling. Yet, while the same hardware that enables SLI also allows the board to address PCIe x8 storage adapters via CPU lanes, the improved voltage regulator simply wasn’t improved enough to impress in all of our testing. A good value for its enhanced features, we’re slightly disappointed that Core i7-8700K users are forced to add their own fan to the voltage regulator simply to hold a full CPU load over extended periods—even at stock frequencies.

Asus introduced ROG as a premium product line, but the Strix series redefined it with a lower price floor. The focus on things like SLI and overclocking capability remains, along with some semblance of RGB control for show system builders. Asus' ROG Strix Z370-E Gaming has become a great example of that effort since its relatively recent price drop, and we’re happy to see the Micro-ATX-sized Z370-G Gaming brings many of its larger sibling’s features to the table.

Specifications

Socket	LGA 1151
Chipset	Intel Z370
Form Factor	Micro-ATX
Voltage Regulator	10 Phases
Video Ports	DisplayPort 1.2, HDMI 1.4b
USB Ports	10Gbps: 2x Type-A5Gb/s: 4x Type-A, 2x USB 2.0
Network Jacks	1x Gigabit ethernet2x Wi-Fi antenna
Audio Jacks	5x Analog1x Digital out
Legacy Ports/Jacks	1x PS/2
Other Ports/Jack	✗
PCIe x16	2x v3.0 (x16/x0, x8/x8)
PCIe x8	✗
PCIe x4	✗
PCIe x1	2x v3.0
CrossFire/SLI	2x / 2x
DIMM slots	8x DDR4
M.2 slots	1x PCIe v3.0 x4 / SATA3 (consumes SATA port 1)1x PCIe v3.0 x4
U.2 Ports	✗
SATA Ports	6x 6Gb/s (SATA M.2-1, consumes port 1)
USB Headers	1x USB v3.02x USB v2.0
Fan Headers	5x 4-Pin
Legacy Interfaces	Serial Com PortSystem (beep-code) speaker
Other Interfaces	FP AudioThermistor
Diagnostics Panel	✗
Internal Button/Switch	✗ / ✗
SATA Controllers	Integrated (0/1/5/10)
Ethernet Controllers	WGI219V PHY
Wi-Fi / Bluetooth	RTL8822BE 802.11ac 2x2 (867mb/s) / BT 4.2 Combo
USB Controllers	ASM3142 PCIe 3.0 x2
HD Audio Codec	ALC1220
DDL/DTS Connect	✗ / ✗
Warranty	Three years

Even though ATX fanatics constantly berate the Micro-ATX form factor due to a 20-year-old association with low-cost builds, enthusiasts' board designs prove that there’s no reason for these boards to represent a reduction in features compared to ATX. Micro-ATX boards are still 9.6-inches deep, so you get all the space needed for a big voltage regulator (without resorting to riser boards), plus the four DIMMs that Mini-ITX guys often miss out on. Asus even kits the mid-sized Z370-G Gaming with the 867Mb/s Wi-Fi module seen on the board's ATX sibling.

Shoppers who opt for the Micro-ATX version over ATX should theoretically lose only three expansion slots and the few devices that reside in front of those slots. In practice, Asus used a perpendicular slot to retain the same M.2 configuration of its larger boards but gave up completely on RGB LED headers. Onboard lighting moves from the I/O-connector internal cover ATX location, to the PCH sink's ROG logo on the Micro-ATX.

The Z370-G Gaming lacks DVI-D for onboard graphics, unlike its larger sibling, but features two USB 3.0 (aka USB 3.1 Gen1) ports, bringing the total to four. That sounds like a positive swap, considering hardly any performance users will need onboard graphics since the onboard graphics is still addressed by both HDMI and DisplayPort, plus passive HDMI to DVI adapters are cheap. Yet, for reasons we cannot fathom, Asus decided to use two Type-A ports for USB 3.1 Gen2 (10Gb/s), rather than include a Type-C port. Your guess as to why would be better than ours.

A top view shows two 4-pin CPU fan headers aft of the DIMM slots, two more 4-pin connectors at the upper-front and forward-bottom edges, a supposedly special water-pump-rated 4-pin fan header next to the RTC battery, oversized chokes for the CPU voltage regulator, a perpendicular M.2 slot near the center of the front edge and a regular M.2 slot below the second PCIe x16 slot. Asus does not document special amperage capabilities for the water pump header but does rate the CPU fan header at 1A.

A closer look at the Z370-G Gaming’s lower half reveals four ASM1480 two-lane PCIe switches between the two x16-length slots, an 80mm limit for the lower M.2 slot, three pairs of forward-facing SATA ports and a lower edge that includes front-panel audio, two USB 2.0 and one USB 3.0 front-panel headers, a temperature sensor and CLRTC pins, one of the five fan headers and a front-panel combo header that has a standard Intel configuration on the left side. The PCIe switches allow the board to switch from x16/x0 to x8/x8 PCIe lane configuration, the lower M.2 slot adds SATA module support by stealing the pathway from one of the forward-facing ports and the front-panel combo header adds PC speaker and 3-pin-space power LED pins to the right of the standard 9-pin group.

Large support pins on four corners protect both x16-length slots against connector tearing that might otherwise occur during rough handling of a complete build.

Even the lower-budget Strix series gets ROG bonuses, such as a door card, sticker kit, thermistor cable, cable tie pack and a coupon for CableMods.com. Buyers also get the traditional Asus printed manual, a driver and application disc, an I/O shield, four SATA cables (two with a right-angle end), a riser bracket to secure perpendicularly mounted M.2 drives up to 110mm in length, a fan bracket and a CPU installation tool that helps installers set the CPU down without damaging pins. The included fan bracket is designed to hold the builder’s choice of either a 40mm or 50mm fan above the voltage regulator.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

The mobo includes standalone apps, such as Clone Drive, EZ Update, GameFirst IV, RamCache 2 and Sonic Studio. Sonic Studio 3 resembles third-party software SoundBlasterX 720° in that it includes Smart Volume leveling and Voice Clarity boosting capability, and similar comparisons can be made between the GameFirst IV packet prioritization suite and cFosSpeed.

There aren’t any RGB headers, but that doesn’t keep Asus Aura from addressing the PCH sink’s logo lighting. The software is also compatible with most RGB memory lighting.

Asus AI Suite includes the Dual Intelligent Processors 5 automatic tuning suite, TPU automatic overclocking, Turbo App manual overclocking, EPU energy saving schemes, Fan Xpert 4 automatic fan profile configuration, Digi+ VRM, for voltage regulator control, PC Cleaner system utility and an integrated version of Asus EZ Update. As usual, the main menu nags users to click the 5-Way Optimization button for automatic CPU/fan/efficiency tuning.

After optimizing our system four ways through various menus, the system returned a range of 4.8-4.9GHz under relatively moderate loads with up to a 1.4V CPU core. Throttling became a constant issue for our heavier tests, though pinning things down was a little more difficult in a system that automatically manages temperature via clocks and voltage levels.

We might have gotten farther by overclocking the CPU manually, but the software wouldn’t set the fixed voltage levels we picked. We really wanted to know the highest continuous frequency this board can achieve with our Core i7-8700K under a constant, AVX-heavy, 12-thread load. For that, we turned to firmware!

Firmware

The Z370-G Gaming's firmware is set to use its EZ Mode interface by default, though you can change that from the Advanced mode's Boot menu. The simplified GUI allows builders to enable XMP, alter fan settings, change boot order, select one of two programmed overclocks, or start Asus’ EZ Tuning Wizard automatic overclocking.

The first programmed overclock sets a 48x CPU multiplier for up to three cores of load and 47x for four or more cores loaded. The latter sets a more extreme 50x multiplier regardless of load but for one exception: Both engage a 3x multiplier offset (a 300MHz drop) for AVX loads, such as the Prime95 test we used. We retained flexible voltage, but it increased beyond stock levels, with Fast Tuning using a 1.35V core at low loads, which drops to 1.265V under heavy loads, and Extreme Tuning using 1.45V and dropping to 1.35V. Neither of these programmed settings would have been suitable for the thermal throttling limits of our CPU or the motherboard’s voltage regulator if not for the AVX offsets. EZ Tuning Wizard gave us an even more aggressive overclock at 50x 103MHz (5.15GHz) at 1.45V. Prime95 worked in blend mode, but half of its threads crashed under small FFTs.

Clicking the keyboard’s F7 key brings up Advanced Mode, where Ai Tweaker contains nearly every setting imaginable for overclocking both the CPU and DRAM. Keeping XMP enabled requires starting the overclock with Ai Overclock Tuner set to XMP mode. There are also TPU and Load CPU 5G Profile options. TPU-I corresponds to the Fast Tuning settings of EZ Mode, TPU-II corresponds to EZ Mode’s Extreme Tuning and the 5G Profile runs at a fixed 50X multiplier using approximately 1.42V at the CPU core…until Prime95 crashes.

The continuous stress stability limit for our CPU is defined by its ability to expel heat, going up to 4.85GHz on certain boards using a 1.3V core setting. The Z370-G Gaming got us close to that limit at 4.8GHz. We also observed that the board’s 1.3398V DRAM voltage setting produced 1.352V at the slots. We used that to remain within our “keep it fair” 1.355V test ceiling.

Between its full set of DRAM timings and submenus for Skew Control, RTL IOL Control and Memory Training Algorithms, users who love to tweak memory should be fully satisfied with the Z370-G Gaming’s available settings.

We got our highest stable frequency using the Z370-G Gaming’s Level 6 CPU Load-line Calibration setting, where our desired 1.3V dropped only to 1.29V. It’s Level 7 setting pushed us to 1.33V, where our CPU thermal throttled while using the highest available wattage and amperage limits to avoid power-limit throttling. Additional settings for advanced users include fine controls for DRAM Reference Voltage.

In addition to the graphical fan control interface available by pressing the keyboard’s F6 key, table-style fan settings are available from the bottom of the system monitor menu. All five headers can be switched between PWM and voltage-based control, though settings for the two CPU headers are paired.

Tools include a firmware update mode that can use either a USB flash drive or an internet connection, Secure Erase for SSDs that have this capability, onboard storage for up to eight custom firmware configurations as user profiles (plus USB flash drive profile transfer ability), SPD (serial presence detect) information that reveals additional memory programming details and a PCIe connections map for graphics cards.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

We stacked the Z370-G Gaming against another Micro-ATX Z370 board, ASRock's Z370M Pro4. Realizing that the difference in features and price would make such a limited comparison pointless, we also included two ATX boards with similar feature sets, the MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC and Asus ROG Strix Z370-E Gaming.

Sound	Integrated HD audio
Network	Integrated gigabit networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

During the Intel X299 launch, we upgraded our test bed to handle the tremendous heat the Intel Core i9-7900X produces. The award-winning Fractal Design S24 liquid cooler system serves the same purpose for the newer, lower-heat Core i7-8700K. Cooler Master’s HAF-XB provides an optimal layout for blowing the S24’s fans sufficiently over each motherboard’s voltage regulator.

Comparison Products

Asus ROG Strix Z370-G Gaming

ASRock Z370M Pro4

MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC

All four competing boards have a broader range of overclocking settings than any production hardware can realistically use, which should lead us into a highly competitive overclocking race!

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks & Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4K Random Read, 4K Random Write128K Sequential Read, 128K Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests & Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19GB 4K mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0, 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests & Settings
*Ashes of the Singularity*	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920 x 1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920 x 1080, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
*F1 2015*	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi track, RainMedium Preset, no AFUltra High Preset, 16x AF
*Metro: Last Light Redux*	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920 x 1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920 x 1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
*The Talos Principle*	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

Like many Asus boards, the Z370-G Gaming set an unrealistically low default power limit for our Core i7-8700K, causing Intel’s Extreme Tuning Utility to report power limit throttling when using Prime95 at default CPU settings. Extensive CPU tests, such as Sandra Arithmetic, were also below performance expectations by around 10 percent. Setting Turbo Boost Power Max to Unlimited in XTU resolved the issue temporarily, so we went back to the Ai Tweaker firmware menu, selected the Internal CPU Power Management submenu and maximized the Long Duration and Short Duration power limits there.

Synthetic Benchmarks

The Strix Z370-G Gaming appeared TO miss a beat in 3D Mark’s Graphics test at Higher settings. We reloaded the graphics driver and saw no improvement, but real-world gaming tests are far more important.

Better memory bandwidth gave the Z370-G Gaming (as well as the ROG Strix Z370-E Gaming) a bump in Sandra Cryptography.

The Z370-G Gaming's GPU performance issue thought to have been revealed in 3DMark was squashed in Compubench.

Now let’s take a look at those real-world games!

3D Games

Ashes of the Singularity showed that there isn’t a noticeable graphics performance deficit at super-high detail levels, and the Z370-G Gaming even won the benchmark at lower settings.

Meanwhile, the board’s high memory bandwidth also pushed it through F1 2015.

The ROG Strix Z370-G Gaming plowed through Metro: Last Light Redux and The Talos Principle without issue. Speaking of issues, the Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC’s Nahimic audio solution is Talos-capable; you can see the overhead in the chart above (its original chart shows how far performance climbed with Nahimic disabled).

Timed Applications

Concerns about the Z370-G Gaming’s slightly lower GPU score in 3DMark continued into the Blender GPU test, where we found a performance deficit of just under one percent. Photoshop performance was also down.

Power, Heat and Efficiency

The Z370-G Gaming drew slightly greater power under full CPU load compared to its sibling, the Z370-E Gaming. More concerning is that we couldn’t even keep that extreme Prime95 load running long enough to get a full thermal reading, since the voltage regulator initiated its own thermal-throttling (even with CPU Load-line calibration lowered from Auto to Default). Thus, we had to add a fan to the voltage regulator before commencing our overclocking evaluation.

Overclocking

With a 4.8GHz CPU clock, the Z370-G Gaming outpaced the other Micro-ATX sample, ASRock’s Z370M Pro4. Both boards had thermal issues when using nothing more than case fans to cool the voltage regulator and were fitted with a secondary fan to eliminate those issues, but only the Z370-G Gaming had a heat sink on both its rear and to regulators' banks. Only the ATX-sized Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC was able to reach our CPU’s full 4.85GHz overclocking potential, but the Z370-G Gaming made up ground with a higher DRAM O/C.

Asus outpaced competitors in maximum (overclocked) DRAM bandwidth, though the ATX board edged out the Micro-ATX.

Final Analysis

Raw performance-per-dollar doesn’t mean much to people looking for extra features and controllers, and even a size-to-size comparison between the Micro-ATX boards from Asus and ASRock doesn’t make much sense from a features perspective. The most similar feature set to the ROG Strix Z370-G Gaming comes from MSI’s Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC, since Asus' ROG Strix Z370-E Gaming adds a second USB 3.1 Gen2 controller. Meanwhile, the AsRock Z370M Pro4 is simply cheap, from both a price and features perspective.

Saving nearly $20 compared to its fellow Asus ATX rival, the Z370-G Gaming shows a slight value improvement over similarly equipped ATX boards.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

ASRock Z370M Pro4 Review: A Z370 Value?

Thomas Soderstrom — Mon, 03 Sep 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Features & Specifications

Enthusiasts seeking the biggest bang for their performance buck now have an overclockable Z370 motherboard option for about the same price as the locked-down H370. But there are a few catches, beginning with overclocking limits that are imposed by a thermal-throttling voltage regulator, extending to the board’s lack of CPU PCIe bifurcation, and ending with the lack of USB 3.1 Gen 2 capability. That last feature is integrated into the newer H370 chipset, but the extra chip required to extend the feature to Z370 was, apparently, simply too expensive to include at this price level.

Specifications

Socket	LGA 1151
Chipset	Intel Z370
Form Factor	Micro-ATX
Voltage Regulator	10 Phases
Video Ports	VGA, DVI-D, HDMI 1.4
USB Ports	10Gb/s: ✗; 5Gb/s: (4) Type A, (1) Type-C; (1) USB 2.0
Network Jacks	Gigabit ethernet
Audio Jacks	(3) Analog
Legacy Ports/Jacks	(2) PS/2
Other Ports/Jack	✗
PCIe x16	(2) v3.0 (x16/x4)
PCIe x8	✗
PCIe x4	✗
PCIe x1	(2) v3.0
CrossFire/SLI	2x / ✗
DIMM slots	(4) DDR4
M.2 slots	(1) PCIe 3.0 x4 / SATA (consumes SATA port 0)(1) PCIe 3.0 x4
U.2 Ports	✗
SATA Ports	(6) 6Gb/s (Ports 0/1, 4/5 shared w/M.2)
USB Headers	(2) v3.0(3) v2.0
Fan Headers	(3) 4-Pin(1) 3-Pin
Legacy Interfaces	Serial COM Port, Parallel LPT Port
Other Interfaces	FP-Audio, TPM
Diagnostics Panel	✗
Internal Button/Switch	✗ / ✗
SATA Controllers	Integrated (0/1/5/10)
Ethernet Controllers	WGI219V PHY
Wi-Fi / Bluetooth	✗
USB Controllers	✗
HD Audio Codec	ALC892
DDL/DTS Connect	✗
Warranty	3 Years

Features & Layout

With a sub-$130 pricetag, ASRock’s Z370M Pro4 overclockable motherboard is in the same pricing territory as locked-down boards based around the lesser H370 chipset.

We’re not dissuaded by the board’s Micro-ATX form factor either, as it provides the same space around the CPU socket as ATX-sized boards. We still see two PCIe x16 slots, just as we’d find on a big board, and only one of those is connected to CPU lanes, just as we’d find on a budget ATX board. Note that Micro-ATX can support SLI, but low-cost Micro-ATX boards do not.

Other noteworthy economizations include the lack of any USB 3.1 Gen 2 controllers, which are typically found on Z370 boards priced over $150. We instead find the proper color codes for the newer USB standard connecting a Type-A and a Type-C port to Gen 1 pathways. The other three blue ports are also Gen 1 (aka USB 3.0), the single black port is USB 2.0, and the only remaining I/O shortcomings are in the three analog audio jacks connected to an older ALC892 codec. Fans of the newer H370 chipset will point out that USB 3.1 Gen 2 is a free feature of the newer part, while fans of older keyboards and mice will be happy to see a PS/2 port for each.

Placing the second x16-length slot at the bottom of a Micro-ATX board typically requires builders who want to use CrossFire to use a five-slot case (the Micro-ATX standard is four), but we doubt anyone will want to run that second card from the slots' mere four chipset-connected lanes. The spacing would be better for installing a two-drive M.2 adapter, but that PCH-based x4 connection kills that option as well. Those types of options require PCIe lane switches that would have pushed the board’s price well past its target market: low-budget gamers and tinkerers. Regarding gamers, the presence of a double-slot graphics card will also prevent anything from being installed in the upper PCIe x1 slot.

Z370M Pro4 buyers still get two NVMe M.2 slots, and one of those also supports legacy SATA drives. Installing one of those legacy drives will disable one of the SATA ports, and therein lies the only shared port exclusion. Cheapskates will note that pricier boards are typically loaded with either/or interfaces due to the Z370’s 30 HSIO (high-speed input/output) pathway limitation.

A front-panel audio header placed about an inch forward from the traditional bottom-rear corner location eases cable management with certain cases. In front of that are legacy COM and LPT ports, a TPM header, two USB 2.0 ports, an undocumented BIOS_PH header and an industry-standard front-panel button/LED header. Moving up from there is a combo header for a legacy beep-code speaker and Chassis Intrusion button, a CLR_CMOS jumper, the lower (non-SATA) M.2/NVMe slot, four forward-facing and two outward-facing SATA ports and two USB 3.0 front-panel headers. The USB 3.0 headers and outward-facing SATA ports are above the top PCIe slot to assure proper connector-to-card clearance.

Z370M Pro4 installation hardware includes only two SATA cables, an I/O shield and a pair of screws for M.2 drives. ASRock also includes a printed user manual, installation disc with another copy of the user manual and a case badge.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

ASRock AppShop remains the download point for most of the firm's applications, and the installation DVD installed it only with ARock’s “Restart to UEFI” boot shortcut. We cropped extras, including shortcuts to freeware and a trial for Norton Security, out of our screenshot for scale.

ASRock A-Tuning still requires users to load a Turbo profile to access its auto-tuning algorithm, which reached a mere 4.5GHz by using an exceptionally high Load-Line Calibration setting from firmware to boost voltage from 1.22 volts (V) to 1.28V under heavy loads. Auto-tuning differs from the firmware’s 4.5GHz preset by not having any offset for AVX loads, which otherwise drops our CPU to 4.3GHz when running Prime95.

Manual tuning is another option available on the A-Tuning software, and we verified changes in multiplier, base clock and core voltage worked immediately. The System Info tab also worked well for the most part, though the program misreported both our DRAM data rate and voltage.

Firmware

Z370M Pro4 firmware opens by default to its EZ Mode interface, where settings are limited to XMP enablement, boot order, fan settings, an EZ OC setting equivalent to the board’s Turbo 4.5GHz profile and a Tools menu that presents firmware uploading, firmware downloading and fan adjustment submenus.

Clicking the F6 keyboard function key switches UEFI to its Advanced Mode GUI, whereupon advanced users can choose it as their default GUI by selecting Advance Mode near the bottom of the Advanced menu.

ASRock OC Tweaker provides factory-programmed overclocking profiles from 4.5GHz to 4.8GHz at default to 1.39V CPU core. All of the factory overclocks use AVX offsets that drop the CPU frequency to 4.3GHz, regardless of the voltage used.

Normally capable of 4.8GHz at 1.30V, our CPU was only completely stable at frequencies up to 4.6GHz on the Z370M Pro4. Rather than crashing Prime95 threads, the board allowed our least-stable core to drop its load level to less than 10% when its frequency was pushed any further.

Improved performance is the point of overclocking, but the Z370M Pro4 used such slow advanced memory settings as to reduce performance whenever we increased its data rate beyond XMP specification. That’s not a big problem for our DDR4-3866, but anyone hoping to push cheaper modules extra hard might end up in a performance hole.

While the board’s overclocking profiles sets Load-Line Calibration to its Level 2 setting, we found the Level 3 setting stayed far closer to our intended 1.30V CPU core setting when we applied heavy software loads. The board also added 22 millivolts to any DRAM voltage we picked, forcing us to choose its 1.330V setting to maintain testing consistency.

ASRock’s Advanced Mode GUI adds UEFI Tech Service to its Tools menu, which allows users to send email directly to ASRock tech support from firmware. Reading the response will require the user to access their email from an actual client, however.

In addition to the Fan-Tastic Tuning menu’s sliders, uses can create custom temperature-to-RPM (revolutions per minute) fan slopes using math. The Z370M Pro4’s four fan headers include one 3-pin with voltage control and four PWM without voltage control, as providing both modes to every fan header would have increased the board’s cost.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

As the cheapest Z370 board we've tested, the Z370M Pro4 has a natural pricing advantage against the second, third and fourth cheapest boards we've tested (we're excluding Mini-ITX size motherboards in that statement.)

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Back during the Intel X299 launch, we upgraded our test bed to handle the tremendous heat produced by the Intel Core i9-7900X. The award-winning Fractal Design S24 liquid cooler system serves the same purpose for the newer, lower-heat Core i7-8700K. Cooler Master’s HAF-XB provides an optimal layout to blow the S24’s fans sufficiently over each motherboard’s voltage regulator.

Comparison Products

ASRock Z370M Pro4

MSI Z370 Tomahawk

Asus Prime Z370-A

All four competing boards have a broader range of overclocking settings than any production hardware can realistically use, which should lead us into a highly competitive overclocking race!

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks & Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4K Random Read, 4K Random Write128K Sequential Read, 128K Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests & Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19GB 4K mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0, 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests & Settings
Ashes of the Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1,920x1,080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1,920x1,080, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, RainMedium Preset, No AFUltra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

Since we’re using the same hardware on all boards, cheating is the only way to get a big performance advantage. Improper configurations are the primary cause for performance deficits. Nearly every manufacturer cheats in the same ways today, using higher-than-stock TDP (thermal design power) limits to avoid power throttling and “Enhanced” Intel Turbo Boost ratios to lock in the highest frequency spec, even though the processor is designed to boost less under heavy loads. We disabled these manufacturer-applied enhancements during our performance benchmarks and power tests, so that the only noticeable differences between brands are generally limited to memory performance.

Synthetic Benchmarks

A “perfect” benchmark set would be completely boring, and synthetics are the best way to identify how any specific component is deviating from that norm.

The stand-out performer in our synthetic test was Asus’ costlier Prime Z370-A; the places it stood out best were Sandra Cryptography and Sandra Memory Bandwidth. Bandwidth affects Cryptography scores, and the Prime Z370-A appeared to use tighter advanced memory settings to boost both.

3D Games

The Z370M Pro4 bounced back and forth between second and third place throughout our gaming tests, which makes this cheaper board look like a great deal to performance bargain hunters.

Timed Applications

Less time means more performance when you’re waiting for a task to finish, and the Z370M Pro4 swung from first to last place across several benchmarks; however, the margin of victory in these benchmarks is too narrow for almost anyone to notice.

Power, Heat & Efficiency

The Z370M Pro4’s true weakness was revealed in our power test, where we weren’t able to run it longer than 20 minutes at stock settings before the board tripped its voltage-regulator thermal throttling trigger. That means the temperatures shown aren’t final, though the power numbers should be extremely close to their peaks.

MSI’s Z370 Tomahawk spoiled our efficiency chart by holding the CPU closer to Intel’s factory TDP spec than its competitors. We could have gotten similar numbers on the Z370M Pro4 by simply reporting the power reading when it ran in limp-along mode at roughly 70% duty-cycle after thermal throttling kicked in, but that type of intentional concession seems even less fair.

Overclocking

The Z370M Pro4 reached only 4.6GHz, and we even had to add an extra fan over the voltage regulator to get that frequency since it was hitting the voltage regulator’s throttle point even while testing at stock settings. Meanwhile, the MSI Z370 Tomahawk pushed our CPU past its 4.80GHz overclocking norm to 4.84GHz. And while that doesn’t sound like much of an accomplishment, any gain here is hard-won.

Final Analysis

Budget buyers will want to see a chart that proves that they’re getting more than their money’s worth with the cheapest board, and that’s easy to show when considering only the price and performance.

Unfortunately, those types of comparisons don’t count features or overclocking. Even the second-cheapest board, MSI’s Z370 Tomahawk, adds a USB 3.1 Gen 2 controller. And all the boards above that allow CPU PCIe bifurcation, boosting the second slot to eight lanes by knocking the first slot down to eight lanes. That advancement in turn allowed the Asus Prime Z370-A and AsRock Z370 Extreme4 to get SLI licenses, and users could alternatively put CPU-connected storage into those slots, even adding a pair of NVMe drives via an x8 slot adapter. But those expensive configuration options miss the point of the Z370M Pro4, which is to be the least-expensive Z370 option.

The biggest problem for the Z370M Pro4 is that it wouldn’t allow us to run extended Prime95 power tests on our Core i7-8700K, even at stock settings. Of course, it should support great overclocking on a lesser processor, and the most appropriate model for that would probably be the Core i3-8350K. Yet, that processor wastes the chipset’s ability to support memory beyond DDR4-2666. Then again, base clock overclocking could push DDR4-3600 out of the 8350K’s DDR4-2400 limit.

That kind of give and take limits our recommendation of the Z370M Pro4 to owners of the Core i3-8350K, since power limits seem too restrictive for higher, unlocked CPU models. Anyone not overclocking could instead take advantage of the H370 chipset's integrated USB 3.1 Gen 2 capability, and anyone wanting to overclock a better processor should be looking for a better board.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Origin PC EON15-X Gaming Laptop Review: High Performance, Higher Price

Alexander Quejado — Thu, 05 Jul 2018 01:00:00 +0000

Introduction and Product Tour

If you’re looking for an enthusiast desktop replacement for a laptop, then the Origin PC EON15-X should be on your radar. It packs a desktop Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 and Intel Core i7-8700K into its 1.5-inch thick chassis. Its weight and price, however, may have you thinking twice.

Specifications

Display	15.6-inch FHD (1920x1080) IPS, G-Sync
CPU	Intel Core i7-8700K
Graphics	Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 8GB GDDR5X
Memory	16GB DDR4-2800MHz
SSD	512GB M.2 SSD
HDD	2TB SSHD
Optical	N/A
Networking	Killer Wireless-AC 1535Killer E2400 LAN
Video Ports	HDMI 2.0Mini DisplayPort 1.4 x 2
USB Ports	Thunderbolt 3 over Type-CUSB 3.1 Type-CUSB 3.0 x 3USB 2.0
Audio	Integrated High-Definition Audio powered by Sound Blaster Xfi MB5 w/ external 7.1 supportAudio-in jack x 2Audio-out jack x 2
Camera	Built-in 2.0M FHD Video Camera
Battery	82Wh
Power Adapter	330W
Operating System	Windows 10 Pro
Dimensions	15.2 x 10.3 x 1.5 inches
Weight	7.5 pounds
Other	Customizable backlit keyboard with three lighting zonesFingerprint readerMedia card readerKensington Lock
Price (as configured)	$3,512

Exterior

In typical, high-end gaming fashion, the Origin PC EON15-X looks like the type of system you would see at a LAN party. It’s big, robust, aggressive and everyone will know that it packs a ton of power as soon as you carry it into the room with you. However, its looks definitely aren’t for everyone.

The top cover features a rubberized surface in black. That material is a lot easier to clean smudges and stains from than metal surfaces and it gives the EON15-X a more premium feel than a typical matte or glossy plastic surface. On the other hand, the rubberized surface is more prone to scratches. The Origin PC logo is painted in the center, and two accented angles border the edges.

The deck uses the same rubberized finish as the top cover.

The bottom panel looks fairly plain. There are plenty of air intake cutouts for the cooling fans spread around the rear half of the panel. The only things that stand out are the rubber feet near the front and on the corners

The EON15-X is 15.2 inches long, 1.5 inches thick and weighs pounds lbs, so it’s bigger and heavier than many. With its size and components, the EON15-X is meant to be a desktop replacement that sees occasional travel at most, rather than something you carry daily.

You’ll find enough I/O ports to suit most of your needs, including VR headset support. On the left side you’ll find a Gigabit Ethernet port, Thunderbolt 3, USB Type-C, two USB 3.0 ports and a multi-card reader. On the right there are two audio-in jacks, two audio-out jacks, a USB 2.0 port, another USB 3.0 port and a Kensington lock. Finally, the back features an HDMI port and two Mini DisplayPorts.

Display

The Origin PC EON15-X features a 15.6-inch Full HD 1920x1080 matte IPS display with Nvidia G-Sync, which synchronizes the display and the GPU to prevent screen tearing. Our EON15-X’s display came pre-calibrated by Origin PC and has sharp contrasts and vibrant colors, although the calibration profile slightly dims the brightness.

Input Devices

The EON15-X contains a full-length keyboard with a number pad. The keys have a shallow concave that hugs on your fingertips, and the keycaps have a white translucent font for RGB lighting to shine through. However, we found key spacing to be rather cramped, and some keys such as “Right Shift” and “Num 0” are shortened, which can be uncomfortable to type with.

The touchpad is divided into one slate on the top plus left and right clicks on the bottom. The slate has a smooth matte finish which provides excellent tracking, but it has a slight amount of surface drag. The left and right buttons have a satisfying bumpy feedback.

On the top left of the touchpad you’ll find a fingerprint scanner, which you can use to log in with Windows Hello.

Interior

Upgrading the EON15-X’s internals is simple thanks to the bottom cover’s compartmentalization. On the left are two switches keeping the 82Wh lithium ion battery in place; unlocking it will pop the battery right out.

To the right, you’ll find a plate secured to the bottom panel with two screws. Removing them lets you slide the plate forward, revealing an M.2 slot on the left and two SATA slots in the middle and on the right.

A third plate spans the entire rear half on the bottom panel. Remove one screw in the middle and four screws in the rear to take the panel off. Underneath, you’ll find another M.2 slot on the left and two DDR4 memory slots on the right. Two more memory slots are hidden on the other side of the motherboard, and will require more disassembly to access. The rest of the interior consists of the EON15-X’s cooling solution.

MORE: Best Gaming Laptops

MORE: Gaming Laptop Previews

MORE: All Laptop Content

Synthetic Benchmarks

The Origin PC EON15-X may be a laptop, but it has desktop-grade components. It’s equipped with an Intel Core i7-8700K CPU, an Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 GPU, 16GB of DDR4-2800 memory, a 512GB M.2 SSD and a 2TB SSHD.

The closest comparison we have to the EON15-X is the Aorus X7 DT v7, which also has a GTX 1080, as well as a Core i7-7820HK, 16GB of DDR4-2400 memory, a 512GB M.2 SSD and a 1TB HDD. It stands out because of its 17.3-inch QHD (2560x1440) display, which has a 120Hz refresh rate and G-Sync.

Just beneath the Aorus, we have the Acer Predator Triton 700. It features a GTX 1080 with Max-Q Design, an i7-7700HQ, 32GB of DDR4-2400 memory and a 512GB M.2 SSD. Its display is a 15.6-inch FHD matte IPS display with G-Sync. It’s the highest-end Max-Q laptop in this roundup and falls within the same price range as the EON15-X.

The lowest-end we compared the Origin to is the Digital Storm Equinox. It comes equipped with an i7-88750H, a Max-Q GTX 1070, 16GB of DDR4-2400 memory and a 500GB M.2 SSD. Its FHD matte IPS display offers a smooth 144Hz refresh rate.

Aorus X7 DT v7

Acer Predator Triton 700

AVADirect PA71HS-G

3DMark

The Origin PC EON15-X has the most powerful configuration in the 3DMark benchmark, so it comes as no surprise as the winner in both the graphical and physics-based tests. It exhibits particularly impressive physics scores because of its i7-8700K CPU; the runner up is the Digital Storm Equinox, thanks to the i7-8750H.

Cinebench R15

The EON15-X delivers top-of-the-line performance in both CPU and GPU-based tests. It outperforms the Equinox and X7 by 26 percent and 78 percent respectively. Meanwhile, it’s the only laptop which surpasses 200 FPS in the OpenGL shading test.

CompuBench

Compubench has a platform-based video processing test and a GPU-bound Bitcoin Mining test.

The EON15-X doesn’t exhibit as great of an advantage in video processing; the Aorus keeps up relatively well, only lagging behind the EON15-X by about 10 percent. The performance gap widens in Bitcoin Mining thanks to the EON15-X’s desktop processor.

IOMeter

We perform an IOmeter test on each laptop’s primary drive to measure basic random and sequential read and write speeds. The laptops contain the following storage solutions:

Acer Aspire Predator Triton - SK Hynix Canvas S300 256GB x 2 RAID 0
Aorus X7 DT v7 - Samsung SM951 512GB
Digital Storm Equinox - Samsung 960 EVO 500GB
Origin PC EON15-X Samsung 970 Pro - 512GB

The Origin PC EON15-X’s 512GB 970 Pro delivers outstanding 4K random (QD2) speeds. At first glance, it appears as if the Triton 700’s RAID configuration is faster,but that’s only in read speeds. The 970 Pro has only slightly slower read speeds but much faster write speeds. This ensures that the EON15-X can run small application-based tasks easily.

128K speed scores illustrate the same story. While the 970 Pro is only slightly slower than the Triton 700 RAID 0’s read speeds, it’s faster in write speeds. This means that the EON15-X will be able to open large files like music and movies only slightly slower than the Triton 700, but it’ll be able to create such files faster.

PCMark 8

We use PCMark 8’s Microsoft Office and Adobe creative tests to simulate a common workload. These tasks are platform-based, so systems with powerful CPUs and fast storage solutions perform best.

A good mix of CPU power and storage speeds will determine your system’s ranking, and the EON15-X offers both. It boasts the highest score Adobe Creative and Microsoft Office scores in our roundup, thanks to its desktop i7-8700K and snappy Samsung 970 Pro. If you want a laptop which delivers great editing potential, the EON15-X will definitely be an attractive option.

MORE: Best Gaming Laptops

MORE: Gaming Laptop Previews

MORE: All Laptop Content

Gaming Benchmarks

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation is an incredibly GPU-intensive title, so only the most powerful systems will be able to maintain 60 FPS here. The EON15-X just barely manages 60 frames per second thanks to its GTX 1080, while the Equinox fell behind.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V is a staple in our benchmark suite because its multiple scenes offer varying levels of stress testing. The EON15-X tops the charts yet again and consistently delivers over 60 fps. The only exception is during the Vinewood Sign scene, which stresses even the most powerful laptops due to its distant object and landscape rendering.

Hitman

Hitman is our go-to gaming benchmark for CPU testing. Sure enough, the EON15-X’s i7-8700K scored first place, boasting a 17 percent performance lead over the Aorus X7 and its i7-7820HK. The lower end systems in this roundup still perform well, maintaining over 60 fps on average across the board.

Middle-earth: Shadow of War

Middle-earth: Shadow of War is a relatively easy title to run. The Digital Storm Equinox maintained well above 60 fps with ease, so anything higher than a Max-Q GTX 1070 will deliver great frame rates. For the EON15-X, this is just extra insurance.

Rise of the Tomb Raider

Rise of the Tomb Raider is one of the most demanding games out there right now, so it’s an ideal title for laptop benchmarking. It features a GPU-intensive workload. Sure enough, the EON5-X and X7 score neck-to-neck due to their GTX 1080s. Only a GTX 1080 will maintain 60 fps at maximum settings.

The Division

The Division features a platform-based workload. The EON15-X and X7 are nearly head-to-head, with the former taking a 4 percent lead over the latter due to its desktop CPU. All of the laptops in this roundup can run over 60 fps comfortably.

MORE: Best Gaming Laptops

MORE: Gaming Laptop Previews

MORE: All Laptop Content

Thermal and Battery Tests

Battery Test - Tomb Raider 2013 Battery Rundown

To test battery life, we set each laptop’s battery profile to Balanced while running Tomb Raider’s built-in benchmark at the lowest detail preset. The frame rate is locked at 30 fps through GeForce Experience’s Battery Boost to limit strain on the battery. Meanwhile, a script running in the background monitors and time stamps the system’s battery percentage. The laptops are set to hibernate once battery levels reach 5 percent. We test the battery life at 200 nits.

The Origin PC EON15-X is equipped with an impressively large 82Wh battery, which is the second largest battery in this roundup. The biggest is the Aorus X7 DT v7’s 94.24Wh battery.

Unfortunately, the EON15-X’s power hungry desktop processor and GPU drains the battery with reckless abandon. The other laptops all supercede the EON15-X because of their components don’t require nearly as much power.

Thermal Testing

We use our Optris PI 640 infrared camera to measure the laptop’s thermals. To complement our thermal images, we take the average and maximum temperature from GPU-Z’s thermal log. For more information about how we test, be sure to check out our Measurement Science article.

The EON15-X eschews thinness and portability for cooling potential. At idle, the GPU heatsink hits 41.6° C, but only rises to 56° C after a 15 minute Furmark test. The extra thickness allows for larger, more powerful fans that can cool even a desktop CPU and GPU comfortably.

MORE: Best Gaming Laptops

MORE: Gaming Laptop Previews

MORE: All Laptop Content

Price Analysis and Conclusion

Versus the Competition

The Origin PC EON15-X is the first laptop we’ve tested with a desktop-class Coffee Lake CPU. It delivers outstanding performance across the board thanks to the Intel Core i7-8700K. However, with its desktop-class internals, fast storage solution and premium packaging experience, our EON15-X comes out to $3,512, which is well out of range of many gamer’s budgets.

The closest comparison to the EON15-X is the Aorus X7 DT v7 due to its GTX 1080. In most cases, its mobile i7-7820HK doesn’t hold a candle to the i7-8700K. However, in GPU-intensive games like Rise of the Tomb Raider or Grand Theft Auto V, the Aorus comes within range of Origin’s laptop.. It also has both a higher display resolution and faster refresh rate. Finally, it can be found $2,600, or nearly $1,000 cheaper than the EON15-X.

Next up is the Acer Predator Triton 700, which features the GTX 1080 Max-Q. It’s much thinner than the EON15-X at 0.7 inches thick, but it loses out on quite a bit of performance, especially in thermal dissipation. Perhaps the biggest drawback is the price, as the Triton 700 can be found for $2,800, making it $200 more expensive than the Aorus while offering nowhere near as much performance.

If you’re looking for a thin-and-light gaming machine. A great alternative is the Digital Storm Equinox. The configuration we tested runs for $1,875, measures 0.7 inches thin and weighs only 4.4 pounds. It’s the lowest performer in this roundup, but its allure stems from its portability and price.

Bottom Line

The Origin PC EON15-X is an outstanding machine that packs desktop power into a laptop. Its impressive performance stems from its desktop internals, lightning-fast Samsung 970 Pro and adequate cooling solution. But it’s too big to be a machine that you can bring with you on a daily basis. Even if you do carry it around, the battery won’t last you long.

All things considered, the Origin PC EON15-X is one of the most powerful laptops we’ve tested thus far. Those with deep pockets and a desire for desktop specs will enjoy it thoroughly, but it’s a big investment.

MORE: Best Gaming Laptops

MORE: Gaming Laptop Previews

MORE: All Laptop Content

The Core i7-8086K Review: 40 Years Of x86

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Intel Core i7-8086K 40th Anniversary Model

Intel's 8086, the company's first processor to use its ubiquitous x86 instruction set architecture, debuted on June 8, 1978. Forty years later and by some stroke of fortuitous timing, Intel's desktop CPU portfolio is loaded with eighth-generation Core processors. So it was only fitting, then, that after a bit of prodding by a well-known chip analyst, Intel announced that it'd pay homage to the 8086 with a 40th-anniversary limited-edition Core i7-8086K.

Core i7-8086K is based on the same Coffee Lake architecture as Core i7-8700K, right down to its six Hyper-Threaded cores able to work on 12 threads concurrently. But it features a higher base frequency and more aggressive Turbo Boost bins, which tell us that Intel carefully picked out the best dies to use in these chips. This is the first Intel processor to ship with a 5 GHz Turbo Boost bin, matching AMD's record with the FX-9590. And if you're only looking at clock rate, the -8086K represents a 1000x multiplication of the original 8086's 5 MHz frequency.

Incidentally, the -8086K is also Intel's first six-core processor with a 4 GHz base frequency, though that specification isn't as eye-catching.

Intel kicked off its anniversary celebration with a giveaway of 8086 Core i7-8086Ks. If you didn't win one, you'll have to purchase the processor like we did. Your window of opportunity won't be large, though: our sources confirm a production run of just 50,000 units. We expect collector's items to sport premium pricing, and Intel doesn't disappoint in that department. As of this writing, the -8086K sells for $75 more than the once-flagship Core i7-8700K.

So what is this processor's appeal, other than the obvious nostalgia? Core i7-8086K comes from a higher-quality bin than Core i7-8700K, so enthusiasts with deep pockets can expect to receive the very best example of Coffee Lake silicon available. Of course, most folks won't consider the extra $75 worth paying for moderate gains at stock clock rates. But again, this is a limited-edition piece of hardware steeped in history.

Intel Core i7-8600K

The 6C/12T Core i7-8086K is manufactured on Intel's 14nm++ process, just like its other Coffee Lake CPUs. Like the company's Core i7-8700K, its 95W Core i7-8086K also features 13MB of L3 cache, support for up to 64GB of dual-channel memory at DDR4-2666, an unlocked multiplier to facilitate overclocking, and Intel's integrated UHD Graphics 630 engine that can boost up to 1.2 GHz. For more information about the Coffee Lake architecture, check out our Core i7-8700K review.

Frequencies	Base	1	2	3	4 - 5	6
Intel Core i7-8086K	4.0 GHz	5.0 GHz	4.6 GHz	4.5 GHz	4.4 GHz	4.3 GHz
Intel Core i7-8700K	3.7 GHz	4.7 GHz	4.6 GHz	4.5 GHz	4.4 GHz	4.3 GHz

The -8086K's real differentiation involves its modified Turbo Boost frequencies. But in an effort to maintain a 95W thermal design power rating, Intel only increased this chip's base clock rate by 300 MHz. Intel also increased the single-core clock rate to 5 GHz. We were able to sustain 5 GHz in tasks confined to a single core, such as Cinebench and LAME. However, the busy scheduling environment in a modern desktop operating system, which finds threads migrating frequently between cores, prevented 5 GHz operation in even mainstream tests like our gaming benchmarks. In other words, don't expect to see 5 GHz very often.

Product	Core i7-8086K	Core i7-8700K
Socket	LGA 1151v2	LGA 1151v2
TDP	95W	95W
Architecture	Coffee Lake	Coffee Lake
Process	14nm++	14nm++
Cores/Threads	6 / 12	6 / 12
Frequency Base / Boost	4.0 / 5.0 GHz	3.7 / 4.7 GHz
Memory Speed	DDR4-2966	DDR4-2966
Memory Controller	Dual-Channel	Dual-Channel
Cache (L2+L3)	13.5MB	13.5MB
Integrated Graphics	UHD Graphics 630 (up to 1200 MHz)	UHD Graphics 630 (up to 1200 MHz)
PCIe Lanes	x16 Gen3	x16 Gen3
Price	$425	$359

We've heard reports that some motherboards don't support Intel's 5 GHz single-core Turbo Boost bin. However, updated firmware could fix that in the future. Regardless, it's a shame that Intel didn't port over Turbo Boost 3.0 technology to pin lightly-threaded tasks to the CPU's fastest core. Overclockers might have more luck coaxing higher clock rates from the -8086K: our sample easily stretched up to 5.1 GHz with a bit of extra voltage.

We normally don't cover processor packaging, but it is relevant given the Core i7-8086K's status as a collector’s item. Like all of Intel's K-series SKUs, the -8086K doesn't include a bundled heat sink or fan.

The box tell us us that this is a limited-edition CPU. Intel even includes a certificate of authenticity, along with a signed statement from former CEO Brian Krzanich.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Forty Years Of x86

Compared to the 16-bit 8086, Intel's Core i7-8086K represents a quantum leap in technology. Whereas a modern CPU can spend four years in the design process, Intel brought its 8086 to market in just 18 months. Stephen Morse, then 36 years old, was the lead architect. The 8086 was originally designed to be a filler product before Intel released the 8800, but Morse designed it to be the first in a line of chips that shared a common architecture to ensure forward compatibility.

Product	Intel 8086	Core i7-8086K	Core i7-8700K
Release Date	June 8, 1978	June 8, 2018	October 5, 2017
TDP	1W (power draw)	95W	95W
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	6 / 12	6 / 12
Frequency Base / Boost	5 - 10 MHz (0.005 GHz)	4.0 / 5.0 GHz	3.7 / 4.7 GHz
Transistors	29,000	~3 billion	~3 billion
Manufacturing Process	nMOS/HMOS 3 micron (3000nm)	CMOS 14nm++	CMOS 14nm++
Word Size	16-bit	64-bit	64-bit
Lithography	G-Line (Mercury Arc Lamps) 436nm Wavelength	Argon Fluoride Excismer Laser, 193nm Wavelength	Argon Fluoride Excismer Laser, 193nm Wavelength
Die Size	33mm2	149mm2	149mm2
Minimum Feature Size	3.2 Microns (3200nm)	8nm	8nm
Wafer Diameter	4 inches	12 inches	12 inches
Memory Support	1MB	64GB	64GB
Memory Bus Speed	4.77 MHz	2966 MHz	2966 MHz
Integrated Graphics	None	UHD Graphics 630	UHD Graphics 630
Socket	40-pin	LGA 1151v2	LGA 1151v2
Price	$86.65 (1978) $330 adjusted for inflation	$425	$359

And thus, the x86 instruction set architecture was born. Over the course of 40 years, Intel continually enhanced the x86 ISA, adding more than 3500 new instructions like MMX, SSE, TSX, and three flavors of AVX, among many others. Amazingly, the 64-bit Core i7-8086K is capable of running original 16-bit 8086 code. That's a testament to the x86 instruction set's longevity.

The original 8086 was fabbed on a 3200nm nMOS process using mercury arc lamps. Meanwhile, 40 years later, Intel is on its third-gen 14nm CMOS process that's manufactured with argon fluoride exerciser lasers.

8086 Die

Transistor measurements are no longer based strictly on feature sizes, but we can derive some basic comparative metrics. Die sizes have increased from the 8086's 33mm² to the -8086K's 149mm², and transistor counts are up from 29,000 to ~3,000,000,000 per processor, respectively. That means the original 8086 featured 879 transistors per square millimeter, while Core i7-8086K comes with 20,134,228 transistors per square millimeter for an astounding 22,905x density increase.

Coffee Lake Die

Interfaces have also changed as Intel added more cores, cache, new buses, expanded memory support, and on-die graphics. The original 8086 dropped into a 40-pin quasi-PGA interface, whereas the eighth-generation Core processors employ an LGA 1151v2 socket that boasts 1151 pins. If we widen the scope to Intel's 28-core enterprise behemoths, some interfaces pack a whopping 4637 pins.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Silicon Lottery, Overclocking & Test Setup

Alternately, Silicon Lottery procures batches of processors and delids them to replace Intel's thermal paste with liquid metal Thermal Grizzly Condoctonaut. According to the company, this reduces operating temperatures by 15°C to 25°C, depending on the workload. The improved thermal transfer material helps facilitate more aggressive overclocks. Silicon Lottery sells the modified processors at a premium price, and with a one-year warranty (rather than Intel's standard three-year coverage).

Core i7-8700K - December 2017				Core i7-8700K - June 2018
Clock	Vcore	AVX2	Percentile	Clock	Vcore	AVX2	Percentile
4.9 GHz	1.387	-2	Top 99%	4.9 GHz	1.385	-2	Top 99%
5.0 GHz	1.4	-2	Top 72%	5.0 GHz	1.4	-2	Top 86%
5.1 GHz	1.412	-2	Top 43%	5.1 GHz	1.41	-2	Top 50%
5.2 GHz	1.425	-2	Top 16%	5.2 GHz	1.425	-2	Top 17%
5.3 GHz	1.437	-2	Top 3%	5.3 GHz	-	-	-

Silicon Lottery compiles statistics about the samples it modifies and shares them publicly, giving us a reasonable gauge of what's coming out of Intel's foundries. Some enthusiasts speculate that reserving the highest-quality silicon for Core i7-8086K would hurt the chances of scoring a higher-clocking -8700K. But as we can see, the percentage of -8700Ks able to hit anywhere from 5 to 5.2 GHz actually increased during the period of time we would have expected Intel to set aside top-binned dies for its -8086K. Then again, it looks like samples able to hit 5.3 GHz disappeared entirely, possibly representing those precious -8086K-capable dies.

Core i7-8086K - June 2018
Clock	Vcore	AVX2	Percentile
5.0 GHz	1.4	-2	Top 100%
5.1 GHz	1.41	-2	Top 92%
5.2 GHz	1.425	-2	Top 60%
5.3 GHz	1.435	-2	Top 14%

Silicon Lottery also shares statistics on the Core i7-8086K, and its probability of receiving top silicon is markedly better than what we see from the latest round of Core i7-8700K data. Nearly all of the company's -8086Ks reach 5 GHz, and the top 14% are capable of reaching 5.3 GHz.

Our own Core i7-8086K achieved 5.1 GHz with a 1.35V Vcore and default load line calibration settings. In addition, we adjusted our AVX offset by -1 and saw a peak temperature of 86°C during AVX-heavy workloads using Corsair's beefy H115i closed-loop cooler. Although we successfully dialed in DDR4-3466 rates with 14-14-14-24 timings, we feel we could have pushed even higher with more time for tuning.

Instead of splurging on a Core i7-8086K, you could always purchase a modified Core i7-8700K from Silicon Lottery capable of hitting the same 5.1 GHz that we achieved. Unfortunately, those models sell for $479, making the -8086K's $425 price tag attractive in comparison. If you're chasing the highest overclock possible, the company does sell a Core i7-8086K capable of 5.3 GHz for $849. As with all Silicon Lottery chips, however, you lose two years of warranty coverage in the exchange.

Comparison Products

Intel Core i7-8700 (8th Gen)

Intel Core i7-8700K

Intel Core i7-7700K

Test Systems

Like many other vendors, MSI motherboards feature a default Enhanced Turbo feature that allows the processor to run at its maximum Turbo Boost bin on all cores, at all times. For the Core i7-8086K, you're looking at 5 GHz across all six cores.

This setting modifies the CPU's clock rate and voltage to deliver higher performance, which is basically factory-sanctioned overclocking. Again, MSI enables it by default in the BIOS, similar to most of the competition. But performance, power consumption, and heat are all affected when it's on. We manually disable the feature for our stock CPU testing to best reflect Intel's specifications.

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700, Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen 5 2600X, Ryzen 5 2600 MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i7-8086K, Core i7-8700K, Core i5-8600K, Core i5-8400, Core i7-8700MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400, DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703 - All Spectre and Meltdown mitigations
Cooling	Corsair H115iIntel stock thermal solution (Core i7-8700)

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

VRMark & 3DMark

Out of the box, Core i7-8086K effectively tied Intel's Core i7-8700K in the DX12 CPU benchmark. But its higher overclocked frequency outstripped the tuned -8700K by a decent margin. Both processors traded places in the DX11 test, though again, overclocking propelled Core i7-8086K past the -8700K.

VRMark found the -8086K and -8700K offering virtually the same performance at stock and overclocked settings. The Core i5-8600K and -8400 both beat the Core i7 models though, suggesting that this benchmark rewards configurations without simultaneous multi-threading technology exposing logical cores.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

At stock and overclocked settings, Core i7-8086K and the Core i7-8700K performed almost identically in Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

Civilization's AI test measures performance in a turn-based strategy game and tends to favor per-core performance.

At stock settings, the Core i7-8086K surprisingly trailed Core i7-8700K and -8700, though just barely. Overclocking provides a minuscule boost over the other tuned Intel processors.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

Core i5-8600K dominated at both stock and overclocked settings, which tells us that this benchmark prefers physical cores over logical resources. The overclocked Core i7-8086K fell next in line with a lead over competing Core i7 and Ryzen 7 models. However, it trailed the -8700 by 1 FPS on average at stock settings.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Dawn of War responds well to Intel's high clock rates, so it was no surprise to find overclocked Coffee Lake-based CPUs at the top of our chart.

Although the overclocked Core i7-8086K landed in first place, it's clear that the outcome in Dawn of War III was limited by graphics performance up top.

A stock Core i7-8086K beat the -8700K. But the difference between them was so small that the -8086K's 300 MHz peak Turbo Boost advantage didn't seem to help much.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry Primal, GTA: V & Hitman

Far Cry Primal

Tuning provided small average frame rate boosts to Intel's six-core Coffee Lake-based CPUs. Meanwhile, Core i7-8086K only offered a slight advantage versus the less expensive eighth-gen Core i7s.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates.

The stock and overclocked Core i7-8086K yielded a small advantage over the Core i7-8700K.

Hitman

Our Hitman benchmark was rendered almost useless by a patch that imposed a 90 FPS cap on performance. A few weeks ago, though, a subsequent update restored our Hitman test to its prior glory.

With the frame cap removed, Intel's overclocked processors hit a performance ceiling that may be imposed by available graphics horsepower.

Shifting focus to the stock configurations, Intel's six-core CPUs were clearly faster than last generation's quad-core flagship.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Shadow Of War & Project CARS 2

Middle-earth: Shadow Of War

Not all games respond to increased host processing resources; some of them are wholly limited by available graphics horsepower. Middle-earth: Shadow of War is definitely one of those graphics-bound titles, demonstrating a 4.5 FPS average variance from the slowest sample in our pool to the fastest. As a result, it was no surprise to see Core i7-8086K and -8700K tied.

Project CARS 2

Project CARS 2 is purportedly optimized for threading. However, our 6C/6T Core i5-8600K beat the overclocked 8C/16T Ryzen 7 2700X, so it's clear that parallelism isn't the most influential factor in defining this game's performance.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office & Productivity

Adobe Creative Cloud

At stock settings, Core i7-8086K offered minimal improvement over the Core i7-8700K in our overall Adobe Creative Cloud score. Even though this suite has a few parallelized workloads, the final score is heavily influenced by the lightly-threaded tasks common in most desktop applications. So, it wasn't surprising to see the Core i7-8086K's superior overclock beat the tuned -8700K by 6.5%.

Web Browser

The Krakken suite tests JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. Core i7-8086K trailed the -8700K in stock form, though overclocking changed the story.

The MotionMark benchmarks, which emphasize graphics (rather than JavaScript), are exceedingly sensitive to CPU clock rates. Yet, Intel's stock Core i7-8086K trailed the -8700K again, reinforcing our opinion that some motherboard firmware versions aren't fully optimized to exploit the 5 GHz single-core Turbo Boost bin.

Productivity

The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Other platform-level considerations affect this test as well, including the storage subsystem. Core i7-8086K exploited its clock rate advantage in stock and overclocked trim to provide snappy performance.

Our video conferencing suite measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. Core i7-8700 beat the -8086K by a hair; however, its locked multiplier prevents it from vying for chart-topping performance. Core i7-8086K posted a lead at stock frequencies during the writing benchmark, reinforcing that win after overclocking.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized, so it's no surprise the tuned Ryzen 7 processors lead by a large margin. The overclocked Core i7-8086K fared best among Intel's CPUs, but there's no substitute for core/thread count in this workload.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding & Compression

Rendering

Threaded workloads remain an uncontested strength of AMD's Zen-based processors and their hefty core counts. But tasks that are also affected by memory performance, such as Blender, allow Core i7 to claim a lead. The multi-core Cinebench and POV-Ray tests are dominated by the Ryzen line-up.

At stock settings, Core i7-8086K lead the -8700K in our single-core POV-Ray and Cinebench benchmarks. Overclocking opened up a much wider gap between the two CPUs.

Encoding & Compression

LAME is a single-threaded workload that typically illustrates the advantage of higher clock rates and IPC throughput. Not surprisingly, then, Core i7-8086K's frequency advantage lead to a win.

Our threaded compression and decompression tests work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation. Thus, we found that performance scaled according to core/thread count.

y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes pi using AVX instructions, kept itself isolated to one core during our single-threaded test, allowing the Core i7-8086K to flaunt its higher frequency relative to the -8700K. Conversely, the multi-threaded y-cruncher test reminded us that both processors have the same multi-core Turbo Boost frequencies.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

Core i7-8086K's higher base and single-core Turbo Boost frequencies delivered small speed-ups throughout our test suite. But because of Windows' busy nature, those gains were somewhat unpredictable. Although the -8086K rarely stayed in its single-core Turbo Boost bin for long, the same can be said for most CPUs. Regardless, Core i7-8086K earns recognition for becoming the fastest gaming processor on the market, if only just barely.

Our charts below plot gaming performance with a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness) converted into a frame-per-second measurement. We also have price-to-performance charts that get split up to include the CPUs-only, plus extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370).

If you're only looking to use Core i7-8086K at its stock settings, the processor provides nearly the same gaming experience as the Core i7-8700K at 4.9 GHz. Its advantage is minor at 1920x1080, and it'll shrink at higher resolutions. Granted, overclocking is one of the -8086K's selling points. But the extra 200 MHz you get compared to our -8700K just doesn't justify a $75-higher price tag. And as with all K-series SKUs, you need to buy your own cooler and 300-series motherboard.

We see similar trends throughout our application tests: Core i7-8086K is strikingly similar to the -8700K, and overclocking opens a slight advantage due to our sample's increased headroom. It's only a shame that Intel didn't have the margins to also improve Core i7-8086K's multi-core Turbo Boost frequencies. Such a move would have yielded bigger gains across the board.

You could always purchase a delidded Core i7-8700K, or do the risky work yourself, to match the -8086K's overclocking potential. But if you go the Silicon Lottery route, expect to pay even more than a brand new Core i7-8086K costs and lose two years of warranty coverage.

Core i7-8086K is probably overkill for most of our readers. Both Intel and AMD have far more economical options that provide similar performance through our benchmark suite. Given the limited supply of Core i7-8086Ks, however, we don't expect them to be available for long, and competitive positioning probably isn't the top priority for this CPU's target market.

In light of the anecdotal evidence we've heard from Silicon Lottery, you can rest assured that the -8086K represents Intel's very best Coffee Lake silicon. There are those among us who always seek out the best performance possible, regardless of price. If that describes you, then Core i7-8086K is the fastest gaming chip out there. Just be aware that you're paying dearly for a bit of overclocking headroom.

Moderate gains at stock clock rates mean Core i7-8086K isn't worthwhile for most of Intel's customers. But if you're willing to pay a premium for a piece of history that just so happens to perform well, the -8086K is a cool, enthusiast-oriented option.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Intel Core i7-8700 Review: Stock Cooler Falls Flat

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:00:00 +0000

The Core i7-8700 Review

Intel's Core i7-8700 packs all of the Coffee Lake architecture's goodness into a 65W envelope, including six Hyper-Threaded cores, the benefits of 14nm++ manufacturing, and higher Turbo Boost clock rates than previous-generation CPUs. Although it's handicapped somewhat by a locked ratio multiplier, stymieing enthusiasts looking for a 5 GHz+ overclock, Core i7-8700 does feature operating frequencies that come close to the flagship -8700K. As a result, its performance is often similar in real-world tasks. And yet, the vanilla -8700 costs $50 less. That's a win if you weren't planning to overclock anyway.

Great benchmark results and an attractive price also put Core i7-8700 up against AMD's revamped Ryzen 7 line-up. Specifically, it's forced to contend with Ryzen 7 2700's eight cores, 16 threads, unlocked multiplier, affordable motherboard support, and capable cooler. Particularly on that last point, Intel's solution is severely deficient.

You see, Intel's thermal design power specification applies to the CPU's base frequency. But its processors exceed that rating when they jump to higher Turbo Boost bins. We found that the Core i7-8700 can overwhelm Intel's bundled heat sink and fan during certain heavily-threaded workloads, negatively affecting performance. You'll have to purchase a better thermal solution for any chance at realizing Core i7-8700's highest Turbo Boost frequencies. Naturally, the CPU loses some of its luster as a result.

Intel Core i7-8700

Core i7-8700 may be destined to live in the -8700K's shadow. But again, it does feature the same complement of six cores, 12MB of L3 cache, and DDR4-2666-capable memory controller. Like all of Intel's Core i7, i5, and i3 models, the i7-8700 comes with an integrated UHD Graphics 630 engine that gives Intel a leg up over competing Ryzen 7 and 5 processors without any on-die graphics.

Unfortunately, due to Coffee Lake's lack of backward compatibility, you do need a 300-series motherboard if you're upgrading from an older platform.

	IntelCore i7-8700K	IntelCore i7-8700	AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	AMD Ryzen 7 2700	AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	Intel Core i5-8600K	AMD Ryzen 5 2600	Intel Core i5-8400
MSRP	$359	$303	$329	$299	$229	$257	$199	$182
Process	14nm++	14nm++	GloFo 12nm LP	GloFo 12nm LP	GloFo 12nm LP	14nm++	GloFo 12nm LP	14nm++
Cores/Threads	6/12	6/12	8/16	8/16	6/12	6/6	6/12	6/6
TDP	95W	65W	105W	65W	95W	95W	65W	65W
Base Freq. (GHz)	3.7	3.2	3.7	3.2	3.6	3.6	3.4	2.8
Precision Boost Freq. (GHz)	4.7	4.6	4.3	4.1	4.2	4.3	3.9	4.0
Cache (L3)	12MB	12MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	9MB	16MB	9MB
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Integrated Graphics	UHD Graphics 630 (1200 MHz)	UHD Graphics 630 (1200 MHz)	No	No	No	UHD Graphics 630 (1150 MHz)	No	UHD Graphics 630 (1150 MHz)
Cooler	No	Intel Stock	105W Wraith Prism (LED)	95W Wraith Spire (LED)	95W Wraith Spire	No	65W Wraith Stealth	Intel Stock

Intel is infamous for aggressively segmenting its portfolio, meaning it trims frequencies, only makes overclocking available on premium models, turns Hyper-Threading on and off, and disables cores to create lower-priced models. Of course, the company did this with its seventh-gen Core CPUs, too. The Core i7-7700 was multiplier-locked, while the -7700K catered to enthusiasts. But Intel capped the -7700's top Turbo Boost bin at a mere 4.2 GHz. Core i7-8700 isn't as constrained. Its four-core ceiling is 4.4 GHz, while six active cores reach up to 4.3 GHz, just like Core i7-8700K. In most workloads, the 500 MHz base frequency difference between Core i7-8700 and -8700K quickly disappears as Turbo Boost kicks in.

Frequencies	Base	1	2	4	6
Intel Core i7-8700K	3.7 GHz	4.7 GHz	4.6 GHz	4.4 GHz	4.3 GHz
Intel Core i7-8700	3.2 GHz	4.6 GHz	4.5 GHz	4.4 GHz	4.3 GHz
Intel Core i7-7700K	4.2 GHz	4.5 GHz	4.4 GHz	4.4 GHz	-
Intel Core i7-7700	3.6 GHz	4.2 GHz	4.1 GHz	4.0 GHz	-

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

The Stock Cooler Dilemma & Test Setup

The Stock Cooler Dilemma

Intel ships its multiplier-locked CPUs with basic thermal solutions. Although they are notoriously flimsy and usually pretty noisy, they've proven sufficient for cooling previous-generation models. That changes with Core i7-8700.

In the not-too-distant past, Intel's stock heat sink employed a copper core. More recently, however, the company switched to all-aluminum designs. That means Core i7-8700 comes with the same cooler as quad-core Kaby Lake-based Core i5s.

Frankly, we're surprised that Intel carried over the same heat sinks from those seventh-generation Core CPUs. Despite the -8700's 65W TDP, it's still based on a notably more complex die.

On paper, the -8700's 65W TDP fits nicely within the low-profile cooler's 73W rating. But remember that Intel specs the CPU's thermal design power according to its base frequency. Its chips actually exceed the TDP when they dynamically increase voltage and frequency through their Turbo Boost algorithms. As noted on Intel's Turbo Boost 2.0 informational page:

Note: Intel Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 allows the processor to operate at a power level that is higher than its TDP configuration and data sheet specified power for short durations to maximize performance.

According to our measurements, Core i7-8700 peaks at up to 126W during taxing all-core workloads. With that data in-hand, the stock cooler does appear insufficient.

While Intel guarantees base frequencies during normal operation, the company doesn't make promises about Turbo Boost clock rates because its processors only shift to higher P-states (pre-defined frequencies and voltages) when they're running below certain temperature, voltage, power, and current limits. Above them, the opportunistic algorithms are reigned in to keep the CPU in-spec.

As a general rule, Turbo Boost targets lower frequency bins as more cores become active. Intel does still advertise its maximum single-core clock rates, but it no longer divulges the multi-core clock rates (even though you can expose them through the company's XTU software).

Frequencies	Base	1	2	4	6
Intel Core i7-8700K	3.7 GHz	4.7 GHz	4.6 GHz	4.4 GHz	4.3 GHz
Intel Core i7-8700	3.2 GHz	4.6 GHz	4.5 GHz	4.4 GHz	4.3 GHz

We've seen lots of speculation that Intel stopped disclosing multi-core Turbo Boost frequencies with Coffee Lake-based processors because its stock heat sink and fan couldn't fully facilitate those clock rates. Sure enough, a quick online search reveals several reports from owners claiming that their Core i7-8700s hit the maximum safe temperature of 100°C (TJ Max) during extended workloads. Once the processor reaches TJ Max, it throttles back voltage and frequency (along with power and heat) as a protection mechanism. Of course, throttling also results in lower performance.

Measuring The Impact

To investigate the claims, we observed a Core i7-8700 and its stock cooler during our x265 HandBrake benchmark. This real-world application is optimized to utilize all available cores. Moreover, it employs AVX instructions, which tend to increase power consumption considerably. We opened AIDA's system stability test window to monitor our -8700 during the workload.

As you can see in the second slide, Intel's cooler was quickly overwhelmed, causing the processor to repeatedly bounce off of its 100°C temperature limit and throttle performance to protect itself (charted in red in the lower window).

With the bundled fan manually set to 100% duty cycle, we logged frequency throughout our test run (first album image). Even with the thermal solution working as hard as possible, the -8700 regularly throttled back from its 4.3 GHz all-core bin into lower ranges.

We also monitored VRM temperature during the test to ensure our motherboard's power delivery subsystem wasn't responsible for the throttling. Those measurements landed within the range we expected.

Next, we ran the same test using a beefy Corsair Hydro Series H115i "Extreme Performance" all-in-one liquid-cooler. Manually cranking the two 140mm fans and pump up to 100% helped ensure that thermal output had no impact on our test results.

The difference is night and day. Intel's Core i7-8700 never exceeded 67°C, and the processor's frequency remained at a pleasingly-constant 4.3 GHz (though we did notice a few spikes higher during brief periods of lighter utilization). AIDA's system monitor confirmed that the CPU didn't throttle. Again, we see that our motherboard's power delivery subsystem satisfied the Core i7-8700's power and current requirements.

Comparing the difference between Intel's stock cooler (HS&F) and the all-in-one makes it clear that thermals clearly affect the -8700's performance. Turbo Boost is clearly designed to minimize the impact of thermal throttling: we only observe a 72-second delta over the course of our ~35-minute test.

A mere 3.4% separating those results may seem insignificant, but remember that we tested these configurations on an open test bench. A closed case would change the outcome almost assuredly. Also, we benchmarked at maximum fan settings, generating quite a bit of noise. It's far more common to use the motherboard's default fan curve, or to dial in an optimized fan profile that ramps up gradually. Unfortunately, those algorithms don't respond to control temperature fast enough to mitigate wild spikes and dips. As a result of the normal delay in fan speed adjustments, plus the less-than-ideal airflow in most PC cases, you could see larger slow-downs than what we recorded from a best-case test environment. This doesn't bode well for builders working with small form factors.

We did experiment with various thermal compounds between the stock cooler and heat spreader, but they didn't help much. Thus, we pin the negative outcome of our experimentation on Intel's paltry heat sink and fan combination.

Bear in mind that our benchmarks are run with the stock cooler and Corsair's all-in-one to highlight the difference in thermal performance. Some tests are short, while others take longer to complete. Some are single-threaded, while other are fully parallelized. Thus, the effects of heat influence each result in a unique way. As noted, we kept the fan speed at maximum and tested on an open-air bench, so our results represent a best-case scenario for Intel's stock cooler.

Comparison Products

Intel Core i5-8400

Intel Core i5-8600K

Intel Core i7-7700

Test Systems

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700, Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen 5 2600X, Ryzen 5 2600 MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i7-8700K, Core i5-8600K, Core i5-8400, Core i7-8700MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400, DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703 - All Spectre and Meltdown mitigations
Cooling	Corsair H115iIntel stock thermal solution (Core i7-8700)

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

VRMark & 3DMark

Core i7-8700 fell right where we expected it to in VRMark: slightly below the stock Core i7-8700K.

AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X was a little faster though, as was the Core i5-8400. VRMark tends to reward high IPC throughput and frequency, but it also seems to prefer physical cores over simultaneous multi-threading technology.

Although the Core i7-8700 outstripped its K-series counterpart in the Fire Strike test, its lead isn't significant enough to call a definitive win. The heavily-threaded DX11 and DX12 benchmarks ran for an extended period of time. But frequent breaks in the sequence likely helped Core i7-8700 maintain the same level of performance under Intel's stock cooler and Corsair's Corsair H115i.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Our three-minute Ashes of the Singularity benchmark scales exceedingly well with additional cores, so it was surprising to see Core i7-8700 perform similarly with both thermal solutions.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

Civilization's AI test measures performance in a turn-based strategy game and tends to favor per-core performance.

In our Core i7-8700K review, we pointed out that Intel's vanilla -8700 often outperformed the flagship -8700K in our gaming benchmarks. Obviously, those results were difficult to explain, given each CPU's specifications. But the issue persisted for several months (and many motherboard firmware updates). Intel and its motherboard partners have been unable to explain this phenomenon. However, we did notice that it was resolved around the time updates went out for our Spectre/Meltdown patch testing. We still saw a few scattered cases of Core i7-8700 beating the flagship K-series chip, but they're typically results that fall within a margin of error.

Our Civilization VI AI test results are a perfect example. The Core i7-8700 with Corsair's cooler slipped past the Core i7-8700K, but just barely. More important is that you can get -8700K-class performance from the locked model if you don't plan on overclocking.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

The Civilization VI graphics test shows Intel's Core i7-8700 beating the -8700K by a larger margin. In fact, strong performance put the -8700 on equal footing with a tuned Ryzen 7 2700X, and within striking distance of the overclocked Core i7-8700K.

Separately, we saw the Core i7-7700K about 6 FPS ahead of the -7700. This illustrates the bigger gap between Intel's previous-gen locked and K-series models, attributable to large differences in base and Turbo Boost frequencies.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Core i7-8700 almost kept up with the stock -8700K. But tuning Intel's flagship Coffee Lake-based CPU solidified its lead.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry Primal, GTA: V & Hitman

Far Cry Primal

Far Cry Primal obviously runs well on quad-core processors, and doesn't gain much from architectures with more execution resources. Meanwhile, a big gap between the Core i7-7700K and -7700 tells us that the game is sensitive to operating frequencies, too.

Core i7-8700 and -8700K were nearly indistinguishable through this benchmark run.

AMD's Ryzen CPUs appear to fare worse than the Intel chips in Far Cry Primal. Average frame rates can be misleading, though. Our frame time charts reveal much more performance variability from the Core processors. Ryzen 7 2700X's nice clean line is indicative of a smoother experience.

Grand Theft Auto V

The Grand Theft Auto V benchmark we use is one of our suite's longest in terms of run time. We record 100 seconds of the fly-by scene, first allowing the preceding sequences to run through and keep our hardware nice and toasty for consistent measurements.

Even though Intel's stock heat sink and fan finished in front of the -8700 cooled by Corsair's closed-loop H115i, the results fell within the range we anticipate between tests.

Hitman

Our Hitman benchmark found the Core i7-8700 and -8700K pretty much tied. Both models are ~4 FPS ahead of the nearest Ryzen CPU.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Shadow Of War & Project CARS 2

Middle-earth: Shadow Of War

Middle-earth didn't respond any better to our six-core Coffee Lake-based samples than it did to their quad-core predecessors. Sometimes you just need more graphics horsepower.

Project CARS 2

According to its developers, Project CARS 2 is well-optimized for multi-core CPUs. But a 6C/6T Core i5-8600K beat the overclocked 8C/16T Ryzen 7 2700X, so it's clear that threading isn't the most influential variable in determining this game's performance.

The stock Core i7-8700K established a slight lead over the -8700 in our benchmark, although overclocking increased its advantage. More than likely, though, the top of this chart is graphics-bound.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office & Productivity

Adobe Creative Cloud

Core i7-8700 with its stock heat sink lost some ground to Corsair's closed-loop liquid cooler in the Illustrator test. Otherwise, there was little to differentiate both configurations.

The stock Core i7-8700K barely beat Core i7-8700 in our aggregate score. However, overclocking the K-series chip to 4.9 GHz propelled it into a second-place finish (after Core i5-8600K, interestingly enough).

Web Browser

The Meltdown and Spectre patches imposed performance penalties on Intel CPUs through our Web browser tests. However, Core processors still lead through these lightly-threaded benchmarks.

The Krakken suite tests JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X slid in ahead of Core i7-8700, reminding us that second-gen Ryzen CPUs are much more competitive than their predecessors in workloads that aren't well-optimized for parallelization.

MotionMark emphasizes graphics performance, rather than JavaScript, but is also sensitive to CPU clock rates. There, Core i7-8700 turned things around and beat the Ryzen 7 2700X. We weren't expecting a stock Core i7-8700K to carve out such a large advantage over the vanilla -8700, though.

Productivity

The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Core i7-8700 impressed in this benchmark by barely beating a stock -8700K. But the benefit of an unlocked K-series chip became evident in the Core i5-8600K and Core i7-8700K results at 4.9 GHz.

Our video conferencing suite measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. This workload is parallelized, so it responds well to Ryzen's core count advantage. Nevertheless, a six-core design with Hyper-Threading allowed Core i7-8700K to muscle out the competition when we overclocked it to 4.9 GHz.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding & Compression

Rendering

We expected to see more variation from Intel's stock cooler during our Cinebench multi-core test. Given its relatively short run time and our open-air bench, however, we didn't see much difference between our two configurations. Interestingly, the stock Core i7-8700K and -8700 performed almost identically.

Similar trends emerged through the other threaded rendering tasks. While Core i7-8700's stock heat sink and fan imposed slightly lower performance than the liquid cooler in certain cases, we still think the -8700 is a solid alternative to the pricier flagship if you don't plan to overclock and cooling inside your case is sufficient.

Encoding & Compression

LAME is a single-threaded workload that typically illustrates the advantage of higher clock rates and IPC throughput. Case in point: Core i7-7700K and -7700 were separated by a larger delta than the two Coffee Lake-based Core i7s, which we know feature similar single-core Turbo Boost bins.

Our threaded compression and decompression tests work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation. These workloads are especially intensive. Yet, we didn't record any surprising variations between the -8700 cooled by Intel's stock thermal solution and the Corsair all-in-one. Both of our HandBrake benchmarks, on the other hand, exploit AVX instruction, generate lots of heat, and illustrate a wider performance gap between the two configurations.

Surprisingly, y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes pi using AVX instructions, didn't expose any variation between the two coolers we tested atop Core i7-8700.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

Intel made some significant changes to the Coffee Lake architecture in order to keep its Core CPUs competitive with AMD's Ryzen line-up. Beyond giving the Core i7 family six Hyper-Threaded cores, Intel also narrowed the clock rate difference between premium K-series chips and the more mainstream models. Core i7-8700K does boast a 500 MHz base frequency advantage over Core i7-8700. But that gap shrinks as Turbo Boost is enabled and more cores spin up. By the time four cores are active, both chips should sustain 4.4 GHz.

Unfortunately, the decision to bundle Core i7-8700 with an all-aluminum heat sink means that you may not always get the chip's most aggressive Turbo Boost frequencies under taxing workloads. You'd assume that a CPU with 50% more cores would also dissipate more heat than its predecessor. And yet Intel didn't think to include a cooling solution with enough thermal headroom to realize its peak performance. This is especially perplexing given the praise AMD received for packaging its processors with beefy heat sinks.

Most of the time, though, Core i7-8700 does deliver an experience that closely mirrors the flagship -8700K at its stock settings. Check out the charts below, which plot gaming performance with average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness) converted into a frame-per-second measurement. We also have price-to-performance charts that get split up to include the CPUs-only, plus extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370).

For those similar performance results, expect to spend about $50 less on a Core i7-8700. If you game at higher resolutions, the differences between CPUs shrink even more. And the -8700 looks a lot like a stock -8700K through most of our other application benchmarks, too.

Intel doesn't have a great track record for building backward compatibility into its platforms, so you are on the hook for a new 300-series motherboard, regardless of what you're stepping up from. But unless specific features of the Z370 chipset catch your eye, Core i7-8700 offers the exact same performance if you drop it onto a cheaper B-series board. That should save a few extra dollars...

...which you'll want to turn around and spend on a better thermal solution than what Intel includes with its -8700. That heat sink and fan combination is obviously a poor fit, and better thermal paste won't fix the issue. By stepping up to a sufficient third-party cooler, you won't have to worry about artificially clipping the -8700's top-end Turbo Boost bins due to overheating. A six-core, Hyper-Threaded CPU rated for 65W sounds great for performance-sensitive applications in small form factors. But power consumption definitely spikes higher under load. Apparently, many low-profile coolers lack the headroom for Core i7-8700, so do your homework before replacing the stock sink in a space-constrained environment.

In the past, we recommended Ryzen 7 2700X over Intel's Core i7-8700K due to AMD's lower price point, similar gaming performance, bundled cooler, and better benchmark results in threaded applications. We expected Core i7-8700's comparable performance and pricing advantage to level the field. However, Intel's sub-standard cooling solution means we can't recommend the -8700 without a suitable replacement, adding to the CPU's overall cost.

AMD's Ryzen 7 2700 is also worth considering in this category. Its unlocked ratio multiplier and overclocking support on B-series motherboards yields a more attractive value story than what we get from Core i7-8700. Of course, if you need integrated graphics with your high-end CPU, Intel is the only game in town. And if you're looking for the best blend of price and performance for gaming specifically, the Core i5-8400 is still a favorite.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Corsair Dominator Platinum Special Edition 4x8GB DDR4-3466 Review: Speed & Polish

Thomas Soderstrom — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Specifications & Features

We’ve been receiving a great number of 32GB DRAM kits since we first started focusing on the Intel memory controller’s preference for at least two ranks per memory channel. As a reminder to casual readers: each side of a memory module has a 64-bit interface, and modules can be arranged as either single rank (aka “single sided”) or dual-rank (aka “dual sided”). Current memory IC density of “eight gigabits” provides that a 64-bit “rank” will have 8GB, and our dual-channel Z370 test platform doesn’t seem to care whether four ranks are spread out across four single-rank DIMMs or combined onto two dual-rank DIMMs.

A pair of dual-rank DIMMs has the advantage of requiring only two slots to reach four ranks, while a quartet of single-rank DIMMs has the advantage of also supporting quad-channel mode on X299 platforms. We’ve recently received kits of four 8GB single-rank DIMMs from various manufacturers at DDR4-3000 and DDR4-3333. Today, Corsair takes data rates up a notch with its DDR4-3466 Dominator Platinum Special Edition 32GB kit in its 4x8GB variety. Other than the data rate, what’s so special about these Special Edition DIMMs? Follow us below as we dig into those details.

Specifications

Model	CMD32GX4M4C3466C16W
Capacity	16 GB (2x 8GB)
Data Rate	DDR4-3466 (XMP)
Timings	16-18-18-36 (2T)
Voltage	1.35 Volts
Warranty	Lifetime

Corsair labels the kit “Special Edition” because of its high-contrast black-and-white finish, and even includes an anti-scratch cleaning cloth for the gloss black painted trim bars. Because apparently people want to polish their RAM. Those trim bars are each loaded with a strip of white LEDs designed to match the popular black and white color scheme of many cases, coolers, fans, and motherboards. A black kit with simpler heat spreaders and RGB lighting is available for a $5-lower MSRP, but greater availability has given the cheaper kit an additional $50 street-price advantage.

Special Edition DHX cast aluminum heat spreaders on this kit are secured with screws over custom-picked Samsung DRAM IC’s and a ten-layer PCB. The CMD32GX4M4C3466C16W part number indicates a 32GB DDR4, 4-DIMM kit at 3466 data rate, in White, with relatively tight 16-18-18-36 timings. We’ll make sure to push for even more performance in our overclocking and latency-tuning tests.

The Dominator Platinum SE kit is detected as DDR4-2133 prior to enabling an XMP profile, which allows motherboards to automatically configure its DDR4-3466 configuration at 1.35V.

Corsair provides a lifetime limited warranty for its DRAM products. Unlike many other Corsair memory products, this Special Edition kit is currently available only through its online store.

Comparison Products

Dominator Platinum SE is the fourth four-DIMM kit to be tested on our Z370 platform. Competing kits we've tested are HyperX Predator which use the same 16-18-18-36 timings at a slightly lower DDR4-3333 data rate, Adata's XPG Spectrix D40 which again use the same 16-18-18-36 timings at an even lower data rate of DDR4-3000, and an older G.Skill Trident Z DDR4-3866 kit, which recently lost its long-term Newegg discount. Because latency is measured in cycles and cycle time is the inverse of frequency, CAS 18 at DDR4-3866 is almost as quick as CAS 16 at DDR4-3466. Other timings are even more favorable to the higher-data-rate kit, so this could be an interesting performance race!

HyperX Predator 32GB (4x8GB) DDR4-3333

G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (2x 16GB)

Adata XPG Spectrix D40 32GB DDR4-3000 (4x 8GB)

Test Configuration

Finding the most-appropriate motherboard for overclocking evaluation isn’t always easy: While several motherboards use performance-sacrificing timings whenever modules are clocked significantly past XMP settings, MSI’s Z370 Godlike Gaming maintains appropriate bandwidth scaling when overclocking.

Case	Cooler Master HAF XB EVO	Haf XB EVO
CPU	Intel Core i7-8700K	Core i7-8700K
Cooler	Fractal Design Celsius S24	Fractal Design Celsius S24
Graphics	MSI GTX 1080 Armor OC	Best Android Trivia Games
Motherboard	MSI Z370 Godlike Gaming	Z370 Godlike Gaming
Power Supply	Corsair AX860i	Corsair AX860i
Storage	OCZ RD400 (256GB)	OCZ RD400

MORE: Best Memory

MORE: All Memory Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

We begin our test by attempting to find the lowest stable timings at various data rates, where each data rate becomes an apple in an “apples-to-apples” comparison. We can see that the Dominator Platinum SE reached the same DDR4-3200 and DDR4-2666 timings as the Trident Z DDR4-3866, but we couldn’t extend its test to DDR4-3733.

Lowest Stable Timings at 1.35V (Max) on MSI Z370 Godlike Gaming (BIOS A.40)
	DDR4-3733	DDR4-3200	DDR4-2666
Dominator Platinum SE CMD32GX4M4C3466C16W (4x 8GB single-rank	X	14-14-14-28 (2T)	12-12-12-28 (1T)
HyperX Predator HX433C16PB3K4/32 (4x 8GB single-rank)	17-19-19-38 (2T)	15-16-16-32 (2T)	12-13-13-28 (1T)
Adata XPG Spectrix D40 AX4U300038G16-QRS (4x 8GB single-rank)	X	15-16-16-32 (1T)	13-13-13-28 (1T)
G.Skill Trident Z 32GB F4-3866C18Q-32GTZ (4x 8GB single-rank)	16-17-17-34 (2T)	14-14-14-28 (2T)	12-12-12-28 (1T)

The reason we couldn’t extend the Dominator Platinum SE testing to DDR4-3733 is that it topped out at DDR4-3708. So close!

Had we retested all the modules at DDR4-3466, the Dominator Platinum SE might have taken a second win in Sandra Memory Bandwidth. As it sits, it only topped the DDR4-3200 test, running a nose ahead of the Trident Z at that specific data rate.

The Dominator Platinum SE is also competitive in Sandra Memory Latency, though it’s edged out by the far-more-expensive DDR4-3866 kit.

Performance data for our performance/price analysis begins with F1 2015, a game that has an unusually high affinity for memory performance. Optimized Dominator Platinum SE tops our DDR4-3200 set, but its XMP DDR4-3466 timings surprisingly don’t push it past the Predator DDR4-3333.

Metro represents most other games by dropping framerate only when insufficient memory configurations are used, such as slow DDR3 sets and single-channel configurations. It’s important to remember that fast memory isn’t a performance panacea.

Like Metro Last Light, Blender’s CPU render times tend to punish memory systems that are poorly configured, while giving a pass to every product that’s good enough to reach our review series.

Lower is better when it comes to completion times, and the Dominator Platinum SE has the best DDR4-3200-optimized performance. On the other hand, its standard DDR4-3466 XMP settings again fail to overtake the Predator DDR4-3333.

While we expected the Dominator Platinum XE’s DDR4-3466 settings to outperform the Predator DDR4-3333’s, it fell about 1% behind in our tests. “Optimized settings” also suffer a little, because those are an average of every alternative test, and the Dominator Platinum SE came up just short of the DDR4-3733 settings acquired by two of the three competing sets.

The above findings still leave a few things to discuss, such as the kit’s ability to work in quad-channel mode on X299 motherboards. While the other kits can do that as well, it’s important to remember that most of those processors don’t support “odd” ratios, which are half-multipliers of the memory controller’s frequency. Since data rates for those platforms are only available in 200MHz and 266.67MHz steps, DDR4-3200 and 3466 are supported at a 100MHz CPU BCLK, while DDR4-3333 is not. The same can be said of DDR4-3866, as the memory multiplier jumps from DDR4-3733 to DDR4-4000.

Bottom Line

Both the Predator and Dominator Platinum SE come with special heat spreaders that are designed to complement specific builds, the Corsair product with white LEDs and the HyperX product without lights. With similar price and performance, Z370 system builders could easily select from either based upon desired appearance. As for X299 machines, the Dominator Platinum SE has an XMP data rate that matches its limited set of ratios. Yet if Corsair wanted an award for any of that, it would need to drop the price of its product by at least 10%. And that would kill the kit's exclusivity.

As it stands, this kit is really only worth the price splurge if you like its looks, and the idea of polishing your RAM with the included cloth. We don't judge when it comes to expensive aesthetic choices. But if you're looking for fast RAM that's the best value, this Corsair kit definitely isn't it.

MORE: Best Memory

MORE: All Memory Content

HyperX Predator 32GB (4x 8GB) DDR4-3333 Memory Review: Optimized for Perf, Not Price

Thomas Soderstrom — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Specifications & Features

A few trends have emerged as DDR4 data rates have pushed through the theoretical ceiling of current manufacturing technology: First, we saw motherboard manufacturers push extra voltage into the memory signal, usually without showing it in their monitoring apps, to convince us that their boards were superior at memory overclocking. And then we saw memory vendors use those higher-than-shown voltage levels to advertise stuff like 1.35V DDR4-4000 that required a “specially approved” board--which just happened to be one of several that pushed 1.37V or more at the 1.35V setting. You’d think a quality-focused brand would avoid such shenanigans. Well, we're here to tell you that one has!

But sticking to honest advertising and high-quality components (with a limited lifetime warranty to back that up) doesn't come cheap. While this Kingston kit offers up a lot to like, it's not the best value, which may be a greater issue in these days of high-priced memory.

Well established these days as a brand that represents everything from headsets to thumb drives, HyperX Gaming remains a Kingston entity. And while separating HyperX from Kingston was meant to build excitement for the brand, we haven’t forgotten that, when it comes to memory, Kingston represents quality. In keeping with those expectations, we’re assured that these DDR4-3333 modules will run at their rated data rate without voltage cheats.

Users who appreciate hardware that doesn't rely on LED lighting to look flashy will note that each 8GB single-sided DIMM in this kit is layered in a dark-grey extruded-aluminum heat spreader, black-anodized decorative cover, and a reflective aluminum logo. Users who don’t care about fluff or flash at all will probably just ask how much it adds to the price of this kit. But we’ll consider the value of the entire product, including its performance capabilities, instead.

First, we have to point out that those of you who don’t have an XMP-enabled motherboard will only get DDR4-2400 speeds out of this kit, from which several timing profiles are available to match a wider variety of motherboards. Enabling XMP gets users DDR4-3333 at 16-18-18-36 latencies, with a DDR4-3000 backup profile for systems that don’t fully support the higher data rate.

Unlike things like keyboards and headphones, which are expected to wear out, quality DRAM typically outlives the usefulness of its underlying technology. To back that up, HyperX memory carries Kingston’s limited lifetime warranty.

Comparison Products

We’re comparing Kingston’s kit to three other four-rank solutions here, including two based on four single-rank modules and one based on two dual-rank modules.

HyperX Predator 32GB (4x8GB) DDR4-3333

G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (2x 16GB)

G.Skill TridentZ Series 32GB (4x 8GB)

The reason four single-rank and two dual-rank modules can be compared fairly is that we’re using a dual-channel motherboard. The two reasons we’re using this dual-channel setup is to show performance scaling through multiple reviews across a wider variety of configurations (two through eight ranks), and because we haven’t recently received any eight-DIMM kits. While several motherboards use performance-sacrificing timings whenever modules are clocked significantly past its highest XMP settings, MSI’s Z370 Godlike Gaming maintains appropriate bandwidth scaling when overclocking.

Here's a quick look at the components that make up our RAM test rig:

MORE: Best Memory

MORE: All Memory Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

Rated at DDR4-3333 with 16-18-18-36 timings, the HyperX Predator kit we received already has a noticeable advantage in real-time latency compared to the XPG Sprectix DDR4-3000 using the same number of latency cycles. That’s because cycle time is the inverse of clock frequency. For the same reason, the Trident Z kit should be slightly quicker in spite of its 18-19-19-39 timings, thanks to its DDR4-3866 rating. But before we get to the benchmark charts, we really wanted to see how far down the latencies of each kit could be pushed, at various frequencies.

Lowest Stable Timings at 1.35V (Max) on MSI Z370 Godlike Gaming (BIOS A.40)
	DDR4-3733	DDR4-3200	DDR4-2666
HyperX Predator HX433C16PB3K4/32 (4x 8GB single-rank)	17-19-19-38 (2T)	15-16-16-32 (2T)	12-13-13-28 (1T)
Adata XPG Spectrix D40 AX4U300038G16-QRS (4x 8GB single-rank)	X	15-16-16-32 (1T)	13-13-13-28 (1T)
G.Skill Trident Z 32GB F4-3866C18Q-32GTZ (4x 8GB single-rank)	16-17-17-34 (2T)	14-14-14-28 (2T)	12-12-12-28 (1T)
G.Skill Trident Z 32GB F4-3000C15D-32GTZ (2x 16GB dual-rank)	X	15-15-15-30 (2T)	12-13-13-28 (1T)

The timings chart above shows that the HyperX Predator was tested at a higher-than-rated data rate of DDR4-3733, but just how far could this kit be overclocked? Good news: We have a chart for that!

The HyperX Predator DDR4-3333 takes second place in overclocking, behind the Trident Z DDR4-3866, just as you’d expect from its second-highest rating. What’s impressive is just how closely the Kingston kit approaches that leader.

Stock memory bandwidth is helped by both frequency and latency here, since Sandra’s benchmark uses multiple packets. The HyperX Predator DDR4-3333 is always just a step behind the Trident Z’s DDR4-3866 high mark.

Remember when we said DDR4-3866 CAS 18 is supposed to be slightly quicker than DDR4-3333 CAS 16? Well, Sandra’s memory latency test didn’t show that. Our statement instead was based on simple calculations.

Games based on the EGO gaming engine are notoriously memory biased, and we see the HyperX Predator DDR4-3333 trading blows with Trident Z DDR4-3866 as the pair trounces the lesser kit. Yet our lower settings show that if your system is only capable of pushing DDR4-3200, the lesser kit is a safe bet.

We include Metro Last Light Redux as a representation of the way most games scale with DRAM. And even though none of the compared kits here are slow enough to harm these frame rates, we’ve seen bad configurations (such as slow DDR3 and single-channel memory modes) that will hurt your gaming experience.

As Metro represents the performance behavior of most games, Blender represents the performance behavior of most non-gaming apps. Render times that could have been significantly lengthened by sub-par memory configurations weren’t hampered by any of the good solutions we’re comparing here.

There are a few apps that really benefit from memory performance that exceeds current standards, and 7-Zip is the perfect example. We see that the best performance (shortest compression times) happens at the DDR4-3333 tests of both top kits.

As great as the HyperX Predator DDR4-3333 appears in our benchmarks, it suffers a slight pricing problem when compared to its top competitor, the Trident Z DDR4-3866. The problem is that G.Skill cut a sweet deal with Newegg that Kingston seemingly has not yet cut with anyone. A mere 10% cut would have helped this model tremendously in the value chart, but we’re not sure if Kingston has the margins to do it.

Current buyers are still facing the 2017-era DRAM price run-up, making RAM prices high across the board. And if you're one of those desperately waiting for prices to go back down won't find a good value in the HyperX Predataor DDR4-3333 4x 8GB kit.

MORE: Best Memory

MORE: All Memory Content

Corsair One Desktop PC Review: Cooler than the Rest

Derek Forrest — Mon, 28 May 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Introduction & Product Tour

The Corsair One is the company’s first gaming PC, taking form as a monolithic small form factor (SFF) desktop system with two 240mm all-in-one (AIO) liquid coolers for the CPU and GPU. The Elite model is the highest priced configuration of the One, featuring an Intel Core i7-8700K, a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti graphics card, 32GB of DDR4-2666, a 480GB M.2 NVMe SSD, and a 2TB HDD. The “dangerously quiet” Corsair One Elite’s premium configuration and performance justifes its near $3000 price tag.

Specifications

Processor	Intel Core i7-8700K
Motherboard	Custom MSI Z370 mini-ITX
Memory	32GB (2x16GB) Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-2666
Graphics	Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB GDDR5X
Storage	512GB Samsung PM961 M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD, 2TB Seagate 2.5” 7,200RPM HDD
Optical Drive	N/A
Networking	Intel I219V Gigabit Ethernet, Intel Wireless-AC 8265 802.11ac WiFi
Interface	(1) USB 3.1 Gen 2 Type-C; (1) USB 3.1 Gen 2 Type-A; (2) USB 3.1 (Gen 1) Type-A; (2) USB 2.0; PS/2
Video Output	(2) DisplayPort 1.3; (2) HDMI 2.0
Power Supply	500W Corsair SF500 SFX
Case	Corsair One Aluminum/Steel
Cooling	Corsair 240mm AIO Liquid Cooler (CPU), Corsair 240mm AIO Liquid Cooler (GPU), Corsair ML 140 Mag-Lev 140mm Fan (Top Exhaust)
Operating System	Windows 10 Home 64-Bit
Extras	N/A
Dimensions	7.87 x 6.92 x 14.96 inches
Price As Configured	$2,999

Exterior

The Corsair One Elite houses premium components in its black steel chassis, measuring in at 7.87 x 6.92 x 14.96” and weighing 16.31 lbs. The SFF desktop sports perforated aluminum side panels that act as air intakes for the interior radiators. The top of the device sports a heavy aluminum heatsink above a 140mm exhaust fan. The One is designed to dissipate heat from the liquid-cooled components, and the result is a tall, sleek, and quiet tower PC that can fit at your desk or in the living room.

The front panel I/O consists of the power button, a single USB 3.1 (Gen 1) Type-A port, and a HDMI 2.0 port for use with a virtual reality (VR) head-mounted display (HMD). Around the back, there’s two USB 3.1 Gen2 (one Type-C, one Type-A), two USB 3.1 Gen 1 Type-A, and two USB 2.0 ports. There’s also a PS/2 connector for legacy peripherals, five audio jacks, and an S/PDIF interface. For display output, there’s an HDMI 2.0 and two DisplayPort 1.3 ports.

Interior

To access the components, you have to open the chassis from the top panel. A plastic button on the rear of the Corsair One can be pressed to release the top exhaust fan and metal fins, revealing the backside of the power supply and the graphics card. Four screws hold the sides in place, and removing them will release the aluminum panels and attached radiators from the centrifuge.

The custom designed radiators are 240mm in size but are thinner than the coolers Corsair makes available for DIY builds at retail. The pump design resembles that of the company’s H60 model, with a square shape and four thumbscrews in each corner securing the copper plate to the CPU. The hoses between the pump and radiator are short and easily tuck inside the chassis when you put it all back together, without feeling like it’s a wad of cables and hoses being forced into a small space.

The right side of the device houses the motherboard and attached primary components, including the liquid-cooled Core i7-8700K processor, 32GB (2 x 16GB) of Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-2666 memory (with CAS timings of 16-16-16-36), and a 480GB (class) M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD. The 2.5” drive bay contains a 2TB Seagate 7,200RPM HDD, giving users a beefy and fast primary storage drive and plenty of space for a sizable game library on the secondary HDD.

The CPU, memory, and secondary storage are all easily accessible, but the SSD is mounted on the back of the custom MSI mini-ITX Z370 motherboard. You’d have to remove most of the cables and components to be able to pull it out of the chassis if you wanted to upgrade the primary storage (so just trust us that it’s there). Corsair allows users to replace the 2.5” drive, and the memory without voiding the warranty, so it’s not in the end user’s best interest to replace the primary SSD anyway.

Although Corsair advertises the One as featuring a 480GB SSD, the drive in our retail unit is actually a 512GB Samsung PM961 PCIe 3.0 x 4 NVMe SSD, so you get a little more capacity than advertised after provisioning. Corsair explained that it’s common for system integrators to advertise a capacity class (480GB class covers 480GB, 500GB, and 512GB SSDs) over exact specs so that it’s easier to source the component. The company also said it makes sure performance profiles between its drives are similar (PCIe 3.0 x 4 NVMe).

Turning the PC to the other side reveals the full-sized PCIe x16 graphics card with another custom 240mm AIO liquid cooler attached to the GPU. The card is the only component inside the left-side chamber, and the only other reason to get behind this panel is to release the 2.5” drive bay clips, which are exposed in the upper corner of the chassis.

Software And Accessories

Corsair’s Windows 10 Home 64-bit installation is as clean as a whistle (no bloatware), but the company pre-loaded several of its own software utilities including Corsair Utility Engine (CUE) for company-branded RGB LED peripherals and Corsair Link for monitoring CPU and GPU temperatures, fan and pump speeds. Corsair also got a custom version of MSI's Live Update so you can update your BIOS and drivers from an easy utility, and the company took the liberty of pre-loading several popular game platform installers in a folder on the desktop, including Battle.net, Galaxy, Origin, Steam, and Uplay. There's also a driver disk, and accompanying accessories (wireless antennas, power cable).

MORE: Best PC Builds

MORE: How To Build A PC

MORE: All PC Builds Content

Synthetic & Productivity Benchmarks

The Corsair One is one of the first Core i7-8700K-equipped PCs we’ve tested, so our comparison factors are limited to our previous-generation Z270 test rig, which sports an air-cooled Intel Core i7-7700K and an EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Black Edition graphics cards, both clocked at their default (reference) settings. We also loaded a 32GB (4 x 8GB) kit of Kingston HyperX Fury DDR4 2133 and set it to standard CAS timings of 15-15-15-35, and HyperX also provided the storage in the form of a 480GB Savage 2.5” SATA 6GB/s SSD, and the rig is powered by a 1000W EVGA Supernova G3 PSU. The full specifications of our test rig can be seen below.

Test System Configuration

The Corsair One’s Core i7-8700K is also set to the default clock rates, with a base frequency of 3.7GHz, and a boost speed of 4.7GHz is lightly threaded applications. This should easily outperform our last-gen Core i7-7700K in lightly threaded workloads and even those that favor pure core count, but the lower base frequency could hold it back in some applications. The liquid-cooled GTX 1080 Ti graphics card is also set to reference Nvidia clock rates, so it should perform on par with our stock-clocked GPU. Although the CPU and GPU can be overclocked (via BIOS and software, respectively), we decided to test the Corsair One Elite as it was shipped, without any clock rate tinkering.

The One’s storage outclasses that of our test rig’s, with a 512GB Samsung PM961 M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD residing under the motherboard. It will assuredly put up significantly higher numbers in sequential read and write tests, with the potential to improve performance in productivity applications that rely on storage speeds. The One’s 32GB (2 x 16GB) kit of DDR4-2666 also has the edge on our test rig in speed and capacity, but higher CAS timings (16-18-18-35) could put it closer to our 4-DIMM setup in some memory bandwidth-intensive applications.

3DMark

The synthetic workloads of Futuremark’s 3DMark Fire Strike and Time Spy tests easily place the Corsair One ahead of our previous-gen platform, accented by higher CPU and Graphics scores across the board thanks to its liquid-cooled Core i7-8700K and GeForce GTX 1080 Ti. We observed sinisterly low CPU and GPU temperatures, with neither component breaching past a cool 57C at full load.

Cinebench R15

With the CPU under the microscope, the Corsair One Elite sees gains against our previous-gen platform in the synthetic rendering workloads of Cinebench R15. Although the Single CPU and OpenGL Shading tests only show an incremental increase in performance over our test rig, the multi-threaded workloads put a spotlight on the One and its 6-core processor.

CompuBench

The Corsair One Elite is handed its first loss in the CompuBench benchmarks, falling behind our Z270 test rig by a small margin in both the Video Processing and Bitcoin Mining portion of the test. This could be the result of slightly higher memory CAS timings holding back the platform-bound workloads, but the difference in performance (at least, from the GPU) in the Bitcoin test is within variance for stock-clocked GeForce GTX 1080 Ti graphics.

Storage Test

The 512GB Samsung PM961 M.2 NVMe SSD inside the Corsair One Elite outclasses our test rig’s SATA 6 GB/s drive, highlighted by speedier 4K random read and write, and substantially higher 128K sequential read and write performance. The high capacity is adequate to store several of your favorite games, and the secondary 2TB HDD will fit even larger libraries.

Sandra Memory Bandwidth

Corsair’s 32GB (2 x 16GB) kit of Vengeance LPX DDR4-2666 doesn’t have the tightest CAS timings, and the higher-frequency RAM performs closer to our test rig’s kit of DDR4-2133 with lower latency in bandwidth-intensive workloads in single-threaded workloads. However, multithreaded bandwidth tests give the One a substantially higher lead over our reference system.

PCMark 8

The Corsair One Elite takes a backseat to our test rig once again in the PCMark 8 application tests, with slightly lower scores (around 200 points, give or take) in both the Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative benchmarks. This could be the same platform hiccup we saw in the synthetic CompuBench and single-threaded memory bandwidth tests, which seems to be affecting certain types of productivity workloads that rely on the memory subsystem (such as Office and Adobe applications).

PCMark 10 Extended

The PCMark 10 Extended synthetic benchmark gives us similar results, with the Corsair One Elite attaining a better overall score thanks to its higher performance in the Essentials, Digital Content Creation, and Gaming portions of the test. However, the Productivity segment of the benchmark gives us similar results as some of the other workloads we’ve tested thus far – the One falls slightly behind our last-gen Z270 reference machine by a small margin, and single-threaded memory bandwidth could play a significant role in that.

VRMark

Switching back to a gaming workload, the One easily outpaces our previous-generation Z270 system in the VRMark benchmark. The lead shrinks to less than 1FPS when the details are turned up in the Blue Room test, but the liquid-cooled CPU and GPU inside the One appear to have a slight edge in VR applications and games.

MORE: Best PC Builds

MORE: How To Build A PC

MORE: All PC Builds Content

Gaming Benchmarks

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

The Corsair One Elite starts our gaming benchmark suite ahead of our Z270 test rig, with the CPU-intensive Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation tests posting higher framerates against our reference machine as you turn the resolution up. At 1920 x 1080, the One is ahead by an average of 3.4 FPS, but that margin grows as the pixel count rises. At 2560 x 1440, the difference is increased to 3.8 FPS, but at 4K we see the Core i7-8700K-equipped Corsair One Elite average 8.6 FPS higher than our previous-gen test rig. Clearly, CPU thread count matters in this particular game.

Bioshock Infinite

Bioshock Infinite is less complimentary to the newer platform, and the Corsair One Elite falls behind our test rig by a tiny margin at all tested resolutions. The older game sees more performance gains from CPU clock rate than core count, and the slightly lower Turbo frequency binning of the -8700K (4.3GHz with all cores engaged) could be the determining factor here (the 7700K reaches turbo frequencies of 4.4GHz with four cores active), but users won’t be able to see the difference in performance with the human eye.

DiRT Rally

We see much of the same phenomenon in the DiRT Rally benchmarks, where the Corsair One Elite falls ever-so-slightly behind our previous-gen test rig. At 1920 x 1080, the difference is more pronounced, with a 2.16 FPS (average) gap between the One and the Z270 platform. However, that margin is reduced to less than 1 FPS at 2560 x 1440 and 3840 x 2160. Similar to Bioshock, DiRT sees gains from clock speeds more than core count with all the settings maxed out, but the gap in performance is negligible, and both GTX 1080 Ti-equipped PCs provide excellent framerates with all the eye candy turned up.

Grand Theft Auto V

The Corsair One Elite resumes its dominance in the GTAV benchmarks, netting slightly higher average framerates than our Z270 test bench. The Core i7-8700K and GeForce GTX 1080 Ti have no problems delivering excellent framerates with the highest settings enabled at 1920 x 1080 and 2560 x 1440, and it even produces playable framerates at 4K.

Hitman

We retested our Z270 test bench, as several updates to the game and drivers (and possibly due to Spectre and Meltdown patches) seemed to cap performance of a GTX 1080 Ti around 99 FPS at 1920 x 1080 and 2560 x 1440. Even our previous 4K results were slightly behind, but the Corsair One expectedly beats our reference machine.

Rise of the Tomb Raider

The Corsair One Elite continues its slight lead in the Rise of the Tomb Raider benchmarks, coming in just ahead of our test rig by less than 1 FPS at all tested resolutions. The GPU clock speeds are the equalizers at these particular settings, and with both machines in the field matched, so too are the results.

The Division

We see much of the same results in The Division, where the Corsair One Elite outperforms our reference rig across the board. Enabling the highest settings at 4K pushes the One’s framerates down to a more-than-playable 49.5 FPS average, and you can assuredly hit 60 FPS by reducing the settings.

Middle Earth: Shadows of War

The Corsair One Elite finishes our test suite strong, besting our Z270 reference machine in the Shadows of War benchmarks at 1920 x 1080. The Core i7-8700K is again responsible for the victory over the previous-gen counterpart, but the performance is equalized by the graphics card at 2560 x 1440 and 3840 x 2160. The One matches the other GTX 1080 Ti-equipped PC at those resolutions, averaging 55 FPS at 4K with all the highest detail settings enabled.

MORE: Best PC Builds

MORE: How To Build A PC

MORE: All PC Builds Content

Price Analysis & Conclusion

The Corsair One Elite is worthy of its name with its premium configuration, which includes an Intel Core i7-8700K, 32GB (2 x 16GB) of DDR4-2666, and a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti graphics card. The 480GB class PCIe NVMe SSD provides plenty of speedy primary storage, and a 2TB 7,200 RPM HDD gives you plenty of space for a sizeable gaming library. The 500W Corsair SF500 PSU is just enough to power the platform, and the hardware is packed into an impressively small steel and aluminum chassis.

The exterior is a tall and sleek monolithic LED-illuminated masterpiece of a case, with a steel and aluminum construction that makes it a bit heavy, but more than adequately stable. The I/O is consistent with other SFF PCs designed as ultimate living room gamers, with adequate USB connectivity for VR HMDs and multiple display output options, including a front-panel HDMI 2.0 port.

The true star of the show is the One’s cooling system – it’s truly a feat of engineering to cram not one, but two 240mm radiators into a chassis this small, and despite the lack of any fans attached directly to the radiators, the CPU and GPU never exceeded 57C in our testing. The top fan and its aluminum cage are equally impressive, with the heatsink making contact with the aluminum panels to draw heat away from the components, and the 140mm Corsair ML-series mag-lev fan pulling air through the two side-panel radiators and their vents to exhaust the heat. It’s easily one of the quietest cooling designs we’ve ever tested in a SFF gaming PC, and even at full load, the Corsair One is nearly silent.

At $3,000, we wouldn’t expect the Corsair One Elite to appeal to frugal bang-for-your-buck shoppers that are looking for the cheapest way to achieve gaming glory. There are less-expensive configurations of the One available (starting at $2,299 for a previous-gen i7-7700K, 16GB of memory, a GTX 1080 and a 400W PSU), but even the introductory price is quite high and you are still shelling out a considerable overhead compared to the DIY approach (as is the case with almost every OEM and custom shop PC). However, the One is a marvel of a machine, and those that consider themselves among the elite (with a bank account to match) would welcome the top-tier performance, sleek design, and quiet operation of the Corsair One Elite, even at its premium price.

MORE: Best PC Builds

MORE: How To Build A PC

MORE: All PC Builds Content

Ballistix Tactical Tracer RGB 4x8GB DDR4-2666 Memory Review

Thomas Soderstrom — Thu, 24 May 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Specifications & Features

Ballistix Gaming carries a full range of memory up to DDR4-3600, making its decision to launch its new RGB series of Tactical Tracer memory at only DDR4-2666 and DDR4-3000 data rates seem odd. However, owners of H370 motherboards for example are limited to DDR4-2666 maximum by chipset programing. While not perfect, the Ballistix Tactical Tracer RGB 4x8GB DDR4-2666 is a good choice for those with older or slower motherboards.

Recent motherboards need not even be XMP-compatible to run this BLT4K8G4D26BFT4K 4x8GB kit at its full data rate and timings, since Crucial provides its RAM with standard DDR4-2666 timings sets. Older XMP-capable boards that don't recognize the newer DDR4-2666 standard can also be quickly configured using its identical XMP profile.

Systems that don't support DDR4-2666 at all, such as those equipped with the Core i3-8350K, can take advantage of the kit's built-in DDR4-2400 settings. And even those boards that can't use DDR4-2400 are supported by the memory's DDR4-2133 profile.

Covered in a metallic graphite finish that reflects various colors from light silver to bronze under different lighting, these RGB-LED topped Ballistix Tactical Tracer modules include Crucial’s lifetime limited warranty.

Test & Comparison Hardware

Our most-recent 4x8GB memory samples range from DDR4-3000 to DDR4-3466. That’s going to be tough to beat for today’s Ballistix Tactical Tracer RGB kit, but we’re going to push for maximum overclock and minimum timings in addition to our baseline test.

Ballistix Tactical Tracer RGB 4x8GB DDR4-2666

HyperX Predator 32GB (4x8GB) DDR4-3333

Corsair Dominator Platinum Special Edition 4x8GB DDR4-3466

Unlike some other boards, MSI’s Z370 Godlike Gaming maintains appropriate bandwidth scaling when overclocking. Using a dual-channel motherboard allows users to fairly compare data from our reviews of various two-DIMM and four-DIMM kits.

MORE: Best Memory

MORE: All Memory Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

We’ve been surreptitiously collecting DDR4-2400 data on previous memory kits, so that we’d have it in the event of a review of sub-DDR4-3000 DRAM. That event has occurred in the Ballistix Tactical DDR4-2666, a set that still overclocks well-enough to DDR4-3200 to do so at 16-19-19-38 timings, despite its low rating.

Lowest Stable Timings at 1.35V (Max) on MSI Z370 Godlike Gaming (BIOS A.40)
	DDR4-3200	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2400
Ballistix Tact. Tracer RGB BLT4K8G4D26BFT4K (4x 8GB single-rank)	16-19-19-38 (2T)	13-16-16-32 (1T)	12-14-14-28 (1T)
Dominator Platinum SE CMD32GX4M4C3466C16W (4x 8GB single-rank)	14-14-14-28 (2T)	12-12-12-28 (1T)	11-11-11-28 (1T)
HyperX Predator HX433C16PB3K4/32 (4x 8GB single-rank)	15-16-16-32 (2T)	12-13-13-28 (1T)	11-12-12-28 (1T)
Adata XPG Spectrix D40 AX4U300038G16-QRS (4x 8GB single-rank)	15-16-16-32 (1T)	13-13-13-28 (1T)	12-12-12-28 (1T)

Unfortunately for Crucial, every competing module set reach DDR4-3200 with at least three fewer cycles tRCD and tRP. Before we see the impact of those timings on measured latency, let’s take a look at the overclocks!

The Ballistix DDR4-2666 RGB memory overclocks past its cheapest competitor, Adata’s DDR4-3000 RGB, but didn’t have the tenacity to reach our next delta, DDR4-3733. Then again, neither did the Dominator kit.

Though its default DDR4-2666 timings left it far behind the higher speeds of competitors, the Ballistix Tactical Tracer RGB edged them out in Sandra Bandwidth when using optimized DDR4-2666 settings. And its bandwidth deficit when overclocked to DDR4-3200 appears rather small, despite the mediocre timings we used to achieve that overclock.

Less latency means quicker response: Factory programmed timings are so relaxed for the Ballistix DDR4-2666 that its measured default latency is worse than the custom optimized DDR4-2400 timings of any kit tested. Conversely, its DDR4-3200 performance was gangbusters.

Builders willing to give up ten to fifteen percent in F1 2015 performance, compared to faster kits, will have no trouble adopting the Ballistix Tactical Tracer RGB DDR4-2666. Those who care more about this title can try tuning the memory up at DDR4-3200 as we did, or start off with the DDR4-3000 version, if they want the same look.

Most games don’t respond as eagerly to extreme memory performance, and Metro does a fairly good job of representing that. You’d see a noticeable dip if the performance was truly bad, but instead we see only a 1 fps drop when operating the memory at its DDR4-2666 rating.

Blender also shows noticeable gaps only for truly slow configurations, which hardly impacts our range of “good to great” settings. As Metro represents the “typical” gaming difference, so Blender represents “typical” application performance.

Remembering that less task completion time is also a great way to define “more performance”, 7-Zip shows precisely how slow the factory ratings of Ballistix DDR4-2666 really are. As our most memory-restrained test, it’s used to show the greatest impact memory bandwidth and latency can have outside of games.

If you weren’t inspired by the performance of Ballistix Tactical Tracer RGB at rated DDR4-2666 settings, you probably will be equally uninspired by its price. Available at most places for $440, even the discounted Newegg price of $410 is higher than that of the Adata XPG Spectrix D40 DDR4-3000. That argument is most applicable to our European readers though, since the four-DIMM kit is scarcely available in the U.S.A. In this country, Newegg and Amazon shoppers are stuck piecing together two of Adata’s D40 DDR4-3000 2x8GB kits…sometimes for even less money.

But, say you’re an American, with a Dell computer (no XMP), looking to buy a four-DIMM kit rather than piece one together from a pair of two-DIMM kits? You can’t easily find the Adata kit, and it’s the only alternative to offer a DDR4-2666 non-XMP setting. The highest non-XMP automatic configuration of the HyperX kit is DDR4-2400. The highest non-XMP automatic configuration of the Dominator kit is DDR4-2133. And just in case you think we’re stretching beyond reason to accommodate the Ballistix DDR4-2666 kit, we’d like to point you towards a similar discussion we had with an actual buyer.

Also worth considering is that while Ballistix offers an RGB program of its own, we haven’t seen a compatibility list. It didn’t work with our machine, and the lack of compatibility forced us to revert to MSI’s sketchy Mystic Light program to change modes (clicking “Apply” often made MSI’s program crash, but it usually didn’t when clicking “Save” instead). Systems that lack RGB control software could such as the above-mentioned Dell be limited to the default (white) lighting mode.

We could argue that the Ballistix heat spreaders and lighting bar look better than those of some competitors, but aesthetic arguments don’t win any value points. Crucial’s US-based support system is certainly worth something over a few of its foreign-based competitors, and it’s probably enough to bring it up to par value with the Adata set we compared.

Given that the faster comparison kits are even more expensive, that Ballistix RGB lighting adds $60 to $80 to the street price compared to similar Ballistix memory, and that a few competitors are even offering a premium DDR4-3200 RGB kit for the same price as these Ballistix DDR4-2666 modules, the extra credit still doesn’t push it past a three on our new rating system. Even though these modules are highly overclockable, systems that don’t support data rates beyond DDR4-2666 are the most-appropriate market for the Ballistix Tactical Tracer RGB DDR4-2666 kit.

MORE: Best Memory

MORE: All Memory Content

AMD Ryzen 2 vs. Intel Coffee Lake: What's the Best CPU Platform?

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Wed, 23 May 2018 13:30:00 +0000

Ryzen 2 vs Intel Coffee Lake

It's the age-old question that has spurred endless debate: AMD or Intel? Today, that rivalry has reached new heights with AMD's Ryzen 2000 Series, often referred to by users (but not AMD) as "Ryzen 2," competing against Intel's 8th Gen "Coffee Lake" for desktop dominance.

To help you decide which processor platform to get, we've put Ryzen 2 and Coffee Lake through a seven-round face-off.

Features

AMD and Intel fight their biggest battles in the Core i7/Ryzen 7 and Core i5/Ryzen 5 families that comprise the bulk of the PC market. As we can see, prices are generally comparable between the two companies' lineups, with Ryzen 7/Core i7 spanning from $303 to $360, while the Ryzen 5/Core i5 series span from $182 to $260.

Even after Intel's adjustments to the Coffee Lake Core i7 series, AMD holds the advantage of more cores in its Ryzen 7 product line. Intel's Core i7 models come with six cores and twelve threads, while AMD's Ryzen 7 line wields eight cores and sixteen threads.

	AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	Intel Core i7-8700K	AMD Ryzen 7 2700	Intel Core i7-8700	AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	Intel Core i5-8600K	AMD Ryzen 5 2600	Intel Core i5-8400
MSRP	$329	$359	$299	$303	$229	$257	$199	$182
Cores/Threads	8/16	6/12	8/16	6/12	6/12	6/6	6/12	6/6
TDP	105W	95W	65W	65W	95W	95W	65W	65W
Base Freq. (GHz)	3.7	3.7	3.2	3.2	3.6	3.6	3.4	2.8
Precision Boost Freq. (GHz)	4.3	4.7	4.1	4.6	4.2	4.3	3.9	4.0
Cache (L3)	16MB	12MB	16MB	12MB	16MB	9MB	16MB	9MB
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Cooler	105W Wraith Prism (LED)	No	95W Wraith Spire (LED)	Intel Stock	95W Wraith Spire	No	65W Wraith Stealth	Intel Stock

The Ryzen 5 and Core i5 series are the general-purpose workhorses of most desktop PCs, and both lineups come with six cores. Intel has segmented its product stack by disabling Hyper-Threading on its Core i5 models, meaning software can only assign a single thread to each core. Meanwhile, AMD's Ryzen 5 models come with the company's Simultaneous Multi-Threading, which allows software to schedule two threads to each core at the same time. That gives Ryzen 5 an advantage with a total of twelve threads.

But not all cores are created equal. Intel holds the per-core performance advantage with its higher frequencies and generally processes more instructions per clock (IPC). Ryzen 7 tops out at 4.3 GHz with the 2700X model, while Intel's Core i7-8700K stretches up to 4.7 GHz. Intel's per-core performance advantage equates to more performance and responsiveness in lightly-threaded applications, such as most games and general desktop PC applications.

AMD's Ryzen 2 (2000 series) offers improved performance in heavily-threaded productivity applications, like rendering, video editing, and transcoding, and it also boosts performance in game titles that can utilize the extra cores and threads. Ryzen 2 also comes with Precision Boost 2, which is similar to Intel's multi-core boost implementation that provides higher boost frequencies when applications exercise multiple cores at once. Neither company discloses the full list of turbo frequencies, so it's hard to make comparisons based on the specifications alone, but we’ll put the processors to the test shortly.

Winner: Tie. AMD Ryzen 2’s has more cores and more threads. However, Intel has higher clock speeds.

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Intel Core i7-8700K

AMD Ryzen 7 2700

Overclocking

You'll need an unlocked ratio multiplier to overclock your processor, and AMD holds a distinct advantage with unlocked multipliers on every Ryzen 2 model. AMD also allows you to overclock your processor on any B- or X-series AM4 motherboard, which stands in contrast to Intel's segmentation practices.

Intel only allows overclocking with its K-series processors, which come at a premium, and you'll also need a pricier Z-series motherboard. AMD's flexible overclocking options have earned it plenty of praise in the enthusiast community because you can achieve nearly the same performance with the less-expensive "non-X" models as the pricier X models.

You'll pay for the privilege, but Intel does hold the uncontested lead in overclocking. Intel's processors generally land in the 4.9 to 5.0 GHz range after tuning, while AMD's Ryzen 2 often taps out at 4.2 GHz. Of course, the silicon lottery applies, so chip quality can have an impact on the maximum attainable overclocks.

Intel also holds the advantage on the memory overclocking front, too. The company's processors have a much higher memory data transfer rate potential than AMD's lineup. AMD's Zen microarchitecture profits greatly from increased memory data transfer rates, which often manifests as impressive performance scaling in games, while you don't see as much of a progressive performance increase from the Intel models.

Winner: Intel. You can push Intel’s CPU and your memory far beyond AMD’s processors, which often run very close to the limits at stock settings.

Stock Coolers

Intel's stock coolers certainly aren't noteworthy. These dinky coolers match the processors' TDP rating exactly, and Intel doesn't include them with the overclockable K-series models. Shelling out for an aftermarket cooler adds more cost to your build, so this is a problem you're paying for.

AMD's excellent coolers are one of the hallmarks of its Ryzen lineup. These coolers often support at least some level of overclocking, but they are also attractive. AMD's Ryzen 7 series now comes equipped with beefy LED-lit stock coolers, too.

The processors' TDP rating also serves as a general indicator of power consumption and thermal generation. Most of Intel and AMD's comparably-priced models share similar TDP ratings, though the Ryzen 7 2700X stands alone as the only 105W processor. That's higher than Intel's maximum 95W rating.

Winner: AMD Ryzen 2. Intel's stock coolers are a joke, but nobody's laughing at AMD.

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

Intel Core i5-8600K

AMD Ryzen 5 2600

Motherboards

AMD and Intel's motherboards are also key considerations. As we mentioned, Intel restricts overclocking to its pricey Z-Series motherboards, while AMD allows you to overclock on its less-expensive B-series models.

AMD has also promised to support its AM4 motherboards (the models that support Ryzen processors) until 2020, so you can upgrade your system by simply dropping in a new processor. AMD has already released A-, B-, and X-series 300-series motherboards, and it is refreshing AM4 with newer 400-series motherboards. Compatibility is assured with both generations of Ryzen processors, though you may have to flash the BIOS on an older motherboard to support the newer processors.

In contrast, Intel refreshes its chipsets and sockets more frequently. The Coffee Lake models won't work in the previous-generation 200-series motherboards that have the same socket, so 300-series motherboards are your only option. Intel hasn't guaranteed socket support for its future processors, so it’s possible that newer chip generations will require a new motherboard, which restricts upgrade options.

Winner: AMD. Intel squeezes you for every penny if you want to overclock, and its constant socket and chipset changes restricts future upgrades.

Gaming Performance

When it comes to gaming, Coffee Lake beats Ryzen 2 on most titles, simply because more games are lightly-threaded and benefit from Intel's higher single-core clock speeds. AMD's processors are generally more competitive in game titles that can leverage their additional cores effectively, such as Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation, but Intel takes the lead in titles that benefit from increased frequency and instructions per clock cycle, like Grand Theft Auto V.

As you can see with our Middle-Earth: Shadow of War benchmark results, some games don't respond as well to increased host processing resources, instead responding better to more capable graphics cards.

Our first two slides contain a geometric mean of frame rates for all of the games in our standard test suite. We split these values into average frame rates and 99th-percentile frame rates, with the latter being a good indicator of the smoothness of your gaming experience. The remainder of the slides contain the results of each test.

Intel's Core i7-8700K offers the highest average gaming performance at both stock and overclocked settings, though the Core i5-8600K does provide a slightly smoother experience with stock settings. AMD's Ryzen 2 processors don't provide as much peak performance, but they do offer near-equivalency in our tests at 1080p so you may not notice the difference. If you game with higher resolutions, these performance deltas will shrink further as the GPU becomes the bottleneck.

Intel's Core i5-8400 is the least expensive chip in our tests, but it offers a great level of performance for its price point. The Ryzen 5 2600X also stands out as a capable performer but overclocking the Ryzen 5 2600 yields nearly the same performance. We also see the same story play out with the Ryzen 7 2700X and 2700.

Winner: Intel offers stronger performance in more games. However, if you're streaming, AMD's multitasking might is better.

Productivity Performance

Our productivity results generally mirror the respective capabilities of Ryzen 2 (2000 series), which tends to perform better in heavily-threaded applications, and Coffee Lake processors, which tend to perform best in lightly-threaded apps.

That means Ryzen excels in decompression, compression, and rendering applications, but the chips also provide more than acceptable performance across our wide range of lightly-threaded workloads.

Intel's Coffee Lake processors also provide acceptable performance in those applications, but they excel in lightly-threaded apps. That includes applications like the Adobe Creative Cloud Suite, web browsers, single-core rendering workloads, and our LAME encoding benchmark. Intel also enjoys a performance advantage in applications that leverage powerful AVX instructions, like our x265 HandBrake test.

Winner: Tie. If you are primarily browsing the web, using office apps or even playing with Adobe's creative suite, Intel is faster. However, if you use a lot of multi-threaded, non-Adobe software for rendering videos, photos and animations, AMD is a better choice.

Value

By almost any measure, AMD processors offer more bang for your buck. First, with two equivalent chips, the AMD processor is usually cheaper. For example, at publishing time, the high-end AMD Ryzen 7 2700X ($319) was $20 cheaper than the equivalent Intel chip, the Core i7-8700K ($339) while the mid-range Ryzen 5 2600X ($219) was about $35 less its counterpart, the Core i5-8600K ($244).

If you want to overclock with Intel, you have to spend extra for a K-series CPU, but with AMD, you can buy a mainstream chip and overclock it. And if you want to overclock your Intel CPU, you need a pricey, Z-Series motherboard, but with AMD, you can overclock with even an inexpensive B-Series board.

But wait, there's more. The AMD chips all come with really good stock CPU coolers that you might actually want to use while Intel doesn't even give you a fan for its K-series chips and gives you a poor-quality one for the rest of its lineup.

Winner: AMD Ryzen 2 by a landslide.

Bottom Line

Ryzen 2 wins this competition by a nose, winning five rounds to four. Of the seven rounds in our face-off, two -- features and productivity performance -- were a tie. However, the real winner here is you. As a consumer, you have a wide variety of great processor choices from two strong manufacturers.

Which CPU platform you choose should depend on two main factors: your budget and what types of software you use most. If you want the best performance for the majority of games and productivity apps, which are lightly threaded, Intel Coffee Lake is your top choice. However, if you want the best speed for the money or you use a lot of heavily-threaded apps, AMD Ryzen 2 was made for you.

Round	Intel Coffee Lake	AMD Ryzen 2
Features	✗	✗
Overclocking	✗
Stock Coolers		✗
Motherboards		✗
Gaming Performance	✗
Productivity Performance	✗	✗
Value		✗
Total	4	5

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen 7 2700 Review: The Non-X Factor

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Wed, 16 May 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Go X Or Go Home

AMD's Ryzen 7 2700 includes the same eight cores as its more expensive Ryzen 7 2700X flagship, plus simultaneous multi-threading technology that allows each core to work on two software threads at the same time. But its clock rates are trimmed back to create a $30-cheaper model sporting a little less performance. Even though the 2700 loses its enthusiast-targeted X modifier, AMD still arms the chip with an unlocked ratio multiplier for flexible overclocking. And this less expensive CPU should hit nearly the same frequencies as the Ryzen 7 2700X we like so much.

Last generation, plenty of overclocking headroom and lower prices earned AMD's non-X Ryzen SKUs praise up and down the stack. Much of that was based on the company's bundled coolers, though. For example, the then-flagship Ryzen 7 1800X launched at $500 with no thermal solution at all. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 7 1700 sold for $330 with a cooler in the box. Now, AMD bundles a heat sink and fan with all of its new Ryzen chips. Moreover, it only sells 2700 at a $30 discount. Worse, although it's possible to match Ryzen 7 2700X's performance after a bit of overclocking, you need an aftermarket cooler to get there. AMD's freebie won't cut it. This time around, there's not much reason to step down a tier.

Ryzen 7 2700

With its 2000-series Ryzen processors, AMD was challenged to deliver more than the incremental improvements we've been seeing from Intel lately. To begin, the company swapped out its 14nm manufacturing process with a 12nm node, enabling higher clock rates at the same power consumption levels. AMD also optimized the Zen architecture by adding more sophisticated multi-core boost algorithms and lowering cache and memory latencies. Together, those changes enable speed-ups in pretty much every type of workload we test with, and they're all baked in to Ryzen 7 2700.

	AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	AMD Ryzen 7 1800X	AMD Ryzen 7 2700	Ryzen 7 1700	AMD Ryzen 5 1600X	AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	AMD Ryzen 5 2600	Intel Core i7-8700K	Intel Core i5-8600K	Intel Core i5-8400
MSRP	$329	$349	$299	$299	$219	$229	$199	$359	$257	$182
Cores/Threads	8/16	8/16	8/16	8/16	6/12	6/12	6/12	6/12	6/6	6/6
TDP	105W	95W	65W	65W	95W	95W	65W	95W	95W	65W
Base Freq. (GHz)	3.7	3.6	3.2	3.0	3.6	3.6	3.4	3.7	3.6	2.8
Precision Boost Freq. (GHz)	4.3	4.1	4.1	3.8	4.0	4.2	3.9	4.7	4.3	4.0
Cache (L3)	16MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	12MB	9MB	9MB
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Cooler	105W Wraith Prism (LED)	-	95W Wraith Spire (LED)	95W Wraith Spire	-	95W Wraith Spire	65W Wraith Stealth	-	-	Intel

AMD rates its Ryzen 7 2700 at a much lower 65W thermal design power than its 105W Ryzen 7 2700X. That's partly why the 2700's base frequency is a much more conservative 3.2 GHz, while its maximum Precision Boost clock rate tops out at 4.1 GHz. You'd think, then, that the bundled 95W Wraith Spire thermal solution with LED lighting would be beefy enough for aggressive overclocking. It's not, though. If you're really after Ryzen's peak potential, purchase a more capable aftermarket heat sink/fan combination or closed-loop liquid cooler.

All 2000-series Ryzen CPUs are compatible with motherboards sporting new X470 or older 300-series chipsets. You can even overclock the new processors on value-oriented B-series platforms. While lower-cost 400-series chipsets aren't available yet, we're counting on them to offer a more affordable option for enthusiasts looking to tune 2000-series Ryzen CPUs.

The Ryzen 7 2700 supports up to DDR4-2933 memory, just like the 2700X. Just be aware that you'll only get those data rates with single-rank modules installed in a maximum of two slots. Even then, it takes a motherboard with six PCB layers to operate at 2933 MT/s stably. AMD uses Indium solder between its Ryzen 7 die and heat spreader, improving thermal transfer performance compared to Intel CPUs reliant on paste instead.

Like all 2000-series models, the Ryzen 7 2700 comes with StorMI Technology, which is a software-based tiering solution that blends the low price and high capacity of hard drives with the speed of an SSD, 3D XPoint, or even up to 2GB of RAM.

Precision Boost 2 And XFR2

AMD's previous-gen Ryzen processors include Precision Boost functionality, which is similar to Intel's Turbo Boost technology. They also sport a feature called eXtended Frequency Range (XFR), which enables higher clock rates when it's determined that your cooling solution has thermal headroom to spare.

The new Precision Boost 2 (PB2) and XFR2 algorithms improve performance in threaded workloads by raising the frequency of any number of cores. AMD doesn't share a list of specific multi-core PB2 and XFR2 bins because the opportunistic algorithms accelerate to different clock rates based on temperature, current, and load. However, we collected our measurements on a motherboard with solid voltage regulation circuitry and a good cooler, two requirements for optimal frequencies.

The Ryzen 7 2700 offers an impressive 4.1 GHz clock rate benchmarked in a single-threaded workload. Try as we might, though, the CPU wouldn't exhibit the same graceful downward frequency slope as AMD's 2700X as we increased the test's thread count. No doubt, Ryzen 7 2700 is a step up compared to the previous-gen Ryzen 7 1700, but its frequency drops further and faster than the 2700X.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Overclocking & Test Setup

Overclocking

Like the Ryzen 7 2700X, we overclocked AMD's 2700 to 4.2 GHz. While the lower-end chip did need a bit more voltage to get there, our 1.4V Vcore, 1.2V SoC, and Level four Loadline Calibration (LLC) settings are still within the safe zone for AMD's processors. They just make the CPU operate a little warmer than it would otherwise. Top the 2700 with a capable closed-loop watercooler and thermals won't be an issue. If you're stuck with AMD's bundled heat sink and fan, though, expect Ryzen 7 2700 to fall short of its best possible overclock. Our sample topped out at 4.05 GHz as it exceeded 95°C.

We did match the 2700X's overclocked memory settings (DDR4-3466 at 14-14-14-34 timings) with minimal effort. That's particularly encouraging since memory tuning dramatically improves Ryzen's gaming performance.

Precision Boost Overdrive

AMD isn't giving us much detail about its Precision Boost Overdrive feature, though we know it increases maximum boost voltage and boost duration. However, we also know that Precision Boost Overdrive is an AMD-sanctioned feature. Because this is a standard capability for Ryzen 2000-series processors, we leave it enabled. Conversely, we disable the Multi-Core Enhancement BIOS option found in many Intel-based motherboards because it overclocks beyond the company's specifications.

MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC

Our MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC has a PCI Express 3.0 slot with a x16 link, a slot with a x8 connection, and another PCI Express 2.0 slot with a four-lane link for graphics cards. Its four RAM slots support DDR4-2933 and scale quite a bit higher through overclocking.

The motherboard also provides two M.2 slots with PCIe connectivity. The I/O panel has a USB 3.1 Type C connector. The USB 3.1 and USB 3.1 Gen 2 ports support fast charging for smartphones and tablets. If RGB is your thing, MSI has you covered. The integrated RGB Mystic lighting allows customizable effects with several software-controlled zones.

Comparison Products

Intel Core i5-8400

Intel Core i5-8600K

Intel Core i7-8700K

Test Systems

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700, Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen 5 2600XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i7-8700K, i5-8600K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400, DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466AMD Socket AM4 (300-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, 1700, Ryzen 5 1600XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3200All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703 - All Spectre and Meltdown mitigations
Cooling	U.S.Corsair H115i

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

VRMark & 3DMark

While synthetic benchmarks scale well with increased host computing resources, those gains don't always translate to real-world gaming performance. Rather, these benchmarks give us a solid measure of theoretical horsepower available to game engines.

All of our test processors easily passed the 109 FPS threshold that UL sets as the minimum for a smooth virtual reality experience.

The stock Ryzen 7 2700 nearly matched AMD's previous-gen 1800X. However, it also trailed the 2700X by a significant margin. A bit of tuning goes a long way though, and the overclocked 2700 came close to tying our overclocked Ryzen 7 2700X. Also interesting, the stock Ryzen 5 2600X beat Ryzen 7 2700 out of the box.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

The 2700's stock performance was impressive, highlighting the advantage of lower memory latency and enhanced multi-core turbo algorithms. Overclocked, Ryzen 7 2700 exceeded the performance of a stock 2700X.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation scales well with additional threads, so six-core models without Intel's Hyper-Threading Technology like the Core i5-8400 and -8600K languish at the bottom of our chart. Overclocking propelled the Core i5-8600K into contention with a tuned 6C/12T Ryzen 5 2600X.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

Civilization's AI test measures performance in a turn-based strategy game and tends to favor per-core performance. Therefore, its comes as no surprise that a stock Ryzen 7 2700 delivered the turn time we expected, given fairly conservative clock rates.

An unlocked ratio multiplier is a mighty equalizer, though. After overclocking, the 2700 outpaced Ryzen 7 2700X operating at its default clock rates and nearly matched the Core i7-8700K. Of course, tuning the Intel processors widened their lead considerably.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

Ryzen 7 2700 beat the Ryzen 7 1800X in stock trim, though tuning improved its outcome significantly.

Clearly, Intel's Core i5-8400 is a formidable competitor. It achieved almost the same performance as an overclocked Ryzen 7 2700. Too bad, then, that Intel locks the chip's multiplier, preventing enthusiasts from making it any faster. Stepping up to an overclockable Core i5-8600K yielded a big performance boost, though that also compels you to spend big on a Z-series motherboard and aftermarket cooler.

A tuned Ryzen 7 2700 trailed the 2700X at a similar 4.2 GHz, if only slightly.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III responds best to the high clock rates of Intel's tuned CPUs. This time around, however, an overclocked Ryzen 7 2700 nearly matched the stock Core i7-8700K.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry Primal, GTA: V & Hitman

Far Cry Primal

Our Far Cry Primal benchmark used to swing entirely in Intel's favor. But AMD's 2000-series Ryzen processors are much more competitive than their predecessors. Again, a stock Ryzen 7 2700 easily outpaced AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X and 1700. And this time around, a bit of overclocking even pushed the 2700 beyond AMD's flagship at 4.2 GHz.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates. The tuned Ryzen processors, which effectively tied each other, go a long way to improve AMD's competitive position.

Hitman

Hitman's Game of the Year update imposed a 90 FPS cap, so this title no longer scales well with high-end PCs. Unfortunately, some popular AAA titles employ similar frame rate limits, so we leave this result in our suite to show that not all titles respond to faster components.

Overall, the results are unsurprising given IO Interactive's newly-imposed performance ceiling. However, the Core i5's results stand out for their low 99th percentile frame rates.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Shadow Of War & Project CARS 2

Middle-earth: Shadow Of War

Middle-earth: Shadow of War doesn't scale as well as some of our other benchmarks, and it certainly isn't as sensitive to IPC throughput and clock rate as Shadow of Mordor.

All of the processors we benchmarked offered a similar gaming experience, though the Ryzen 7 1700 obviously lagged the group due to its lower frequency and lack of multi-core turbo.

Project CARS 2

While the tuned Ryzen 7 2700 effectively tied Core i7-8700K, Intel's Core i5-8400 remained a formidable challenger. Overclocking helped the Core CPUs to some extent, though as we saw from Intel's Core i5-8600K, these numbers are indicative of a graphics bottleneck.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office & Productivity

Adobe Creative Cloud

The Ryzen 7 2700 lagged behind AMD's 2700X flagship at stock settings in our Creative Cloud suite, particularly during the benchmark's lightly-threaded tests. Overclocking helped achieve near-parity, though.

Intel's processors benefited from increased overclocking headroom and the ability to get more done per clock cycle, easily outpacing the rest of our CPUs.

Web Browser

The Krakken suite tests JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography.

AMD's processors typically lag Intel's in Web browser benchmarks due to their lower per-core performance. So it comes as little surprise that a stock Ryzen 7 2700 suffered in these metrics due to its low frequency range. Of course, overclocking helped rectify this.

Productivity

AMD's Ryzen 7 2700 performed admirably right out of the box. While overclocking yielded a big boost, the 2700 still fell behind the pricier Ryzen 7 2700X.

Our video conferencing suite measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. This workload benefits from parallelism, so the 8C/16T Ryzen models naturally enjoyed the largest advantage from their architecture. Although an overclocked Ryzen 7 2700 slipped past AMD's 2700X, its lead fell within the margin of error.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding & Compression

Rendering

Ryzen 7 CPUs find plenty of fans among the rendering crowd. AMD's Ryzen 7 2700 represents a solid step beyond the company's 1000-series processors in our multi-threaded tests. In fact, it often provided a similar performance level as the previous-generation 1800X flagship in our tests.

The Intel processors demonstrated their per-core advantage in our lightly threaded tests. Meanwhile, a stock Ryzen 7 2700X proved faster than the same chip overclocked in many of the same benchmarks, since its 4.3 GHz dual-core boost frequency is higher than our 4.2 GHz all-core overclock.

Encoding & Compression

LAME is a quintessential single-threaded workload that typically illustrates Intel's per-clock advantage. This time around, though, AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600X landed on top of the mighty Core i7-8700K in stock form.

Our threaded compression and decompression tests work directly from system memory, removing our SSDs from the equation. The Ryzen 7 2700 put its eight cores to good use, beating most of its competition.

There's a larger delta between Intel and AMD processors in our HandBrake x265 test compared to the x264 benchmark, given the former's heavier reliance on AVX instructions. AMD looks much better in both metrics than it used to, though. The improved multi-core Precision Boost 2 frequencies help level the playing field.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

AMD's Ryzen 7 2700 boasts many of the same features as the flagship 2700X, including an eight-core architecture and 16MB of L3 cache. But it loses quite a bit of steam in our benchmarks due to its lower clock rates. Overclockers can get comparable performance out of both CPUs, but they need to replace the stock heat sink and fan with higher-end aftermarket cooling first. This sullies any value advantage the 2700 might have enjoyed.

How does a frequency disadvantage affect the 2700's viability in a gaming PC versus AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X? The charts below plot performance using average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we then convert into a FPS measurement. We also present price-to-performance charts that get split up to include CPUs-only and extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add an extra $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370).

When it comes to gaming, an overclocked Ryzen 7 2700 provided a statistically insignificant ~1 FPS advantage over the 2700X in 99th percentile frame rates. In essence, both tuned processors offer a very similar experience through our suite. It's unfortunate, then, that you need to buy an aftermarket cooler in order to overclock Ryzen 7 2700 to its potential. So much for the $30 savings versus Ryzen 7 2700X.

That means you get more value from AMD's flagship than the stepped-down Ryzen 7 2700. In fact, at stock settings, even a Core i5-8400 is roughly equivalent to the 2700. And it costs $110 less. And you can drop it into affordable motherboards. Intel's stock cooler is fine, too. You get the picture.

Similar trends surfaced in our desktop productivity tests. Ryzen 7 2700's frequency deficit resulted in notably less performance than a stock Ryzen 7 2700X across the board. Although Ryzen 7 2700 is faster than Intel's Core i5-8400 and -8600K in threaded workloads thanks to its eight-core design, AMD's own Ryzen 7 2700X is more compelling if you're interested in those types of applications.

If you tune the memory, the Ryzen 7 2700X doesn't gain much from overclocking the cores. That means you can pair the 2700X and its stock cooler with a capable memory kit and get impressive performance. In contrast, you'll have to invest in a more capable cooler to achieve the same level of performance with the Ryzen 7 2700. That largely negates the 2700's scant $30 price advantage.

Gone are the days of AMD selling its X-series Ryzen CPUs at higher prices and without thermal solutions. Newer models like the Ryzen 7 2700X only cost a bit more than the 2700, plus they also include a heat sink and fan. We'd rather spend the extra $30. Of course, gamers might want to go another direction. Intel's Core i5-8400 costs less and is every bit as quick in our favorite titles. And then there's the Ryzen 5 2600X, which is surprisingly fast across a broader range of workloads and much more affordable.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Gigabyte Z370 Aorus Gaming 5 Review: Big Flash, Medium Cash

Thomas Soderstrom — Tue, 08 May 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Features & Layout

Gigabyte's Z370 Aorus Gaming 5 offers a more cost-conscious alternative to its big brother, the Z370 Aorus Gaming 7: Shaving the second Gigabit Ethernet port off the I/O panel, the firm also shaved $50 off the price tag while adding a low-cost Wi-Fi adapter. A few onboard buttons are also gone, along with the Gaming 7’s single M.2 heat spreader, but Gaming 5 buyers still get the three M.2 storage slots of its higher-priced sibling.

The company also kept the full onboard RGB package and associated light strip headers, but the value of those additions typically depends on the builder’s choice of case aesthetic. We'll treat this as a potential value bonus for RGB fanatics as we delve deeper into the Z370 Aorus Gaming 5's value credentials.

The Z370 Aorus Gaming 5’s layout looks strikingly familiar, from its triple M.2 storage and triple x16-length PCIe slots to its single Type-C USB front-panel header, yet a closer look at the specs reveals that the Type-C output is merely of the Gen 1 variety (aka USB 3.0), while a closer look at the long PCIe slots reveals that only two of these are lighted and surrounded by metal reinforcement. That last change should be considered purely aesthetic by most users, since both motherboard models limit the bottom slot to four lanes from the PCH, and it drops all the way down to two lanes when the bottom M.2 slot is occupied.

Changes to the I/O panel are a little more obvious, beginning with the absence of a second RJ-45 connector and the presence of two Wi-Fi antenna connectors. The USB ports have been rearranged to offer one additional Type A port, along two yellow “DAC-Up 2” USB 3.0 ports with adjustable voltage, two regular USB 3.0 ports and a USB 3.1 Gen2 Type A port that sits on the same 2-lane PCIe 3.0 controllers as the Type-C port. The final two ports are USB 2.0 and suitable for low-speed peripherals such as keyboards and mice.

As with the Gaming 7, the top M.2 ports of the Z370 Aorus Gaming 5 steal two HSIO resources from two SATA ports, regardless of whether they are loaded with SATA or PCIe based M.2 modules. The middle M.2 slot has a full set of PCIe lanes, and steals a SATA port only if an SATA module is installed.

The lower slot has no SATA connectivity, but does steal two lanes from the four-lane lower PCIe slot when filled. The top PCIe x1 slot steals an HSIO resource from an SATA port, so the worst-case scenario of having any M.2 drive in the first slot, an SATA M.2 in the second slot, and an x1 card in the top PCIe slot would leave builders with only two active SATA cable ports.

The two metal-reinforced LED-lighted PCIe slots switch from x16/x0 to x8/x8 mode whenever a card is installed in the lower of these two slots. That’s par for the course with Z370 motherboards, given the CPU interface’s ability to support sixteen lanes directly, and the ability of the CPU’s onboard PCIe controller to split those across up to three cards. Hardly any gaming motherboard has more than two CPU-fed slots because hardly any gamer wants to put a card on an x4 slot, though a few storage geeks were probably hoping for CPU-based NVMe via M.2.

The Z370 Aorus Gaming 5’s bottom edge features an HD-Audio front-panel header, a power header for demonstrating LED lighting using a bare board, one (of two) addressable LED headers with voltage selector jumper, one (of two) RGBW LED strip header, a TPM module port, two USB 2.0 two-port headers, a two-digit diagnostics code display, three (of eight) four-pin fan headers, one (of two) thermistor lead headers, a CLR_BIOS jumper, a Thunderbolt add-in card header, and an extended front-panel switch/activity light header with the standard AC-97 pin arrangement on the left, a beep-code speaker and three-pin power LED header on the right, and a chassis intrusion header in the middle. The chassis intrusion header uses the “N/C” (not connected) pin typically found on Intel style power/LED headers as a ground.

The installation kit includes the driver disc and documentation, an RGBW extension cable with detachable white lead, a high-bandwidth SLI bridge, a magnetic-base Wi-Fi antenna, four STA cables, two Thermistor cables, an I/O shield, and Gigabyte’s connector coupling for front panel activity LED/button leads.

Specifications

Socket	LGA 1151
Chipset	Intel Z370
Form Factor	ATX
Voltage Regulator	11 Phases
Video Ports	DisplayPort 1.2, HDMI 1.4
USB Ports	10Gbps: (1) Type-C, (1) Type A, 5Gb/s: (4) Type A; (2) USB 2.0
Network Jacks	(1) Gigabit Ethernet, (2) Wi-Fi Antenna
Audio Jacks	(5) Analog, (1) Digital Out
Legacy Ports/Jacks	(1) PS/2
Other Ports/Jacks	✗
PCIe x16	(3) v3.0 (x16/x0/x4, x8/x8/x4, x8/x8/x2) (Two lanes shared w/3rd M.2)
PCIe x8	✗
PCIe x4	✗
PCIe x1	(3) v3.0 (3rd slot excludes SATA port 1)
CrossFire/SLI	3x / 2x
DIMM Slots	(8) (4) DDR4
M.2 Slots	(2) PCIe 3.0 x4^ / SATA, (1) PCIe 3.0 x4 (Excludes ports 0, ^4-5)
U.2 Ports	✗
SATA Ports	(6) 6Gb/s (SATA M.2-2 takes pt 0, M.2-1 pts 4-5)
USB Headers	(1) 5Gb/s Type-C, (1) v3.0, (2) v2.0
Fan Headers	(8) 4-Pin
Legacy Interfaces	✗
Other Interfaces	FP-Audio,TPM, (2)RGBW-LED, (2) D-LED, (2)Thermistor Header
Diagnostics Panel	Numeric
Internal Button/Switch	✗ / ✗
SATA/RAID Controllers	Integrated (0/1/5/10)
Ethernet Controllers	WGI219V PHY
Wi-Fi/Bluetooth Controllers	Intel 3165 802.11ac (433mb/s) / BT 4.2 Combo
USB Controllers	(2) ASM3142 PCIe 3.0
HD Audio Codec	ALC1220
DDL/DTS Connect	✗
Warranty	Three Years

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

The Z370 Aorus Gaming 5’s software suite is the same one we gave we talked about in our Gaming 7 review. App Center remains the launch point for interesting Gigabyte utilities including RGB Fusion and Easy Tune. The Gaming 5 even includes the Gaming 7’s Creative SoundBlasterX 720° audio suite.

The Z370 Aorus Gaming 5’s five lighting zones can be changed individually, but the software doesn’t support color chase or wave modes for onboard LEDs. As for Easy Tune, its automatic algorithm pushed our CPU to 4.9 GHz at around 1.42V, where it promptly thermal throttled under Prime95. Manual tuning works only after clearing auto-tune settings or else the program will lock the OS upon using its “apply” button. After rebooting to load firmware defaults, we restarted Easy Tune and played with clocks and voltage to our heart’s content.

Firmware

Z370 Aorus Gaming 5 firmware uses its Classic GUI by default, which has popups on the right and bottom to show basic stats and interface options. Its M.I.T. menu is a launch point for submenus that contain most of the settings overclockers need to perform their tuning wizardry.

Among the CPU overclocking menus are a few quick setting configurations that include 4.8 GHz at 1.26 through 1.33V (1.30V fully loaded), 4.9 GHz at 1.26 through 1.36V (1.30V fully loaded), at 5.0 GHz at 1.27 through 1.38V (1.32V fully loaded). Given that the 4.8 GHz setting kept our CPU at 1.30V under load, we used it to reach our CPU’s nominal 4848 MHz limit by simply increasing its BCLK to 101 MHz.

Our memory also supported that 101 MHz BCLK, even when using the board’s DDR4-4000 setting at XMP-stock 18-19-19-39 timings. The resulting 4040 MHz data rate is a free 4.5% performance gain for this DDR4-3866 kit.

Gigabyte’s voltage settings are spread across so many submenus that we combine a few screenshots for brevity. The first of these is “Advanced Power Settings”, which includes the Load Line Calibration settings that increase baseline voltage under load to offset the drop that happens as the circuit is loaded.

We found that the “High” VCore Loadline Calibration setting, when combined with the Turbo AC/DC Load Line setting, kept the CPU core voltage of our Core i7-8700K stable at 1.30V and 4848 MHz while running 12 threads of Prime95 small-FFTs.

Our meter showed 1.352V at the memory slot when using the Z370 Aorus Gaming 5’s 1.340V setting. It’s important for us to maintain as much voltage consistency as we can when comparing memory overclocking capability, as most manufacturers add a little extra to get ahead of competitors. Unfortunately, the Z370 Aorus Gaming 5 also misreports a far lower voltage than the one we’ve manually discovered.

All eight fan headers can be switched from PWM to voltage mode as needed, or left to detect the appropriate mode on their own. Users can select from one of the factory speed profiles, or define their own. And one of those headers is even specified to support up to 3A loads.

A simplified version of RGB Fusion is found on the firmware GUI’s “Peripherals” menu, where users who don’t need as many settings can make lighting scheme changes without the need for additional software.

Switching to “Easy Mode” from the lower screen popup of Classic Mode gets users to a safe place where they can’t overclock, but can still enable auto-overclocking, XMP mode for faster memory, alter boot order, and access the “Smart Fan 5” menu described previously. Unfortunately, the overclocking profile chosen by firmware was designed for a Core i3-8350K operating at only 4.20 GHz.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

We've now tested so many Z370 boards that we're able to focus on specific market niches, such as $200-$220 ATX boards with onboard Wi-Fi. We're treating the ASRock Taichi as one of these in spite of its $226 price, simply because it's such a close match in features.The subject of today's review, Gigabyte's Z370 Aorus Gaming 5, comes in at $200.

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Back during the Intel X299 launch, we upgraded our test bed to handle the tremendous heat produced by the Core i9-7900X. Our award-winning Fractal Design S24 liquid cooler system sample serves the same purpose for the newer, lower-heat Core i7-8700K. Cooler Master’s HAF-XB provides an optimal layout to blow the S24’s fans sufficiently over each motherboard’s voltage regulator.

Comparison Products

Gigabyte Z370 Aorus Gaming 5

MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC

Asus ROG Strix Z370-E Gaming

All four competing boards have a broader range of overclocking settings than any production hardware can realistically use, which should lead us into a highly competitive overclocking race!

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks & Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4K Random Read, 4K Random Write128K Sequential Read, 128K Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests & Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19GB 4K mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0, 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests & Settings
Ashes of the Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920x1080, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, RainMedium Preset, No AFUltra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

Synthetic Benchmarks

Synthetic benchmarks do a great job of showing how well individual components perform. Unfortunately, that means the more boring the charts are, the better the represented companies have done complying with things like Intel’s CPU specifications.

There was a slight bulge in the 3DMark Firestrike scores for the Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC and ROG Strix Z370-E Gaming, but both were consistent in other GPU-oriented tests such as Compubench. Moreover, those competing boards were also first and second in Sandra Bandwidth, where advanced memory timings are the only place companies can make noticeable optimizations without us turning up evidence of “cheating”.

3D Games

We’ve maintained a clean image of our original benchmark suite to prevent software-related performance changes, yet Ashes and F1 2015 performance has been on a gradual climb since its creation. Maybe updated chipset drivers are helping. Maybe it's firmware related? The Z370 Aorus Gaming 5 still finishes second overall behind the ROG Strix Z370-E Gaming, and that board was tested two months ago.

The Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC’s shortfall in Talos is due to the overhead of its Nahimic software, which is Talos compatible. Disabling the software disables a few handy (and paid-for) features, but proves that the FPS is still available to those willing to sacrifice this feature.

Timed Applications

Less time means more performance, but nothing significant stands out in our timed application tests. It looks like we’ll need to rank the boards in other ways, such as overclocking, features, and price.

Power, Heat, & Efficiency

MSI’s low full-load power use should be legendary by now, and one of the payoffs was reduced heat. It appears to do this by reducing core voltage to the lowest stable setting, which means the power savings percentage wouldn’t be applicable to overclocked systems. At least the Z370 Aorus Gaming 5 came in second-place here.

Overclocking

The Z370 Aorus Gaming 5 overclocks so eagerly that it left this reviewer with a conundrum: To limit the amount of time it takes to finish an evaluation, I first find the highest stable multiplier and then increase the BCLK using only 1 MHz steps. Using this method, the Z370 Aorus Gaming 5 reached the same 48x 101 MHz as the Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC. The CPU would crash on either board at the next test step, 48x 102 MHz, when validating with Prime95 small-FFTs.

Yet the same time limits also caused me to choose a 20x minimum CPU ratio when evaluating BCLK overclocking, and the Z370 Aorus Gaming 5 reached a new high of 243 MHz. Multiplying that by 20, we get 4060 MHz. Less than the 4888 that would have been found at 48x 102 MHz, I picked the 48x 101 MHz result for the sake of chart consistency.

The Z370 Aorus Gaming 5 isn’t the first board to reach DDR4-4040, but it’s the only one in today’s comparison to do so. The result is an astronomically-high dual-channel data rate of 44GB/s.

Bottom Line

The Z370 Aorus Gaming 5 performed slightly better than the same-priced Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC in today’s evaluation, giving it a slight lead in performance-per-dollar. Gigabyte’s board comes with an extra M.2 slot, but that slot steals two lanes from the four-lane PCIe slot present on both models. It also adds a front-panel Gen2 USB connector, but feeds it only a Gen1 connection. And MSI offers a higher-bandwidth version of Intel’s recent-generation Key-E Wi-Fi controller, so there are advantages to both.

For a few dollars more, the ROG Strix Z370-E Gaming provides a front-panel Gen2 USB connector that’s fed by a second 10Gb/s controller, but enabling that controller disables two of its PCIe x1 slots. It also has one fewer M.2 storage interface, but it does include Realtek’s 866Mb/s Wi-Fi.

Another $15-or-so gets buyers the ASRock Z370 Taichi. We again scale back to Intel’s 433Mb/s Wi-Fi controller, but the Taichi adds a second Gigabit Ethernet port. Like the Asus board, it also has a second USB 3.1 Gen2 controller to feed a front-panel Gen2 cable.

Decisive value leadership is tough to find in this hyper-competitive market, but the Z370 Aorus Gaming 5 at least has one compelling feature to shift show-offs in its direction: More onboard RGB lighting. And for those who love the board but hate the lighting, it can be switched off by zone, or in its entirety.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

ASRock Fatal1ty Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac Review: Packing Power Into Mini-ITX

Thomas Soderstrom — Sun, 06 May 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Features & Layout

Intel offers performance enthusiasts a broad range of features in the Z370 chipset, from "Everything can be overclocked!" to "Even the CPU’s PCI Express pathways are unlocked!" But motherboard designers still might feel a little stuck in terms of how to use all those resources on a small Mini-ITX board.

The tight board spacing means that any Mini-ITX board demands compromises. A board that offers support for four DIMMs will mandate using the compact, laptop-style SODIMMs so widely shunned by desktop builders. Otherwise you get two full-size DIMMs, max.

Also, SLI and CrossFire aren’t even considerations on a single-slot board. And, by and large, the option to break out the CPU’s PCI Express lanes to much-faster storage has been abandoned in favor of the single x16 slot having all 16 of its lanes.

What does that mean for Z370 motherboards? Overclocking is now the sole reason to pick a board based on the Z370 chipset versus the H370, and ASRock was determined to make sure they got it right. Did the company succeed, though?

Oh, we get the RGB lighting so frequently seen on big boards, but in a smaller dose: This Fatal1ty-series board has even fewer LEDs than its MSI and Asus Mini-ITX rivals, but it is still equipped with an RGB header to help users who really love motherboard-controlled lighting put that flair into their case. Moreover, the Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac has something those rivals don’t: Intel’s Thunderbolt 3.

Specifications

Socket	LGA 1151
Chipset	Intel Z370
Form Factor	Mini ITX
Voltage Regulator	7 Phases
Video Ports	(1) DisplayPort 1.2, (1) HDMI 1.4
USB Ports	10Gbps: (1) Type-C (via Thunderbolt 3) 5Gb/s: (6) Type A
Network Jacks	(1) Gigabit Ethernet, (2) Wi-Fi Antenna
Audio Jacks	(6) Analog, (1) Digital Out
Legacy Ports/Jacks	(1) PS/2
Other Ports/Jacks	Thunderbolt 3 at 20Gb/s max, CLR_CMOS Button
PCIe x16	(1) v3.0 (full bandwidth)
PCIe x8	✗
PCIe x4	✗
PCIe x1	✗
CrossFire/SLI	✗ / ✗
DIMM Slots	(2) DDR4
M.2 Slots	(1) PCIe 3.0 x4 / SATA* (*Consumes SATA Port 0
U.2 Ports	✗
SATA Ports	(6) 6Gb/s (Port 0 shared w/M.2)
USB Headers	(1) v3.0, (1) v2.0
Fan Headers	(3) 4-Pin
Legacy Interfaces	✗
Other Interfaces	FP-Audio, RGB-LED, PC (beep code) Speaker
Diagnostics Panel	✗
Internal Button/Switch	✗ / ✗
SATA/RAID Controllers	Integrated (0/1/5/10)
Ethernet Controllers	WGI219V PHY
Wi-Fi/Bluetooth Controllers	Intel 8265 802.11ac 2x2 (867mb/s) / BT 4.2 Combo
USB Controllers	JHL6240 Thunderbolt 3 PCIe 3.0 x2
HD Audio Codec	ALC1220
DDL/DTS Connect	✗
Warranty	3 Years

But wait, you heard that Thunderbolt 3 was 40Gb/s, right? So what’s with the single 20Gb/s port? It turns out that ASRock used Intel’s two-lane controller to get 16Gb/s of PCIe bandwidth, adding onboard video pass-through to add Thunderbolt monitor capability and bump up the port’s rating to 20Gb/s. That same port also hosts USB 3.1 Gen2 devices, hence it is listed both ways in the features table. The competing MSI board uses a two-lane USB controller to feed two I/O-panel ports, and the competing Asus board uses that same USB controller to feed a single 10Gb/s front-panel port, so that the advantages of ASRock’s chosen controller are decidedly limited.

Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac buyers also get six USB 3.0 ports (aka USB 3.1 Gen1), a pair of Wi-Fi antenna connectors that stick out of the back of a Key-E riser module, a PS/2 keyboard and mouse port, digital optical audio, HDMI and DisplayPort, Gigabit Ethernet, and six analog audio jacks. A CLR_CMOS button makes it easier to recover from a failed overclocking attempt without opening the case of a finished build.

Three four-pin fan headers are spread across the Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac’s top edge, and the RGB LED connector, front-panel USB 3.0 and 2.0, two SATA, and an undocumented UART connector are up front. Though only one of the fan headers can be switched from PWM to voltage-control mode, at least none of the headers is blocked by the graphics card. A beep-code speaker header is the only thing we find under the leading edge of the slot, and hardly anyone bothers to connect those anymore.

Of the four SATA ports located between the memory slots and the PCH heat sink, my installation experience indicates that two will probably be unreachable under an upright single-tower CPU cooler. Oh, and we’d like to wish the best of luck (and patience) to those using these four SATA headers in conjunction with a with low-profile CPU air cooler.

We’d expect any enthusiast motherboard to have at least two M.2 slots, no matter the form factor, but ASRock didn’t find space for a second slot. That’s unfortunate, because one of its two chief competitors, Asus, did. The link between the Z370 and the LGA 1151 CPU socket is only as fast as a single drive interface, but many enthusiasts want a second drive, anyway. A PCIe-to-M.2 adapter could be an even faster option for storage geeks who aren’t using the x16 slot for anything else, but such adapters work equally on competing boards.

The Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac includes a driver disc and documentation, two SATA cables, an I/O shield, Wi-Fi antenna with Velcro tape, and an adhesive-foil case badge.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

Fatal1ty-series motherboards include Sound Blaster Cinema 3 software (which adds synthesized 3D on stereo speakers or headphones), Crystalizer (to enhance fidelity in music), Smart Volume (to reduce dynamic range in playback situations such as movies with loud music), Dialog Plus (to increase dialog volume above background noise/music), and Bass Boost.

Shared between all its RGB-supporting motherboards, ASRock’s RGB LED software is merely a copy of its firmware menu.

ASRock F-Stream’s EZ OC option references all the “Optimized CPU OC” programs from firmware, sets those, and requires a reboot to load those firmware profiles. Buttons for its “Auto Tuning” algorithm only become accessible after enabling one of those programmed overclocks from 4.6GHz upward, and it actually slowed our CPU to below stock frequency by setting a “fixed” 4.50GHz at 1.30V…while applying a 300MHz reduction for AVX-based loads. Those settings resulted in Prime95 running at 4.20GHz rather than its stock 4.30GHz, and games running at 4.50GHz rather than the stock 4.70GHz.

F-Stream’s manual overclocks are also firmware-based, and users who really are willing to push things can use it in the same way as firmware settings. The advantage of using software is that BCLK, CPU Ratio, and voltage levels are adjustable on the fly, which we confirmed.

The System Info tab shows useful readings, and it’s even honest enough to reveal the huge 40mV-to-50mV default over-voltage of our 1.35V DIMMs. That’s not going to cut it for our overclocking tests, though.

There’s also a useful fan-tuning utility carried over from firmware menus. Users can pick a profile, create a profile, or have the program create a profile based on the fan’s minimum and maximum speeds.

Firmware

As usual, ASRock’s UEFI opens to an Easy Mode interface that isn’t all that easy to use, but allows users to enable XMP profiles, change a few storage settings, and select a fan profile. The limitations are likely set to comfort less-initiated builders.

A quick tap of the F6 key brings users to “Advanced Mode”, where the M.I.T. menu provides a list of overclocking menus, storage for up to five configurations, a tool to import and export those configurations using a flash drive, and a group of factory-defined overclocking profiles. These profiles range from 4.50GHz at stock voltage to 5.0GHz at 1.50V, yet all employ an AVX offset ratio that knocks the CPU down to 4.30GHz under AVX loads such as the Prime95 small-FFT’s we use for stability tests.

We easily pushed our CPU to 4.85GHz, and our memory easily exceeded DDR4-4000, yet automatic stability-compensating timing adjustments got us our best memory performance at its DDR4-3866 XMP rating.

It’s not that we couldn’t set our own advanced timings to get DDR4-4000 to perform better than DDR4-3866; it’s just that there are so many adjustments available that picking the right combination would have taken days. Starting off with DDR4-4000 would have set the bar slightly higher, but with the same behavior above that bar.

One of the problems for motherboard manufacturers who want us to show sky-high overclocks is that we’re really fussy about the voltage we use when testing, as that modicum of precision is required in order to compare boards fairly. We found, for example, that CPU core voltage would drop by around 40mV under Prime95 small-FFTs when using “Level 2” Load-Line calibration, but was overcompensated by around 15mV when using Level 1. Since the extra voltage is only really needed under heavy loads, choosing Level 1 at 1.285V got us to 1.30V at 4848 MHz…while saving a little energy at lower loads.

Also note above that we set DRAM to 1.30V. Our meter showed 1.349V at the DIMM slot with that setting, and fine-tuning wasn’t available, since the board supports only 50mV intervals. Users should know that the Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac will default their DRAM to around 1.4V even with XMP disabled. Best CPU longevity is thereby achieved by selecting a lower voltage of your own accord.

Overclockers tired of pressing F6 at every UEFI entry can change UEFI Setup Style to “Advance Mode”; that selling is found under the Advanced menu of Advanced Mode. (Confusing, we know.)

A “Tool” menu includes basic controls for RGB lighting, an email dispatching service for tech support, a tool to copy RAID drivers to a thumb drive, a firmware flashing tool, a firmware download tool, and a network configuration page that helps users get online to use some of those other tools.

The three fan headers can be assigned custom slopes from the FAN-Tastic Tuning page of the H/W Monitor menu, but only one of the fan headers supports voltage-based speed control. Conversely, the Fan Tuning button runs an algorithm to determine maximum and minimum fan speed and create a slope accordingly.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

Our four tiny boards are tested on the big test platform so that readers can compare overclocking and thermal results between Mini-ITX, MicroATX, and ATX models.

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Back during the X299 launch, we upgraded our test bed to handle the tremendous heat produced by the Core i9-7900X. Our award-winning Fractal Design S24 liquid cooler system sample serves the same purpose for the newer, lower-heat Core i7-8700K. Cooler Master’s HAF-XB provides an optimal layout to blow the Celsius S24’s fans sufficiently over each motherboard’s voltage regulator.

Comparison Products

ASRock Fatal1ty Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac

Gigabyte Z370N WiFi

MSI Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC

Setting ranges show that while all boards are designed for overclocking, the Fatal1ty Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac has the narrowest range of DRAM voltage, as well as the coarsest voltage increments.

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks & Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4K Random Read, 4K Random Write128K Sequential Read, 128K Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests & Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19GB 4K mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests & Settings
Ashes of the Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920x1080, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, RainMedium Preset, No AFUltra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

We’d like to compare the Fatal1ty Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac in the fairest way possible, but default settings for the ROG Strix Z370-I Gaming caused both over-voltage under load and current limit throttling that helped its power measurement far more than it hurt benchmarks. Since the ROG Strix Z370-I Gaming was also tested with those settings reconfigured, we’re using the reconfigured data.

Synthetic Benchmarks

The ASRock Fatal1ty Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac jockeys back and forth for first and last place in various 3DMark tests, and we’re not able to determine a cause for that inconsistency just yet. We’ll continue to look for outliers as we get into more precise synthetics, as well as real-world tests.

PCMark’s storage score does a reasonable job of isolating the SSD; Sandra’s Arithmetic and Multimedia tests do a great job of isolating the CPU; and Sandra’s Cryptographic and Memory Bandwidth tests do a good job of showing differences in memory performance. Yet none of these indicates a miss for the Fatal1ty Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac. Instead, we see that the Z370N WiFi had a memory-performance deficiency at stock settings, which was discussed in its review.

With GPU-heavy Compubench also showing nothing amiss, we’re ready to move on to our gaming tests.

3D Games

We’re baffled by the Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac’s performance at the memory-bottlenecked Medium preset of F1 2015, since scores that high are normally available only with four ranks of memory employed. We’re still using single-rank DIMMs, the board only has two slots, and we rechecked using both Sandra Bandwidth and CPU-Z to make sure the memory was running at its DDR4-2133 defaults.

MSI adds Nahimic software to its high-end boards, and its 3D positional-audio applications are compatible with The Talos Principle. The FPS hit of its overhead is shown in the Talos charts, but the MSI Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC review shows that disabling the software allows the board to claw its way toward the top of the same chart.

Timed Applications

Our timed applications suite includes benchmarks that lean hard on the CPU, the GPU, the memory, and the SSD. Once again, we find nothing out of the ordinary, with the Fatal1ty Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac finishing dead center.

Power, Heat & Efficiency

As our Z370 review series has developed, most boards are now allowing our CPU to run at 4.30GHz under Prime95 small-FFTs. That hasn’t always been the case, yet we get the fairest power-to-performance numbers when it does happen. Today’s results show all four boards “settled in” at 4.30GHz under this extra-heavy load.

The Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC appears to scale back CPU core voltage slightly after the program launches, allowing it to pull less power continuously. Today’s subject, the Fatal1ty Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac, follows that with less drop in voltage and the second-lowest full-load power numbers.

The biggest oddity is in our heat readings, where we couldn’t really find a hot place to stick a voltage-regulator thermal probe on the Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac. Also odd is that voltage-regulator temperature, rather than core temperature, appears to scale upward with system power consumption. (We’re sure someone will tell us why that happened in the response thread at the end of this article. Go for it!)

To the point: The Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac takes second place to the ROG Strix Z370-I Gaming in performance, but takes second place to the Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC in efficiency.

Overclocking

The boards that overclock best get our CPU to 4848MHz, and only two MicroATX boards have reached this zenith. The limitation is CPU heat, where any voltage noticeably higher than 1.30V causes us to reach the throttle point, and noticeably lower voltage won’t let it reach this frequency when running Prime95 small-FFTs.

The other Mini-ITX model to push 4848MHz, the Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC, continued to scale memory bandwidth upward all the way to its DDR4-4176 stability ceiling. While the Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac could hit those same frequencies, it responded to above-XMP settings by configuring stability-mode advanced timings that ruined performance, leaving our memory’s DDR4-3866 rating as its best setting.

Overall, those who lean heavily on memory overclocking to push bandwidth-restricted applications will prefer the MSI board over the ASRock. On the other hand, most people don’t overclock their memory past XMP.

Final Analysis

The Fatal1ty Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac from ASRock is the only Mini-ITX motherboard we’ve tested on this chipset to include a Thunderbolt controller, and that’s almost enough of a difference to put it in a different category for consideration. Almost.

This isn’t the Mac market, though, and most of our readers will just use that Type-C connector for USB. The Asus and MSI samples both have an ASM3142 USB 3.1 Gen2 controller instead of the JHL6240 Thunderbolt 3 chosen by ASRock. Both controllers sit on a PCIe 3.0 x2 connection, but the USB-only solution offers two ports while the Thunderbolt 3 has only one. Thunderbolt 3 has the advantage of supporting DisplayPort video over a Type-C connector that can be daisy-chained with other Thunderbolt 3 devices, but that only becomes a valuable feature if you’re using onboard graphics.

There may be some storage geeks who want a small system that can support a few M.2 drives on the slot most other builders would use for graphics…and perhaps those same storage geeks would like to have a 16Gb/s data connection in that Thunderbolt 3 daisy-chain for an external drive. But we’re really squeezing our considerations down to the tiniest market niche with that consideration.

It’s not that the Asus board does much better with its USB 3.1 Gen2 controller, feeding it exclusively to a single-port front-panel connector. It’s a useful connector, for sure, but only when you can find a case that supports it.

MSI has two USB 3.1 Gen2 ports on the I/O panel, but only six I/O ports total. Users who would like to leave both ports open for their portable high-speed storage devices will be stuck with only four ports to connect their other devices, unless they start using front-panel connectors for that. This still seems like the most broadly useful configuration of the three.

Those of you who were about to say that you don’t even own any Gen2 USB 3.1 devices, let alone Thunderbolt 3 ones, will be happy to notice that the Gigabyte board has seven total USB ports on the back, all of which are USB 3.0 (aka USB 3.1 Gen1), and it also has dual Gigabit Ethernet, along with the same high-end Wi-Fi module as the MSI and ASRock boards, yet is priced $20 lower than the Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac. It also has the second M.2 storage slot missing from the Z370 Gaming-ITX/ac. And just when you’re starting to think it’s the value bomb, you realize that it’s also the least-efficient, least-overclockable board in the group.

The interesting part about comparing all of these boards is that ASRock might have ended the "Who's best?" debate by including a second M.2 storage slot, or by using the four-lane version of Intel’s Thunderbolt 3 controller to break out two ports instead of one. Instead, we are left unable to hand out a value crown, only able to recommend that users pick the Mini-ITX board they favor based primarily on the connector types they find most important.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Asus ROG Strix Z370-F Gaming ATX Motherboard Review: Holding The Line On Value

Thomas Soderstrom — Tue, 01 May 2018 01:00:00 +0000

Features & Layout

Asus invites overclocking enthusiasts to take a load off…their budgets with the Strix Z370-F Gaming. Nominally priced around $15 less than its Strix Z370-E Gaming, the -F version was typically available, when we wrote this, at up to twice that discount. Potential buyers must be willing to forgo the high-end 802.11ac/Bluetooth controller of its pricier sibling, but we’re hearing from many of you that you’d never use it anyway. (Like, ever.) And with up to $30 on the line, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable compromise.

You’ll also be giving up a front-panel 10Gb/s USB header, but most PC cases don’t even support these yet. And, you’ll be keeping the two PCIe x1 slots from which that the extra controller would have stolen pathways, if it were included and were enabled.

Yet just when you thought that the Z370-F Gaming might be a Z370-E with a few empty solder points, Asus surprises again--by using a completely different PCB. Only the layout of the PCB is shared.

Asus also dresses this Z370-F version in different colors than the Z370-E, painting the I/O-panel shroud in black to match black-anodized heatsinks. Users still get the same I/O-panel connectors (minus the missing Wi-Fi module), the same slots (including the metal sides and bracing pins on the two that are connected to the CPU), and the same pair of M.2 connectors (including the concealment cover over the second M.2 slot).

There’s still no CLR_CMOS or BIOS_Flashback buttons on the I/O panel, even though the board has more room there than its Wi-Fi-equipped sibling. And, there’s still only two USB 2.0 ports, two USB 3.0 ports (a.k.a. USB 3.1 Gen1), and two USB 3.1 ports (a.k.a. USB 3.1 Gen2), once again leaving us to question why Asus didn't include two more ports, since the slow ones, invariably, would be useful for a keyboard and mouse, leaving the fast ones for things like speedy thumb drives and high-current smartphone cables. And, once again, we’ll question why a gaming board would need three outputs for CPU-integrated graphics: Given that many gamers use graphics cards, wouldn’t just one or two suffice for things like diagnostics?

Pathway sharing is now limited to M.2, where the top slot steals only a single SATA port when an SATA-based M.2 drive is installed, and the second M.2 slot steals the HSIO resources of two SATA ports to enable PCIe x4 mode. The second M.2 runs in x2 mode by default, so that users who plug SATA drives into the “wrong” ports won’t be shocked by those drives not working.

By now, a few of you are wondering why the non-Wi-Fi board simply didn’t reclaim the two PCIe lanes previously dedicated to the Wi-Fi board’s 802.11ac controller. The only answer we have is that the unchanged PCB layout likely leaves those two resources as a pathway to nowhere. By default, 28 of the Z370 PCH’s 30 HSIO resources are allocated thus: the six SATA ports, the four-lane x16-length bottom slot, four- and two-lane M.2 slots, four PCIe x1 slots, the two-lane USB 3.1 Gen2 controller, the two I/O-panel USB 3.0 ports, and the four USB 3.0 ports on two USB 3.0 front-panel headers.

A good overall layout copied from the Z370-E Gaming gives the Z370-F Gaming its triple-slot spacing for the two CPU-connected slots (which switch from x16/x0 to x8/x8 mode when the second slot is filled), a plethora of well-placed fan headers (Six four-pin with four surrounding the socket, plus one fan hub connector), dual RGB LED ports (top edge, bottom edge), and a single Addressable LED header. A more-verbose version of that list found in prior review says little more.

Apart from the lack of any Wi-Fi antennas, the Z370-F Gaming shares the same installation kit as the Z370-E. Included are four SATA cables, RGB LED and Addressable LED extension cables, a thermistor lead, a High-Bandwidth SLI bridge, a CPU installation tool, a CPU fan holder, cable ties, documentation, a driver/application disc, the I/O shield, a doorknob hanger card, and stickers.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

The ROG Strix Z370-F Gaming includes the same software suite we covered in the Z370-E Gaming, highlighted by apps such as Asus Aura LED control, Sonic Radar III (for visual mapping of gaming-opponent noises), Sonic Studio III audio enhancements, Clone Drive, and Ramcache II. The only visible changes are to motherboard settings, and for that we turn to its Dual Intelligent Processors 5 overclocking-and-optimization suite.

The Asus 5-Way Optimization menu remains identical to that from the Z370-E review, and the program still runs through several routines to overclock the CPU (Asus TPU), enable custom power-saving schemes (Asus EPU), set fan slopes by component capability (Fan Xpert 4), and further optimize voltage by load level (Digi+ VRM). Hitting “Start” initializes this sequence.

The result was an overclock to 4.7GHz through 5.1GHz, depending on the number of cores loaded, at 1.35V to 1.26V CPU core, with an AVX offset of 300MHz. While the resulting 4.4GHz clock under Prime95 small FFTs is far lower than our typical 4.8GHz results, Asus’ flexible overclock should have slightly better average performance than our fixed overclock when using non-AVX applications. The tuning routine also set our memory to DDR4-3200 at its DDR4-3866-rated XMP values, which seems a little soft.

The program’s manual overclocking settings still work, and increasing CPU Load-Line Calibration to level 6 even gets rid of most of that 1.35V-to-1.26V “droop” mentioned above. (Additional menus can be viewed in our Z370-E Gaming review.)

Firmware

The ROG Strix Z370-F UEFI opens by default to its EZ Mode GUI, in which users can do things such as enable or disable XMP memory mode, adjust fans, set boot priority, or even click through a couple “EZ System Tuning” options.

“Fast Tuning” set our CPU to 4.8GHz with one to three cores loaded, and 4.7GHz at four to six cores loaded, with a 300MHz reduction for AVX-based loads, and DDR4-3200 at our memory’s DDR4-3866 XMP timings. “Extreme Tuning” bumped CPU core voltage to 1.40V, set a 50x multiplier for all load levels, kept the 300MHz reduction for AVX-based loads, and still allowed our CPU to drop to 4.4GHz under Prime95 small FFTs.

Mashing the F7 key brings us to the Advanced Mode GUI, where we can get to 4.80GHz using only 1.30V, even under Prime95 small FFTs. Our memory also blew past DDR4-4000 using the board’s 1.3398V DIMM setting, which produced a measured 1.351V at the slots.

Some users will likely try the “Load 5G OC Profile” option from one of the above menus. Unlike the 5GHz available from “Extreme Tuning” in EZ Mode, the “5G OC Profile” does not use any AVX offset. Instead, we get a CPU Core Voltage bump all the way to 1.40V, which sags to 1.33V under Prime95 small FFTs, and lets cores 3 and 4 of our CPU crash under the strain of that stability test.

Those of you who love tweaking memory will love that the 12 screenshots above all address memory settings. We retained our memory’s XMP base values for overclocking tests.

Additional voltage and power control is available within the Digi+ VRM, Internal CPU Power Management, Tweaker’s Paradise, and DRAM CTRL REF Voltage submenus. Digi+ VRM includes the “CPU Load-Line Calibration” setting, which reduces internal voltage sag (a.k.a. “vdroop”) under heavy software loads, and we found that its “Level 6” setting reduced that sag to 20mV, while “Level 7” overcompensated at times by around 50mV. Internal core voltage dropped at the Level 6 setting from 1.30V to 1.28V, which probably explains why our full-load test was stable only up to 4800MHz, rather than the CPU’s previously seen limit of 4848MHz.

The “Onboard Device Configuration” submenu of the Advanced menu brings us to the lower M.2 slots setting. It’s set to two PCIe lanes by default, and setting it to four lanes causes the board to redirect two HSIO resources from SATA to PCIe, disabling SATA ports 5 and 6.

Asus “Q-Fan Control Configuration” is at the bottom of the Z370-F Gaming’s “Monitor” menu. PWM and voltage based controls are available in five zones for its six onboard fan headers, and three more zones address Asus’ proprietary add-on fan-controller module (sold separately).

Changing the entry GUI for firmware requires users to jump through the Z370-F Gaming’s “Boot” menu to its “Boot Configuration” submenu. Of course, changes to that setting will go away as soon as you’ve used CLR_CMOS. You’re welcomed to smack that F7 key at every entry, however.

The Asus “Tool” menu includes a switch to its firmware updating utility, secure erase for hard drives, storage for up to eight firmware configurations (with the ability to export and import those using a USB flash drive), and a handy “SPD Information” tool to show the basics of your memory’s programming.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

Our growing collection of ATX-form-factor Z370 boards has allowed us to focus our comparative efforts on models at lower prices with less-divergent feature sets.

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Comparison Products

Asus ROG Strix Z370-F Gaming

ASRock Z370 Extreme4

MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC

We're including every tested Z370 motherboard within the Z370-F Gaming's $160-to-$220 price and features class. A quick look at the firmware settings show how these should be able to compete as well in our overclocking tests as they will in our regular benchmark set.

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks & Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4K Random Read, 4K Random Write128K Sequential Read, 128K Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests & Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19GB 4K mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0, 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests & Settings
Ashes of the Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920x1080, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, RainMedium Preset, No AFUltra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

Synthetic Benchmarks

The previously tested Z370-E Gaming sets the pace for the Z370-F Gaming’s performance in synthetic benchmarks, since the two boards have the same layout and differ primarily, from a benchmarking perspective, in their firmware revisions. The Z370-F Gaming includes the latest firmware-based security patches, while the earlier board’s firmware predates those.

Performance between the two Asus models appears similar, as the two swap positions in different titles. Asus’ slight advantage over competing brands here appears to be limited to its memory bandwidth, as memory configuration is the place Asus takes the most pride in optimizing.

3D Games

We saw the Asus memory performance advantage primarily reflected in Sandra’s Memory Bandwidth and Cryptography scores above, but games are a good place to see this reflected in the real world. Though most systems are too GPU-bound to express that advantage at real-world quality settings, we can see the impact at our lower settings for each game.

Of course, F1 2015 got the biggest FPS boost from improved memory performance, and that’s why it’s also used in memory reviews, yet the larger outlier comes from the Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC in Talos. That dip occurs when its Nahimic 3D positional audio software is enabled, and Talos is the only game in this test suite that’s compatible with the app. Though a useful app, disabling it regains the FPS lost.

Timed Applications

Less time is more performance in timed tests. There’s no clear indication why the Z370-F Gaming took a little more time to complete the Handbrake format conversion than other boards here, but it also completed the Adobe Illustrator file-creation test a little quicker than the other boards.

Power, Heat, & Efficiency

The current generation of Intel processors (both Coffee Lake and Skylake-X) are rated at frequencies that, when fully loaded, exceed Intel’s stated TDP. Various methods have been employed to maintain the TDP, including AVX offsets that reduce frequency by a fixed value below rated frequencies, but most "enthusiast-class" motherboards simply ignore that TDP to a greater or lesser degree. Because of those efforts, we’ve put a great amount of time into finding the most consistent way to evaluate full-load power consumption at a fixed frequency…without overclocking.

“Asus Multicore Enhancement” is supposed to hold up higher-frequency turbo ratios at higher-core loads, but setting it to "disabled" in this case caused some unusual behavior. We'd suggest working with this setting enabled.

So, you’ll ask, how did we get the power and CPU-core heat of the Z370-F Gaming so much lower than the Z370-E Gaming? By switching SVID Behavior from Auto to Typical. As for the higher voltage regulator reading…we found a hotter place to stick the probe.

In other words, the efficiency gained by the Z370-F Gaming is due entirely to our efforts to compare the board fairly to competing brands. And lest anyone say we were unfair to the Z370-E Gaming, its power readings are the same as those of Asus’ recommended settings.

Overclocking

The MSI boards beat the Asus and ASRock boards by a trivial amount in overclocking, due to MSI’s ability to hold the loaded core voltage closer to our 1.30V heart’s desire. Of course, we only desire that voltage because it pushes our CPU overclocks close to the processor’s thermal limit.

One thing that must be noted about the Z370-F Gaming’s overclock is that its four-DIMM memory clock was 80MHz higher than its two-DIMM data rate. That’s opposite of our normal findings. It could mean that Asus is using more relaxed advanced timings when four DIMMs are installed, to boost stability. It’s a good thing we test these boards both ways!

Strangely, the Z370-F Gaming’s bandwidth at DDR4-4080 is slightly lower than the Z370-E Gaming’s bandwidth at DDR4-4000. Once again, the most likely reason for this tiny performance decline would be that Asus decided to re-optimize advanced memory settings for increased stability. We're good with that.

Final Analysis

Given its reduced feature set, the ROG Strix Z370-F Gaming should be around $30 cheaper than its Z370-E sibling. Sometimes it is, but only when the -F version is getting a discount that the -E isn’t.

We started today’s review by considering the differences between the Z370-F Gaming and the previously tested Z370-E Gaming, concluding that the difference in price just about matches the reduced feature set. Both boards use the same layout, and the biggest negative impact of using the same layout on a board with fewer features appeared to be that two of the pathways that could have went somewhere…ended up going nowhere. Our test results have changed none of those assertions.

Tough pricing competition comes from ASRock’s Z370 Extreme4. It has the same scarcity of USB ports on the I/O panel, the same lack of a 10Gb/s USB front-panel header, the same slot layout, and even has more SATA pathways shared with its M.2 interfaces. (That last part’s a bad thing.)

That leaves the Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC. Priced between the two Asus boards, it offers most of the features of both. It’s lacking the second USB 3.1 Gen2 controller of the Z370-E Gaming, but that controller steals PCIe x1 slots. That said, the slots it steals are adjacent to graphics cards.

What’s really happening is that we’re once again finding very close value parity among the four top boards in the Z370-F Gaming’s market segment--again!--regardless of how badly we wanted to crown a winner in this test group. Rather than be annoyed by the lack of a clear victor, we’ll be glad that users get to pick their board not by brand, but by features and price. That means more options for everyone!

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X Review: Spectre Patches Weigh In

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Fri, 27 Apr 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Ryzen To The Mainstream

AMD's 2000-series Ryzen CPUs are already available, challenging the Coffee Lake-based Core line-up from Intel. As we found in our Ryzen 7 2700X review, a host of improvements made possible by 12nm manufacturing, such as higher frequencies and Precision Boost 2, add more performance in threaded apps. Meanwhile, lower system memory and cache latencies augment AMD's showing in lightly-threaded apps like games. Unlocked multipliers, backward compatibility with older Socket AM4 motherboards, a beefy bundled cooler, and a $330 price tag combine to leave us impressed. The Ryzen 7 2700X offers a great alternative to Intel's Core i7-8700K, which costs more, doesn't come with a thermal solution, and drops into more expensive motherboards (at least if you want to overclock).

Similarly, Ryzen 5 2600X targets Intel's enthusiast-oriented Core i5-8600K, leveraging similar advancements and a more attractive $230 price tag. As we'll see, it's even faster than the first-gen flagship Ryzen 7 1800X in many workloads.

But First, Spectre Variant 2

Unfortunately, due to a lack of communication from AMD, we weren't told that the company had rolled its Spectre Variant 2 patch into shipping X470 platforms. As a result, our Ryzen 7 2700X launch day coverage didn't include Intel CPUs tested with their corresponding patches. Today's review does, however, feature results generated on Intel-based systems with the latest Spectre microcode updates.

Ryzen 5 2600X

Ryzen 2000-series processors, otherwise known by their Pinnacle Ridge code name, are based on the same basic Zen core design as previous-gen models (though AMD now uses Zen+ nomenclature to reference the architecture's various improvements). The CPUs still utilize a dual-CCX configuration, tied together with Infinity Fabric, yielding eight physical cores. The flagship Ryzen 7 2700X comes with all eight of its cores active. For Ryzen 5 2600X, AMD turns two off, creating a six-core, 12-thread configuration with an unlocked ratio multiplier.

As mentioned, Ryzen 5 2600X sells for $230, replacing the $220 Ryzen 5 1600X. It slots into the gap between Core i5-8600K and the Core i5-8400, forcing the chip to contend with Intel's recently-announced Core i5-8600. While we don't have that model in our lab yet, we do have the two nearest Coffee Lake-based competitors in today's benchmark charts.

What do you get, performance-wise, for the extra $10? Ryzen 5 2600X sports the same 3.6 GHz base clock rate and a slightly higher 4.2 GHz Precision Boost 2 frequency (+200 MHz) than 1600X. That might seem minor, but as our benchmarks show, the gains are quite pronounced in threaded workloads. Like its predecessor, the 2600X also features 16MB of L3 cache and a 95W TDP.

	AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	AMD Ryzen 7 1800X	AMD Ryzen 7 2700	AMD Ryzen 5 1600X	Ryzen 5 1600	AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	AMD Ryzen 5 2600	Intel Core i5-8600K	Intel Core i5-8600	Intel Core i5-8400
MSRP	$329	$349	$299	$219	$189	$229	$199	$257	$224	$182
Cores/Threads	8/16	8/16	8/16	6/12	6/12	6/12	6/12	6/6	6/6	6/6
TDP	105W	95W	65W	95W	65W	95W	65W	95W	65W	65W
Base Freq. (GHz)	3.7	3.6	3.2	3.6	3.2	3.6	3.4	3.6	3.1	2.8
Precision Boost Freq. (GHz)	4.3	4.1	4.1	4.0	3.6	4.2	3.9	4.3	4.3	4.0
Cache (L3)	16MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	9MB	9MB	9MB
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
Cooler	105W Wraith Prism (LED)	-	95W Wraith Spire (LED)	-	95W Wraith Spire	95W Wraith Spire	65W Wraith Stealth	-	Intel	Intel

Although AMD didn't include thermal solutions with its original Ryzen X-series processors, the company does bundle coolers with its pricier models now. On one hand, it's nice that the 95W Wraith Spire cooler neatly matches the 2600X's thermal design power. On the other, we're not expecting much overclocking headroom from the combination.

Ryzen 5 2600X can drop into either new X470 or older 300-series motherboards. As usual, AMD allows you to overclock on value-minded B-series boards, too. And even though 400-series B-models aren't available yet, they'll undoubtedly offer a lower-priced alternative for overclocking.

Officially, the Ryzen 5 2600X supports up to DDR4-2933 memory, just like Ryzen 7 2700X. This trumps Coffee Lake's Intel-specified DDR4-2666 ceiling (with a few caveats). AMD also sticks with Indium solder between Ryzen 5's die and heat spreader, improving thermal transfer performance. And as we mentioned in our Ryzen 7 2700X review, these new CPUs also include StorMI Technology, which is a software-based tiering solution that blends the low price and high capacity of a hard drive with the speed of an SSD, 3D XPoint (including Intel's Optane parts), or even up to 2GB of RAM.

Precision Boost 2 and XFR2

In a nutshell, AMD is leveraging GlobalFoundries' 12nm process to enhance its design, rather than shrink it. The enhancements offer higher performance or lower power consumption at any given frequency, giving AMD headroom for other improvements.

The company's previous-gen Ryzen processors have Precision Boost, which is similar to Intel's Turbo Boost technology, and eXtended Frequency Range (XFR), capable of delivering a frequency uplift when your cooling solution has thermal headroom to spare.

The new Precision Boost 2 (PB2) and XFR2 algorithms improve performance in threaded workloads by raising the frequency of any number of cores. AMD doesn't share a list of specific multi-core Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 bins because the opportunistic algorithms accelerate to different clock rates based on temperature, current, and load.

AMD gave us a graph of the PB2 frequencies for Ryzen 7 2700X, but we followed up with our own measurements to compare the current and previous-gen Ryzen 5 models. As you can see, Ryzen 5 2600X offers more robust multi-core frequencies than its predecessor, and our Ryzen 7 2700X measurements largely mirror AMD's. We tested both CPUs with AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive active. The Ryzen 7 2700X does have a higher TDP rating that some older motherboards may struggle with, so PB2 performance will vary based upon the power delivery subsystem.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

Patching Up, Overclocking & Test Setup

Patching Up

The Spectre and Meltdown security vulnerabilities impose overhead that affect performance, but it's the Spectre Variant 2 patches that incur the largest penalties. We've been waiting for AMD and Intel to release their respective updates, leveling the playing field. AMD gave no indication in its press material that the X470 motherboards used in our Ryzen 7 2700X review already had Spectre 2 mitigations built-in. But hours before launch, we learned that the patches were present. At that point, we didn't have enough time to test with Intel's corresponding microcode.

In our 2700X review, the test rigs included Meltdown And Spectre Variant 1 mitigations. Spectre Variant 2 requires both motherboard firmware/microcode and operating system patches, though. We had already installed the operating system updates for Variant 2 on our Intel-based platforms, so we only lacked the fourth and final piece: new microcode.

There are two options for applying this microcode. One is a Windows KB that allows the operating system to load microcode during boot-up. The other is a motherboard firmware update. We used the Windows KB to install patches on our Z270-based platform, providing a true measure of pre- and post-patch performance.

Faster processors suffer less from the Spectre Variant 2 updates. This creates a conundrum for us and our Z370-based platform. In previous reviews, we noticed that Intel's Core i7-8700 was consistently faster than the more expensive Core i7-8700K on MSI and Gigabyte motherboards. We disclosed this during our launch coverage. The issue becomes relevant today because MSI's latest firmware update, which also includes the Spectre Variant 2 microcode, fixes most of the performance disparities we observed. As we suspected, the problem seems attributable to the Core i7-8700K. It's now faster in several games, performing the way we originally expected. So, on this motherboard, we're using new firmware instead of the Windows-based patch since it fixes our Core i7-8700K issues. That means our Coffee Lake-based CPUs don't correctly reflect pre- and post-patch performance. Instead, allow those results to serve as a general indication of competitive deltas.

In any case, with the exception of our AMD X370-based motherboards, all of the platforms in today's review are fully patched. The company hasn't given us a time frame for securing its previous-gen chipsets, but you can bet that we'll follow up with benchmark results once a Spectre Variant 2 patch becomes available.

Overclocking

We ran our gaming and application tests in the U.S. lab, while power/thermal measurements were collected in our German lab.

In the U.S. lab, we paired our Ryzen 5 2600X with Corsair's H115i cooler for overclocking. This allowed us to maintain a 4.2 GHz all-core frequency at 1.3875V Vcore, 1.2V SoC voltage, and default Load Line Calibration settings. These are the same settings used on the Ryzen 7 2700X, albeit with a slight 0.009V Vcore boost to ensure stability.

First-gen Ryzen processors don't have much memory overclocking headroom, so we're still testing tuned X370 platforms at DDR4-3200. The X470 chipset is remarkably stable at higher data rates with both 2000-series Ryzen CPUs installed. So, we settled on DDR4-3466 with 14-14-14-34 timings. We also ran our overclocked Intel processors at DDR4-3466.

Precision Boost Overdrive

AMD hasn't shared much information on this pending feature, which increases the maximum boost voltage and boost duration. We attempted to disable Precision Boost Overdrive as we tested for our Ryzen 7 2700X review, but didn't observe a performance difference one way or the other. Now we know the feature wasn't toggling correctly due to an issue with the board. Instead, it remained enabled throughout our benchmarking.

Precision Boost Overdrive is an AMD-sanctioned feature, unlike the multi-core enhancements you often find in Intel-based motherboards. Because this is a standard capability for Ryzen 2000-series processors, we leave it enabled.

MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC

The motherboard also provides two M.2 slots with PCIe connectivity. The I/O panel has a USB 3.1 Type C connector. The USB 3.1 and USB 3.1 Gen 2 support fast charging for smartphones and tablets. If RGB is your thing, MSI has you covered. The integrated RGB Mystic lighting allows customizable effects with several software-controlled zones.

Comparison Products

Intel Core i5-8400

Intel Core i5-8600K

Intel Core i7-7700K

Test Systems

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Germany AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen 5 2600XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i5-8600K, i5-8600K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2666AMD Socket AM4 Workstation (300-Series)AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1600X, Ryzen 5 1400MSI X370 Tomahawk4x 8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)Intel Core i7-7700KMSI Z270 Gaming 72x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2400 and 3200All SystemsGeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Gaming)Nvidia Quadro P6000 (Workstation)1x 1TB Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, System)2x 960GB Toshiba OCZ TR150 (Storage, Images)be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11, 850W Power SupplyWindows 10 Pro (Creators Update)U.S.AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i7-8700K, i5-8600K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400, DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466AMD Socket AM4 (300-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, 1700X, 1700, Ryzen 5 1600XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3200Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)Intel Core i7-7700K MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703 - All Spectre and Meltdown mitigations
Cooling	GermanyAlphacool Eiszeit 2000 ChillerAlphacool Eisblock XPXThermal Grizzly Kryonaut (For Cooler Switch)U.S.Corsair H115i
Monitor	Eizo EV3237-BK
PC Case	Lian Li PC-T70 with Extension Kit and Mods Configurations: Open Benchtable, Closed Case
Power Consumption Measurement	Contact-free DC Measurement at PCIe Slot (Using a Riser Card) Contact-free DC Measurement at External Auxiliary Power Supply Cable Direct Voltage Measurement at Power Supply 2x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500 MHz Digital Multi-Channel Oscilloscope with Storage Function4x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 Current Probe (1mA - 30A, 100 kHz, DC) 4x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10:1 Probes, 500 MHz) 1x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 Digital Multimeter with Storage Function
Thermal Measurement	1x Optris PI640 80 Hz Infrared Camera + PI Connect Real-Time Infrared Monitoring and Recording
Acoustic Measurement	NTI Audio M2211 (with Calibration File, Low Cut at 50Hz) Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for Microphones)Creative X7, Smaart v.7 Custom-Made Proprietary Measurement Chamber, 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2m (L x D x H) Perpendicular to Center of Noise Source(s), Measurement Distance of 50cm Noise Level in dB(A) (Slow), Real-time Frequency Analyzer (RTA) Graphical Frequency Spectrum of Noise

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

VRMark & 3DMark

These are busy charts with the addition of our retested Intel platforms, including the Spectre Variant 2 microcode patches. At stock settings, the Ryzen 5 2600X outperforms its overclocked predecessor across the board, which is especially meaningful in the lightly-threaded VRMark workload. Overclocking yields significant gains in synthetic gaming benchmarks, which don't necessarily translate to the rest of our benchmark suite.

Several of the patched Intel processors do lose performance compared to before the updates. This is particularly apparent in VRMark on Intel's Core i7-8700K, while other tests reflect minimal regression. Meanwhile, the Core i5-8400 and -8600K give us mixed results. Core i7-7700K is a more representative measure of pre- and post-patch performance, and it takes a healthy dive in VRMark as well (verified several times by removing and reinstalling the OS-based Spectre patch).

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ryzen 5 2600X is clearly superior to its predecessor in threaded titles. After all, the stock 2600X beats an overclocked 1600X. Those gains propel the Ryzen 5 up the chart, where it matches a stock Core i7-8700K.

Flip over to the album's next slide, which includes Intel CPUs before and after we patched their platforms. The Core i7-7700K loses a few frames per second in our retest, falling outside of this consistent benchmark's margin of error. Aside from the Core i5-8400's gains, which remind us that firmware updates sometimes fine-tune performance, too, most of the Intel CPUs land within the run-to-run variance we expect to see.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

The Ryzen 5 2600X represents a nice step forward for AMD, particularly since Intel's processors typically lead in this test due to their per-core performance advantage.

A few of the processors exhibit slight regressions post-patch, but nothing outside of the variances we'd expect.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

An overclocked Ryzen 5 2600X beats the stock Ryzen 7 2700X, which should excite value-seekers.

Then again, Intel's Core i5-8400 slips past the tuned Ryzen 5 in this test, yielding better performance at a lower price (and despite a locked ratio multiplier).

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Dawn of War finds the tuned Coffee Lake-based CPUs at the top of our chart. Even the fastest Ryzen (overclocked, no less) lands behind a stock Core i7-7700K.

Interestingly, the Coffee Lake CPUs enjoy slight gains after we patch them, while Core i7-7700K doesn't change much.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry Primal, GTA: V & Hitman

Far Cry Primal

Ryzen 5 2600X nearly matches Intel's Core i7-8700K at stock clock rates. But tuning propels the chip ahead of an overclocked Ryzen 7 2700X and into contention with Core i5-8600K at 4.9 GHz. Clearly, this title responds well to physical core count, favoring platforms without SMT enabled.

Grand Theft Auto V

It's no surprise to see Intel's processors dominate our Grand Theft Auto V charts. An overclocked Ryzen 5 2600X essentially ties the stock Core i7-7700K, while Core i5-8400 stands out again for its higher performance and lower price point.

The post-patch Core i7-8700K averages 9 FPS-higher in GTA V. This is one of the games where -8700K historically lagged the slower Core i7-8700, so it looks like motherboard firmware fixed a few issues. We also see an improvement from the Core i5-8400.

Hitman

A recent update added a frame rate cap to Hitman, causing most of our configurations to reflect a graphics bottleneck. It's no surprise, then, that an overclocked Ryzen 5 2600X nearly matches the fastest Intel CPUs.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Shadow Of War & Project CARS 2

Middle-earth: Shadow Of War

Ryzen 5 2600X beats the overclocked Ryzen 7 1800X, and tuning propels it to within 0.5 FPS of the fastest CPU.

Intel's Core i5-8400 is less expensive and tends to outperform the 2600X in many games, but the 2600X does lead in this one. Aside from the Core i5-8400, we observe lower average frame rates from the post-patch Intel processors, though the variances only amount to one or two frames per second.

Project CARS 2

Ryzen 5 2600X delivers a commendable performance in Project CARS 2, but it lags the less expensive Core i5-8400.

Aside from the Core i7-8700K's and i5-8400's performance gains, we don't significant variations related to Spectre mitigations.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office & Productivity

Adobe Creative Cloud

The stock Ryzen 5 2600X trails most of AMD's first-gen Ryzen CPUs, notably lagging behind the previous-gen Ryzen 5 1600X. We reran this benchmark several times to verify its results, and the outcome is repeatable. But given the performance observed in other tests, PCMark's Creative Cloud component may be an outlier.

Although we didn't see much performance variation from the patches in our game testing, that changes drastically in our Adobe Creative Cloud suite. Every Intel processor's overall score takes a significant haircut (the Core i7-8700K drops ~9%, while the Core i5-8400 drops ~10%).

Web Browser

The Krakken suite tests JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography.

AMD's processors typically lag Intel's in Web browser benchmarks due to their lower per-core performance. The Ryzen 5 2600X is competitive with Intel's Core i5-8400 in this test. But as we noted in our Ryzen 7 2700X review, overclocking actually results in lower scores during lightly-threaded tasks. That's a bit more surprising in this case because, as we pointed out on the first page, Ryzen 5 2600X sustains up to 4.2 GHz on a single core, which is the same frequency as our all-core overclock. XFR2 contributes an extra boost during sporadic workloads though, and that's likely what we're seeing here.

The MotionMark benchmarks, which emphasize graphics performance (rather than JavaScript), are also sensitive to CPU clock rates. Ryzen 5 2600X isn't as competitive compared to the Intel models, reminding us that AMD still lags what it comes to IPC throughput.

Again, we see performance regressions from Intel's processors in these workloads, which we measured with a Spectre-patched version of Firefox.

Productivity

The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Other platform-level considerations affect this test as well, including the storage subsystem. Initially, we thought that'd be bad news for Intel's CPUs. After all, the security mitigations have an intense impact on I/O operations. Surprisingly, though, we actually recorded higher results from the Intel-based platforms. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 5 2600X beats AMD's first-gen Ryzen CPUs, but trails the Core i5-8400.

Our video conferencing workload measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. Ryzen processors perform well in this test, joining an overclocked Core i7-8700K at the top of the chart. At stock settings, the Ryzen 5 2600X handily dispatches Intel's Core i5-8400.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized, so Ryzen 7 2700X naturally takes a lead. The Ryzen 5 2600X performs well given its price point. And the Intel CPUs all take a hit after we get them patched.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding & Compression

Rendering

Threaded rendering workloads favor Ryzen's SMT-enabled cores. Ryzen 5 2600X slots in right where we'd expect it to land, while Intel's processors suffer slight performance hits after installing the Spectre mitigation patches.

Encoding & Compression

LAME is the quintessential example of a single-threaded workload, normally favoring Intel's per-core performance advantage. AMD's 2000-series Ryzen CPUs go a long way in closing the gap by offering better per-core performance than their predecessors.

Our threaded compression and decompression tests adsorb data directly from system memory, removing storage from the equation. The Ryzen 5 2600X fares well during the test, easily beating Intel's Core i5-8400 and -8600K. Given Windows' new dual page table addressing structure that prevents Meltdown-based attacks, we expected more performance overhead after the patches. However, the company's latest processors have a PCID (Post-Context Identifiers) feature that accelerates page table translations. As a result, older Core CPUs without the PCID feature are likely affected more than the ones we're testing.

There's a larger delta between Intel and AMD processors during our HandBrake x265 test compared to the x264 benchmark due to its heavier distribution of AVX instructions. The 2600X slots in where we'd expect given its six cores with SMT technology.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

AMD’s Ryzen 5 2600X isn’t quite as impressive as the higher-end Ryzen 7 2700X, but it does offer a solid mixture of performance and value that's well-suited to many different workloads. Whereas professionals might be more interested in the 2700X's eight cores, gamers on a budget will want to check out the 2600X. After all, saving money on other system components is critical at a time when you're certain to pay a premium for discrete graphics.

In the chart below, we plot gaming performance with both average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we then convert into a frame-per-second measurement. We also have price-to-performance charts that get split up to include CPUs-only and extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370). The Intel test results reflect our patched configurations.

Games show the Ryzen 5 2600X offering a universal improvement over AMD's previous-gen Ryzen 5 1600X. Unfortunately, we see limited gains from overclocking, though that's just as well given this family's meager headroom. More important is that Ryzen 5 2600X beats the Ryzen 7 1800X throughout our suite.

Intel's Core i5-8600K is also in the 2600X’s crosshairs; AMD takes aim with a significantly lower price, a bundled thermal solution, and compatibility with less expensive motherboards. If you're not worried about overclocking, though, the Core i5-8400 is an even better buy for gaming. It offers nearly the same performance as the 2600X at a ~$50 discount. The i5-8400 drops into value-oriented B-series motherboards and comes with a stock cooler/fan, too.

Although we're big fans of the Core i5-8400 for entertainment, Ryzen 5 2600X is a smarter all-around value when it has the change to stretch its six cores and 12 threads. The processor distances itself from the i5-8400 in our rendering, encoding, compression, and decompression apps. It even challenges the eight-core Ryzen 7 1700X in several tests, particularly after tuning. That highlights the improvements borne of the Ryzen 2000-series’ enhanced multi-core boost algorithms and lower memory/cache latency.

Like all of AMD’s processors, the Ryzen 5 2600X comes with an unlocked ratio multiplier. AMD is pushing the frequency/voltage curve to its limits, so we didn’t experience massive gains in some mundane workloads. However, we did see more of a benefit with the 2600X in heavily-threaded tasks compared to the Ryzen 7 2700X. That’s largely due to the 2600X’s lower multi-core boost frequencies.

We wish AMD was ready with its B450-series motherboards at launch time. But you can still pair the Ryzen 5 2600X with a capable 300-series model.

The Spectre patches did take some wind out of Intel’s sails in many of our application tests, but the impact varies by application. In most cases, the regressions aren’t severe enough to change our recommendations. Still, it's always disappointing to observe performance stepping backward. Luckily for Intel, gaming wasn't affected much.

Intel beefed up its Coffee Lake-based Core i5s by adding 50% more cores. Up against the Ryzen 5 1600X, we couldn't help but acknowledge Intel's great performance and generally better compatibility with existing games. This time, however, AMD brings the heat in our benchmarks, while most of its optimization-oriented issues are ancient history. If gaming is your only concern, save some cash and pick up a Core i5-8400. But we think you’ll be happier with the Ryzen 5 2600X, which has more resources to handle general desktop workloads with ease.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X Review: Redefining Ryzen

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Thu, 19 Apr 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Redefining Ryzen

AMD's return to prominence last year found it rolling out a long stream of CPUs that pressured Intel in almost every segment of the desktop PC market. Even after Intel countered with dramatic adjustments to its processor portfolio, AMD continues gobbling up market share. Even in the face of stiff competition, AMD says it enjoys as much as 50% of CPU sales to DIYers on sites like Newegg and Amazon.

And a slow transition to 10nm manufacturing continues to leave Intel vulnerable. AMD is now ready to evolve its Zen architecture with a round of new processors. To be sure, the improvements they offer are iterative. The low-hanging fruit that made it possible for first-gen Ryzen to compete are already baked in. These chips do incorporate some notable advantages, though.

To begin, second-generation Ryzen processors are manufactured using an optimized 12nm LP node that promises performance and efficiency gains compared to the original Ryzen's 14nm LPP process. AMD also tweaked the Zen architecture, now dubbed Zen+, to support higher frequencies, more sophisticated multi-core boost rates, and faster memory/caches. Overall, the company claims that its 2000-series facilitates nearly equivalent gaming performance compared to similarly-priced Core CPUs, plus a 20% advantage in threaded workloads.

AMD certainly hasn't forgotten its core message: more cores and features for less money. The second-gen Ryzen processors are priced competitively, all models come with beefy stock coolers, and they are backward compatible with older Socket AM4 motherboards. AMD even throws in free caching software to sweeten the deal. It all starts with silicon though, so let's take a look.

Ryzen 7 2700X

Ryzen 2000-series processors, otherwise known by their "Pinnacle Ridge" code name, are based on the same basic Zen core design as previous-gen models. But they benefit from 12nm manufacturing, along with targeted tweaks to improve cache and memory latency. The company says its resulting Zen+ architecture delivers up to a 3% boost in IPC (instructions per cycle) throughput.

The CPUs still utilize a dual-CCX configuration tied, together with Infinity Fabric. Not surprisingly, then, they're divided into eight-core, 16-thread Ryzen 7 and six-core, 12-thread Ryzen 5 families, both with 16MB of L3 cache. Like the Ryzens that came before, all 2000-series models boast unlocked ratio multipliers for easy overclocking. Intel, in comparison, still charges a premium for its overclockable K-series SKUs.

AMD separates its the 2000-series stack into high-performance X-series models and their non-X counterparts. But it shrinks the Ryzen 7 family from three models to two. Ryzen 7 2700X would seem to suggest a Ryzen 7 1700X replacement. However, it actually replaces the flagship Ryzen 7 1800X. AMD claims that its 2700X offers up to 12% more performance than Ryzen 7 1800X in threaded applications. Much of that improvement comes from a 100 MHz-higher base clock and 200 MHz of additional boost frequency (though multiple other refinements also contribute).

While the Pinnacle Ridge processors drop into 400-series motherboards, AMD is only releasing its X470 chipset at launch time. We still don't have a release date for the less expensive B450- and A420-based motherboards. As the company originally promised, it continues supporting Socket AM4 (and purportedly will until 2020), so the new Ryzen CPUs also work with 300-series motherboards after a BIOS update. First-gen Ryzens do work with 400-series platforms as well, allowing you to drop an older CPU into a brand-new board, if desired.

	AMD Ryzen 7 2700X	AMD Ryzen 7 1800X	AMD Ryzen 7 2700	AMD Ryzen 5 1600X	AMD Ryzen 5 2600X	AMD Ryzen 5 2600	Intel Core i7-8700K	Intel Core i7-8700	Intel Core i5-8600K	Intel Core i5-8400
MSRP	$329	$349	$299	$219	$229	$199	$359	$303	$257	$182
Cores/Threads	8/16	8/16	8/16	6/12	6/12	6/12	6/12	6/12	6/6	6/6
TDP	105W	95W	65W	95W	95W	65W	95W	65W	95W	65W
Base Freq. (GHz)	3.7	3.6	3.2	3.6	3.6	3.4	3.7	3.2	3.6	2.8
Precision Boost Freq. (GHz)	4.3	4.1	4.1	4.0	4.2	3.9	4.7	4.6	4.3	4.0
Cache (L3)	16MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	16MB	12MB	12MB	9MB	9MB
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No
Cooler	105W Wraith Prism (LED)	-	95W Wraith Spire (LED)	-	95W Wraith Spire	65W Wraith Stealth	-	Intel	-	Intel

The $329 Ryzen 7 2700X should sell for $20 less than an 1800X (though prices of previous-generation chips will likely fall as long as stock is robust), while the $299 Ryzen 7 2700 lands right where you formerly found the 1700. AMD's non-X models were apparently more popular with enthusiasts since they also had unlocked multipliers, enabling similar performance as the pricier models (after some tuning) for less money. You could save $50 stepping down from Ryzen 7 1800X to the 1700, for example. But that gap shrinks to $30 this time around.

AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X grapples with Intel's $359 flagship Core i7-8700K. Though that seems like an uncomfortably close comparison, AMD allows you to overclock with one of its value-oriented B-series motherboards (B350-based, for now), whereas Intel compels users splurge on a Z-series platform for overclocking. Adding the CPU and motherboard together, Intel's premium ends up being quite a bit higher.

Second-gen Ryzens now support up to DDR4-2933 RAM as well, trumping the Coffee Lake architecture's official DDR4-2666 ceiling (with a few caveats that we'll cover shortly). More bandwidth should help latency-sensitive apps, such as games. Also, X470 motherboards pave the way for better memory overclocking than previous-gen platforms.

AMD's first-gen X-series processors, which topped out at 95W, came without a bundled thermal solution. This time around, all 2000-series CPUs include a cooler. The 105W Ryzen 7 2700X includes a "Wraith Prism" LED cooler that features four direct-contact copper heat pipes, three independent RGB zones, switchable fan profiles, and a 39 dB(A) noise rating. The cooler is rated to dissipate 116W of waste heat in "L" mode (2800 RPM) and 124W in "H" mode (3600 RPM). Cooler Master manufactures the heat sink/fan, while AMD provides software for controlling the lighting and fan profiles. Company representatives claim the cooler represents a roughly $43 value, and that it also allows for some overclocking headroom.

As with the generation before, AMD employs Indium solder between its die and heat spreader to improve thermal transfer. In contrast, Intel uses standard thermal interface material on its Core i7-8700K. Also, that Intel chip doesn't come with a cooler, widening the price gap between a Ryzen 7 2700X-based configuration and a current-generation unlocked Intel Core i7.

According to AMD, its 2000-series CPUs benefit from an improved SensMI suite that also includes its new StorMI Technology. The latter is a software-based tiering solution that melds the low price and high capacity of a hard drive with the speed of an SSD, 3D XPoint (including Intel's Optane parts), or even up to 2GB of RAM. AMD sold this software as a $20 add-on in the past, but now it comes free as part of the 2000-series package. As with any tiering utility, you assume the same risks of data loss inherent to a RAID 0 array. For more details about this software, read our feature: AMD and Enmotus Expand FuzeDrive Offerings.

The GlobalFoundries 12nm LP Process

As mentioned, AMD's 2000-series CPUs are not manufactured on GlobalFoundries' 14nm GPP node, but rather its 12nm LP process technology. The ported-over design helps boost transistor performance, but does not affect die area or transistor density. As a result, Pinnacle Ridge's ~4.8 billion transistors and 213mm² area remain the same as first-gen Ryzen.

Lower leakage current does enable roughly 300 MHz-higher clock rates or a 50mV core voltage reduction at any given frequency compared to 14nm manufacturing. The company also refined some of the architecture's critical pathways with higher-performance transistors. All told, AMD claims the 12nm design enables up to 11% less power consumption than 14nm-based Ryzen CPUs at the same clock rates, or up to 16% more performance at the same thermal design power. All-core overclocks are expected to land in the 4.2 GHz range moving forward.

AMD also adds other nuanced refinements to the performance story, reportedly improving L1, L2, and L3 cache latencies, while also reducing memory latency by 11%.

Ryzen 7 2700X's 105W TDP represents a 10.5% increase compared to the 1800X for a 4.65% increase in boost frequencies. That seems like a simple trade-off of power consumption for higher clock rates. But the TDP rating also takes the multi-core Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 algorithms' higher power draw into account, allowing access to Socket AM4's full 95-amp current ceiling even during stock operation.

Precision Boost 2 And XFR2

AMD's previous-gen Ryzen processors have Precision Boost (a Dynamic Voltage Frequency Scaling implementation similar to Intel's Turbo Boost), and eXtended Frequency Range, which provides additional frequency uplift if your cooling solution has thermal headroom to spare. Those 1000-series CPUs only offer dual-core or all-core Precision Boost and XFR clock rates. But lightly-threaded applications (like games) often offload less-critical tasks to other threads. Unfortunately, light helper threads can apply enough of a load to trigger the lower all-core frequency, limiting performance potential even when the CPU could be operating at higher clock rates.

The new Precision Boost 2 (which debuted on the desktop with AMD's Raven Ridge processors) and XFR2 algorithms improve performance in threaded workloads by raising the frequency of any number of cores. Precision Boost 2 delivers up to 500 MHz-higher clocks during multi-core workloads, while XFR2 adds an additional 7% boost if your cooler is beefy enough. This extends Ryzen's already-strong threaded performance to a wider variety of tasks, though it levels off when the processor reaches 60°C (tCase) or 95 amps of current. Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 also work on 300-series motherboards.

AMD doesn't share a list of specific multi-core Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 bins, because its opportunistic algorithms achieve different frequencies based on temperature, current, and load.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Comparison Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

AMD Ryzen 5 2600X

X470 And Ryzen Master 1.3

AMD's Socket AM4 was designed with robust power delivery capabilities that aren't entirely used by first-gen Ryzen processors. The 2000-series chips are much better at leveraging the platform's current headroom through their improved boost algorithms. Some value-oriented motherboards employ scaled-back power delivery capabilities, so AMD's second-gen Ryzen CPUs communicate with the platform to modulate performance based on what the motherboard can do. That's a necessary addition to accommodate Ryzen 7 2700X's 105W TDP, which didn't exist before this new chip line. As a result, less-capable motherboards may not expose the full performance potential of higher-TDP processors like the Ryzen 7 2700X.

The processor monitors Package Power Tracking (PPT) and Thermal Design Current (TDC) variables, measuring available margin to the motherboard's maximum power output and current, respectively. Electrical Design Current (EDC) also indicates the maximum current possible from the VRMs during peak/transient conditions. A control loop feeds the real-time telemetry data back to the Infinity Fabric, which then allows the processor to dynamically affect performance based on thermal and power conditions.

If the motherboard BIOS supports it, AMD exposes some of these monitoring features with its updated Ryzen Master 1.3 overclocking software. The fastest cores are identified during the binning process and flagged by Ryzen Master with gold stars on a per-CCX basis. The third- and fourth-fastest cores are marked with a circle.

AMD's software now supports per-CCX overclocking as well, and includes a built-in stress test. The warranty does not cover damage caused by overclocking, so exercise caution.

Because there are still plenty of 300-series motherboards available for sale, AMD designed a badge to let you know that a firmware update may be necessary before dropping a 2000-series CPU into one of those older platforms. Unless your 300-series motherboard has an out-of-band update mechanism like BIOS Flashback, you need a previous-gen Ryzen processor to update it. AMD also offers its Boot Kit solution, which is a loaner processor you can use to update the motherboard firmware.

Eventually, all 300-series motherboards will support 2000-series processors right out of the box. AMD expects X470 and X370 boards to coexist for the foreseeable future, so it may be possible to find excellent deals on those previous-gen motherboards.

DIMM Slots Filled	Memory Ranks	Supported Speed
2 of 2	Single	2933*
2 of 2	Dual	2677
2 of 4	Single	2933*
2 of 4	Dual	2400
4 of 4	Single	2133
4 of 4	Dual	1866

*Note: requires a motherboard with at least six PCB layers. DDR4-2667 is supported on four-layer PCBs.

AMD's 2000-series processors support up to DDR4-2933 with a pair of single-rank DIMMs, though you need a six-layer motherboard to unlock that capability. Support drops back to DDR4-2667 for four-layer motherboards. Fortunately for enthusiasts, most mainstream platforms utilize six or eight layers.

From what we've seen thus far, X470 motherboards have an improved layout to facilitate aggressive memory overclocking. As you might expect, X470 boards in our labs are much more mature at launch than the 300-series platforms we battled last year. Thanks to this, we're easily running memory at DDR4-3466 with tight timings. Our motherboard team also noticed vastly improved overclocking with all memory slots populated, which was an issue on some X370 motherboards.

X470-based motherboards feature lower power consumption, higher multi-hub USB throughput, and improved power delivery. But they still have the same connectivity options as 300-series motherboards.

I/O Source	USB 3.1 Gen2	USB 3.1 Gen1	USB 2.0	PCIe Gen3	GPP PCIe Gen2	SATA
AMD Ryzen SoC (1000- and 2000-series)	0	4	0	20x	0	2
X470/370	2	6	6	0	8	8
B350	2	2	6	0	6	6
A320	1	2	6	0	4	6

The first line in our chart covers Ryzen's I/O capabilities, which you then combine with one of the chipsets underneath to determine platform connectivity. A Ryzen CPU sports 20 PCIe 3.0 lanes. Sixteen are dedicated to the PCIe slots, while four lanes are dedicated to SATA ports or a 4x link for NVMe SSDs. Four of the SATA ports can also be assigned to SATA Express interfaces at a 2:1 ratio, yielding a maximum of two SATA Express connections.

As you can see, the X470 chipset offers the same connectivity options as its predecessor, with two USB 3.1 Gen2 ports, four USB 3.1 Gen1 ports, six USB 2.0 ports, and eight general-purpose PCIe 2.0 lanes that vendors can carve up for additional functionality (like hanging M.2 slots off of the chipset or enhanced 5/10GbE support).

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Cache And Memory Performance, IPC

Memory Latency

AMD Measurements	L1 Cache Latency	L2 Cache Latency	L3 Cache Latency	Memory Latency
Latency Improvements	13%	34%	16%	11%

AMD's first-gen processors demonstrated higher memory latency than we expected, affecting the performance of memory-sensitive applications. The company claims it reduced memory latency by 11% this time around, as well as cutting cache latencies by double-digit percentages. We'll start by measuring the memory and Infinity Fabric subsystems, and then move on to IPC tests.

SiSoftware's Sandra is used to measure cache and memory latency with three different access patterns, giving us more granularity than a single test. Sequential access patterns are almost entirely prefetched into the TLB, so that one's a good measure of prefetcher performance. The in-page random test measures random accesses within the same memory page. It also measures TLB performance and represents best-case random performance. The full random test features a mix of TLB hits and misses, with a strong likelihood of misses, so it quantifies worst-case latency.

We tested both the Ryzen 7 1800X and Ryzen 7 2700X on the same X470 motherboard. We include results with the Ryzen 7 2700X at DDR4-2933 for the stock configuration, DDR4-3466 for the overclocked configuration, and DDR4-2666 to normalize it with AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X.

With normalized DDR4-2667 data rates and timings, the Ryzen 7 2700X posts impressive gains over Ryzen 7 1800X, regardless of the data access pattern. As percentages, the 2700X's improvements weigh in at 11.49% for full random, 6.64% for in-page, and 9.35% for the sequential access pattern.

The Infinity Fabric speeds up as we increase memory frequency to the 2700X's default DDR4-2933. This fabric ties the IMC and cores together, so we record even larger improvements of 18% in the full random test, 13.4% with a full random access pattern, and 12.9% with the sequential metric.

AMD isn't fully disclosing the steps it took to improve memory latency, but we suspect the company worked on the Infinity Fabric and integrated memory controller to realize these gains.

Cache Latency And Bandwidth

Regardless of the memory access pattern, the smallest data chunks fit into L1 cache. As the data gets larger, it populates the 2700X's higher tiers of cache, which we outlined in the following table:

	L1	L2	L3	Main Memory
Range	2KB - 32KB	64KB - 512KB	1MB - 4MB	8MB - 1GB

% Improvement Over 1800X	L1	L2	L3
In-Page	11.11%	51.72%	26.38%
Full-Random	11.11%	53.5%	25.64%
Sequential	11.11%	13.3%	13.3%

The cache latency reductions that we measured are even better than what AMD suggested we'd see, though its lab might be using different access patterns. Regardless, the apples-to-apples results in our table are downright impressive.

We also see a notable increase in cache bandwidth. Feeding the cores with lower latency and higher throughput is a win-win on the performance front. Intel's S-series processors still have a big single-core L1 bandwidth advantage, but AMD's updated L2 cache is measurably faster than the 1800X in both single- and multi-threaded tests. AMD even enjoys better L2 cache latency than Intel in the sequential test and better L3 cache latency with several data patterns.

To Infinity, And Beyond

The updated Zen+ design fuses two four-core CCXs together with the Infinity Fabric, which is a crossbar that also handles IMC, northbridge, and PCIe traffic. As such, fabric latency is a critical variable that ensures the memory latency gains we observe can actually be delivered to the cores.

SiSoftware Sandra's Processor Multi-Core Efficiency metric helps illustrate the Infinity Fabric's performance. We use the Multi-Threaded test with the "best pair match" setting (lowest latency). The utility measures ping times between threads to quantify fabric latency in every possible configuration. We boil those benchmarks down to latency averages for the different pathways, but head here for a more detailed explanation of the various components.

AMD reduced Ryzen 7 2700X's intra-core latency by 11.8% and the critical cross-CCX latency by 8.3%. We also notice that Ryzen 7 2700X offers significantly improved fabric bandwidth.

Instructions Per Clock

It's important to remember that IPC can vary by workload, so dissimilar tasks may yield different outcomes. We set a static 3 GHz clock rate for the following tests:

Our single-core Cinebench benchmark suggests a 1.6% IPC improvement favoring Ryzen 7 2700X. But while AMD does improve, Intel still holds onto a distinct IPC throughput advantage. Switching to the Multi-Threaded Cinbench test gives Ryzen 7 2700X a 2.7% improvement over its predecessor.

Core i9-7820X employs two 256-bit AVX FMA units per core that operate in parallel, whereas Ryzen's Zen architecture divides 256-bit AVX operations across two FMA units per core. That difference hands the Skylake-X processor a commanding lead in y-cruncher. We do see a 3.9% increase in the 2700X's Multi-Threaded y-cruncher result compared to Ryzen 7 1800X. But the gains in single-threaded AVX performance are marginal.

We see similar results in our single-core cryptographic tests, though Ryzen 7 2700X takes an 8.7% lead over the 1800X in the Multi-Threaded AES-256-ECB encryption workload. AMD's Zen architecture includes two AES cryptographic accelerators for each core, so it isn't surprising to see Ryzen dominate over Intel's S-series CPUs in the AES-256-ECB tests.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Overclocking, Spectre, And Test Setup

Overclocking

We ran our gaming and application tests in the U.S. lab, while power/thermal measurements were collected in our German lab.

In the U.S. lab, we paired our Ryzen 7 2700X with Corsair's H115i cooler for overclocking. This allowed us to maintain a 4.2 GHz all-core frequency at 1.3785V Vcore, 1.2V SoC voltage, and the default Load Line Calibration settings. Since we couldn't smash through to 4.3 GHz without exceeding AMD's 1.40V maximum recommended Vcore setting, we stopped at 4.2 GHz.

We did encounter temperatures as high as 90°C during extended AVX testing, so we recommend a capable closed-loop or custom water cooler for overclocking. AMD would really benefit from an AVX-offset feature as well, which could cut clock rates during power-hungry AVX workloads. Should you choose to go the more extreme route, there have been reports of 5.8 GHz with Ryzen 7 2700X under LN2.

First-gen Ryzen processors don't have much memory overclocking headroom, so we're still testing tuned X370 platforms at DDR4-3200. However, the X470 platform was remarkably stable at higher data rates with Ryzen 7 2700X. So, we settled on DDR4-3466 with 14-14-14-34 timings (though we're confident that more time to tune would yield even higher overclocks). We also ran our overclocked Intel processors at DDR4-3466.

Spectre And Meltdown

Our test rigs now include Meltdown And Spectre Variant 1 mitigations. Spectre Variant 2 requires both motherboard firmware/microcode and operating system patches. We have installed the operating system patches for Variant 2.

Today's performance measurements do not include Intel's motherboard firmware mitigations for Spectre Variant 2 though, as we've been waiting for AMD patches to level the playing field. Last week, AMD announced that it’s making the mitigations available to motherboard vendors and OEMs, which the company says should take time to appear in the wild. We checked MSI's website for firmware updates applicable to our X370 platforms when AMD made its announcement, but no new BIOSes were available (and still aren't).

Unfortunately, we were only made aware that Variant 2 mitigations are present in our X470 board's firmware just before launch, precluding us from re-testing the Intel platforms with patches applied. We're working on this now, and plan to post updated results in future reviews.

The lack of Spectre Variant 2 patches in our Intel results likely give the Core CPUs a slight advantage over AMD's patched platforms. But the performance difference should be minimal with modern processors.

Test Setup

AMD is working on a Precision Boost Overdrive feature, which seems similar to the Multi-Core Enhanced Turbo (MCE) feature that allows Intel's K-series processors to run at their maximum Turbo Boost bin across all cores at all times. The setting on Intel platforms modifies the CPU's clock rate and voltage to deliver higher performance, basically amounting to factory-sanctioned overclocking.

AMD's Ryzen Master 1.3 software doesn't currently let you activate this feature from within Windows. But as we often find with MCE, AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive is enabled by default in many BIOSes. After extensive experimentation, we can conclude that the option doesn't deliver an appreciable performance gain in its current form. Thus, we ran our tests with Precision Boost Overdrive disabled.

Comparison Products

Intel Core i5-8400

Intel Core i5-8600K

Intel Core i7-7700K

Test Systems

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Germany AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i5-8600K, i5-8600K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2666AMD Socket AM4 Workstation (300-Series)AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1600X, Ryzen 5 1400MSI X370 Tomahawk4x 8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)Intel Core i7-7700KMSI Z270 Gaming 72x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2400 and 3200All SystemsGeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Gaming)Nvidia Quadro P6000 (Workstation)1x 1TB Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, System)2x 960GB Toshiba OCZ TR150 (Storage, Images)be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11, 850W Power SupplyWindows 10 Pro (Creators Update)U.S.AMD Socket AM4 (400-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 2700XMSI X470 Gaming M7 AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2933, DDR4-3466Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i7-8700K, i5-8600K, Core i5-8400MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400, DDR4-2667, DDR4-3466AMD Socket AM4 (300-Series)AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, 1700X, 1700, Ryzen 5 1600XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2667, DDR4-3200Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)Intel Core i7-7700K MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2400Intel LGA 2066Intel Core i7-7820XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 @ DDR4-2666All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703
Cooling	GermanyAlphacool Eiszeit 2000 ChillerAlphacool Eisblock XPXThermal Grizzly Kryonaut (For Cooler Switch)U.S.Corsair H115i
Monitor	Eizo EV3237-BK
PC Case	Lian Li PC-T70 with Extension Kit and Mods Configurations: Open Benchtable, Closed Case
Power Consumption Measurement	Contact-free DC Measurement at PCIe Slot (Using a Riser Card) Contact-free DC Measurement at External Auxiliary Power Supply Cable Direct Voltage Measurement at Power Supply 2x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500 MHz Digital Multi-Channel Oscilloscope with Storage Function4x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 Current Probe (1mA - 30A, 100 kHz, DC) 4x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10:1 Probes, 500 MHz) 1x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 Digital Multimeter with Storage Function
Thermal Measurement	1x Optris PI640 80 Hz Infrared Camera + PI Connect Real-Time Infrared Monitoring and Recording
Acoustic Measurement	NTI Audio M2211 (with Calibration File, Low Cut at 50Hz) Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for Microphones)Creative X7, Smaart v.7 Custom-Made Proprietary Measurement Chamber, 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2m (L x D x H) Perpendicular to Center of Noise Source(s), Measurement Distance of 50cm Noise Level in dB(A) (Slow), Real-time Frequency Analyzer (RTA) Graphical Frequency Spectrum of Noise

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark And AotS: Escalation

VRMark & 3DMark

Gaming is where rubber meets the road for most enthusiasts. AMD tells us that its 2000-series processors should be nearly equivalent to Intel's comparable models, at least at stock settings. And there's no doubt that Ryzen 7 2700X will excel in heavily-threaded titles. But tests that are sensitive to clock rate and IPC throughput, such as VRMark, have traditionally been a challenge for Ryzen.

The 2700X bridges the gap between Intel's processors and first-gen Ryzen. AMD's stock 2700X outstrips the Ryzen 7 1800X by 11.8%. More impressively, it also beats the overclocked 1800X by 2%. The 2700X's lead over its predecessor extends further after tuning its cores and memory subsystem.

Synthetic benchmarks are great because they tend to scale more clearly than real-world applications. 3DMark's real usefulness lies in measuring the amount of performance available to game engines, giving us a peek at what highly-optimized games could be capable of.

Ryzen 7 2700X's 16 threads beat Core i7-8700K's 12 threads in our DX11 and DX12 CPU tests, even after overclocking. The 2700X also bests Intel's $589 Core i7-7820X during both tests.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation evokes memories of AMD's early struggles with the Zen architecture. This was one of the first games to receive an update optimized for AMD's processor design.

Although the patch improved performance, Ryzen 7 1800X still fails to beat a stock Core i7-8700K. But Ryzen 7 2700X and its Precision Boost 2 algorithm turn the tables, giving AMD an advantage in stock and overclocked trim.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI Graphics & AI, Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

Civilization's AI test measures performance in a turn-based strategy game and tends to favor per-core performance. Ryzen 7 2700X almost ties the Coffee Lake-based Core i7-8700K at its stock settings. However, Intel gains more from overclocking, pulling away after our tuning efforts.

Again, notice that the stock Ryzen 7 2700X is fast enough to beat the overclocked 1800X.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

The stock Ryzen 7 2700X beats every other Ryzen CPU by ~10 FPS (or more). But Intel's stock CPUs have no problem maintaining their advantage.

Tuning the 2700X yields a 6.3% speed-up on average. But that doesn't help it catch the Core i5-8600K, which takes the top two spots in our chart.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

The overclocked Ryzen 7 2700X lands just shy of the Core i7-7700K and -8700K. Tuning those chips allows them to walk away from AMD's flagship, though.

Meanwhile, Ryzen 7 2700X beats AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X by 14% right out of the box.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry Primal, GTA: V, Hitman

Far Cry Primal

Far Cry Primal responds well to Intel's Core i7-7700K. It's also interesting that a stock Core i5-8600K beats the overclocked 6C/12T Core i7-8700K. Then again, we've seen this tendency before.

The stock Ryzen 7 2700X lags behind Intel's newest K-series CPUs, though tuning does help AMD's case.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates. The overclocked Ryzen 7 2700X vies with Intel's chips at stock frequencies. But again, giving Coffee Lake the same treatment propels those chips to the top of our chart.

Ryzen 7 1700 suffers from a low base clock rate and languishes at the bottom of our chart as a result. This processor often provides similar performance as AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X after some tuning. However, it's clear that the Ryzen 7 2700X sets a new high water mark for AMD CPUs in games.

Hitman

Hitman's GOTY update imposed a hard 90 FPS cap on performance, so this title no longer scales well with high-end PCs. Unfortunately, some popular AAA games employ similar frame rate limits, so we leave this result in place to show that not all titles respond to faster components.

We do see slight scaling from Ryzen 7 1700 up to Intel's overclocked models. However, these differences would be hard to spot during a gaming session. Ryzen 7 2700X lands in a familiar position ahead of AMD's previous-gen Ryzen CPUs.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Shadow Of War, Project CARS 2

Middle-earth: Shadow Of War

Middle-earth: Shadow of War doesn't scale as dramatically as some of our other benchmarks, and it certainly isn't as sensitive to IPC throughput and frequency as Shadow of Mordor. While CPU reviews tend to focus on games that scale well with certain host processing specifications, some games just can't get enough graphics performance.

Ryzen 7 2700X comes tantalizingly close to matching the Coffee Lake-based processors at stock and overclocked settings.

Project CARS 2

Project CARS 2 is purportedly optimized for threading. A 6C/6T Core i5-8600K beats the overclocked 8C/16T Ryzen 7 2700X though, so it's clear that parallelism isn't the most influential factor in defining this game's performance.

A stock Ryzen 7 2700X trails all of the Intel CPUs except for Core i7-7820X. But overclocking nudges AMD's flagship closer to the top.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office And Productivity

Adobe Creative Cloud

Adobe's Creative Cloud suite generally favors higher frequencies and IPC throughput, giving Intel an advantage. Still, Ryzen 7 2700X provides a nice balance of high clock rates and core count, yielding an impressive 13.8% speed-up in the overall score compared to AMD's tuned Ryzen 7 1800X.

Overclocking doesn't deliver the big gains we recorded in our gaming suite. In some of the lightly-threaded application tests (like After Effects), a stock Ryzen 7 2700X is even faster than the overclocked one. This is a result of the 2700X's 4.3 GHz Precision Boost 2 frequency, which outstrips our 4.2 GHz all-core overclock. These tests also aren't as latency-sensitive as gaming workloads, so DDR4-3466 doesn't deliver as much of a performance improvement.

Web Browser

The Krakken suite tests JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. AMD's processors typically lag Intel's in Web browser benchmarks due to their lower per-core performance. However, a stock Ryzen 7 2700X still outpaces its overclocked predecessor.

The MotionMark benchmarks, which emphasize graphics performance (rather than JavaScript), are also sensitive to CPU clock rates. Again, the 2700X's higher stock Precision Boost 2 frequencies allow it to slip past the overclocked configuration. At the same time, we measure a 14.6% gain over the stock 1800X.

Productivity

Ryzen 7 2700X is much more competitive than AMD's previous-generation CPUs. We also observe slim gains from overclocking in many of these workloads.

Our video conferencing workload measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage. Not surprisingly then, a stock Ryzen 7 2700X leads the rest of the field at default clock rates thanks to its 8C/16T configuration and higher frequencies.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized, which obviously plays to the 2700X's eight-core design.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding, And Compression

Rendering

Ryzen 7 2700X takes a commanding lead in the multi-core Cinebench benchmark, which we expected in light of the radical cache latency and bandwidth improvements that AMD made. POV-Ray also shows the 2700X to be a chart-topper, though again it's faster in stock form than overclocked.

AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X leads in many of the threaded workloads, but isn't as impressive in workloads that tax a single core. There, Intel's architectures continue shining.

Core i7-7820X leads in LuxMark. But notice that we don't have OpenCL results for it. This is because the older OpenCL SDK doesn't support AVX-512. Intel updated the SDK fairly recently, and it works correctly with Skylake-X-based processors. We'll have to retest all of these CPUs to reflect the changes, but be assured that AVX-512 is a powerful addition.

Encoding & Compression

LAME is the quintessential example of a single-threaded workload, and the 2700X posts solid gains over Ryzen 7 1800X in its stock configuration.

Our threaded compression and decompression tests adsorb data directly from system memory, thus removing storage from the equation. As per usual, the Ryzen processors dominate the decompression workload while Intel's Skylake-X leads in compression-oriented benchmarks. It's notable that Core i7-8700K needs overclocking in order to beat AMD's flagship.

There's a larger delta between Intel and AMD processors during our HandBrake x265 test compared to the x264 benchmark due to its heavier distribution of AVX instructions. Ryzen 7 2700X is particularly impressive in the x264 metric, where it upsets the capable Core i7-7820X.

We also provide results from y-cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes Pi using AVX instructions. We tested with version 0.7.3.9474, which includes Ryzen optimizations. The 2700X trails Intel's portfolio in the single-core benchmark. However, parallelization puts it in a more competitive position. Also, we clearly see the benefit of Core i7-7820X's dual 256-bit AVX FMA units (per core) in the AVX workloads.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

XFR2 vs. Manual Overclocking

XFR2, Cooling, and Clock Rates

In contrast to the first-gen Ryzen models and their strange temperature curves, the tCTL (core temperature) values now correspond with what we'd expect to see. AMD does add a 10-degree offset to the 2700X specifically, which motherboard BIOSes already take into account. We subtract this offset from our own measurements.

Chip quality naturally influences achievable clock rates as well. These effects are seen much more clearly with second-gen Ryzen CPUs supporting XFR2, since they have to be binned precisely.

With as much cooling performance as we could muster, Ryzen 7 2700X still reaches almost 4.2 GHz. A more conventional thermal solution would result in a lower clock rate. However, with a good air cooler, it should be possible to sustain 4 GHz on all cores.

Manual Overclocking

Ryzen 7 2700X can be manually overclocked to 4.3 GHz. But the 1.475V required for this is more aggressive than we want to get long-term. Pushing to 4.35 GHz resulted in a crash no matter how much voltage we applied.

As the following curve shows, power consumption and performance in Cinebench are almost directly proportional, so long as the system runs stably and doesn't crash. It's also worth noting that Cool'n'Quiet is completely disabled on our test platform when we configure the ratio multiplier manually. When that happens, the configured clock rate doesn't drop from its specified maximum, even at idle.

We measure a maximum of 135W in Cinebench and just over 150W in Prime95 with AVX, although this extreme torture test is more of an exhibition.

If you spend some money on good cooling, there's no reason to manually overclock Ryzen 7 2700X. Thanks to XFR2, AMD's flagship should remain stable above 4 GHz, even under full load. Try to go any higher and you'll pay a hefty price in heat, power, and possibly long-term reliability.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Power Consumption

At idle, Ryzen 7 2700X lands behind most of the Intel competition, but ahead of previous-gen Ryzen CPUs. First and second place in our chart go to a couple of AMD APUs, perhaps surprisingly.

Under a light CAD workload, Ryzen 7 2700X performs better and uses less power than its predecessor. This shows us that AMD didn't pay for better clocks with a sacrifice to power consumption. Its progress is already apparent at this point in the measurements.

Gaming tells a similar story; the performance increase is again more pronounced than the differences in power consumption.

When it comes to our stress test, AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X is much more reserved than its predecessor. We attribute this to the chip's XFR2 functionality, along with more granular frequency/voltage settings.

Even when we hit it as hard as possible, the new CPU stays stable above 4 GHz.

Performance rises and power consumption falls (if only slightly). There's truth to AMD's marketing material, so says our lab equipment. Ryzen 7 2700X really does deserve attention for these results.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Thermals And Noise

The Wraith Prism

Ryzen 7 2700X's Wraith Prism thermal solution is a large, high-finned cooler with four flattened heat pipes and a plate behind them for stabilization. The heat sink's entire contact surface is thus made of copper. Its fins are arranged in such a way that the exhaust air is focused toward the memory and I/O shield.

The fastening clamp is a big disadvantage of this large cooler, which takes us back to the old Athlon XP days. Even at maximum load on all cores in the stress test, the CPU only reaches a maximum temperature of 82.8°C (corrected value), so it remains below the thermal throttle threshold. The cooler handles the 105 watts easily. You can expect peaks up to 70°C and a little above, depending on the motherboard's predefined fan curve.

The cooler is loud and emits 44 dB(A) under load (50 cm distance, 45° diagonal) when the fan is spinning at 2600-2700 RPM. The fan can even be a bit noisy even when the system is idling on the Windows desktop. Unfortunately, the fan adjusts much too rapidly as the cooler reacts to short-term temperature jumps.

We see the result in the narrow-band frequency spectrum of the motor noise, which shifts back and forth between approx. 240 and 300 Hz. The fan generates almost 39 dB(A) at idle, which isn't necessary. It helps if adjust the fan curve to a fixed speed of at least 1400 RPM if the processor is under 60°C. However, you'll have to experiment because each case will require different settings.

AMD has made good progress with XFR2 and the powerful cooling finally pays off in terms of performance. The power consumption remains largely the same and you get a nice clock rate increase, but we don't like the unnecessary noise levels or the fiddly mounting mechanism.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

AMD's 2000-series processors aren't revolutionary, but they are far beyond the normal evolutionary updates we've become accustomed to over the last several years.

In the chart below, we plotted gaming performance with both average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we then converted into an FPS measurement. We're also presenting price-to-performance charts that get split up to include CPUs-only and extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add an extra $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370).

In gaming, AMD's stock Ryzen 7 2700X delivers a great performance boost that rivals its overclocked predecessor in every one of our tests. Tuning the 2700X provides additional performance, though you probably won't notice the difference. Check out our chart: as you can see, the Ryzen 7 2700X effectively ties Core i7-8700K based on the geometric mean. But it sells at a $30 discount, drops into a less expensive motherboard, and comes with a thermal solution that adds even more value.

While the overclocked Core i7-8700K is a fierce competitor, it requires you to buy a Z-series motherboard for overclocking, along with a capable cooler. Core i5-8600K offers most of the -8700K's performance, but you lose Ryzen 7 2700X's sixteen threads and bundled heat sink/fan. We think it's safe to say that AMD is delivering on its pledge to provide a near-equivalent gaming experience in most titles.

If you're searching for a more productivity-oriented processor, Ryzen 7 2700X is incredibly attractive. It offers superior performance compared to the Core i7-8700K in many of our threaded tests, and is much more competitive in lightly threaded applications than previous-gen models.

AMD's Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 algorithms are already pushing the voltage/frequency curve to its limits, so don't expect much in the way of overclocking headroom. We did tune Ryzen 7 2700X up to 4.2 GHz, but a higher dual-core Precision Boost 2 frequency of 4.3 GHz offers better performance than our all-core overclock in certain applications. Significant gains in games were likely a result of heightened sensitivity to our DDR4-3466 memory.

AMD's latest Ryzen 7 delivers a host of features that make enthusiasts swoon, such as an unlocked multiplier, backward compatibility with 300-series motherboards, solder between the heat spreader and die, and an LED-equipped cooler. We only wish that B450-based motherboards were available at launch time. Hopefully we hear more about AMD's lower-cost platform soon.

In a broader sense, AMD is delivering on its first update to the Ryzen processor series, proving that it can execute on its roadmap. It looks like it's going to be another busy year in the CPU space--and that's more good news for enthusiasts and gamers.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Colorful iGame Z370 Vulcan X V20 Review: A New Face in Mobos

Thomas Soderstrom — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Features & Layout

If you’re the kind of builder who shops extensively before making a purchase, you’ve probably seen Colorful components pop up from time to time on the domestic market. Certain foreign sellers have long sought to cash in on the U.S. market by filling gaps, and Colorful has the volume to help it do just that. Yet for most of us, the volume that reaches our shores has represented little more than a trickle. The iGame Z370-X might change all that.

That last sentence is certain to draw a bunch of questions, the first of these its name: The iGame Z370-X is printed right on the board. Colorful added "Vulcan" to the name on the product’s web page. The V20 addition appears to have happened later, when the manufacturer was setting up its support site. So, various short versions of the "iGame Z370 Vulcan X V20" name appear in different places.

As to your other question, Colorful remains a graphics card maker, but it has slowly worked its way into the motherboard business over the past few years. Now that some of its sellers are reaching the U.S. market through larger sites, Colorful sees an opportunity to broaden its market presence.

The high-end basics are covered, with a filled-out I/O panel that includes Gen2 USB 3.1, triple x16-length PCIe slots, dual M.2 with NVMe, and a 14-phase voltage regulator. A few things you don’t expect to see on a high-end board meant for the U.S. market include the previous-gen HDMI TMDS, network, USB 3.1, and audio controllers.

The I/O panel brings back some features that will certainly be useful to people who do everything from a single PC, such as the six analog audio jacks that allow one to run 7.1 surround without sacrificing Line-In or Line-Out, and the four USB 2.0 ports that allow one to configure a mouse/keyboard/printer/scanner without sacrificing any of the higher-speed USB interfaces. Those higher-speed ports include four USB 3.0 and two USB 3.1 Gen2, but to the chagrin of some mobile-device users, both 10Gb/s ports are Type-A and share bandwidth. We also find a single Gigabit Ethernet port, optical S/PDIF, HDMI, DisplayPort, and a CLR_CMOS button.

Four buttons highlight the iGame Z370 Vulcan X V20’s bottom edge, including Quick OC (it bumps the FSB by 5% upon restart), BIOS Set (it forces the board into its firmware GUI at restart), BIOS Update (it sends the board into firmware update mode at restart), and a button that forces the board to copy the active firmware to the backup ROM. A manual switch allows users to select which firmware to use at boot, but we found that the unit had to be disconnected from power and allowed to drain for a few seconds to ensure that the firmware from the other ROM wasn’t still active.

Interfaces include HD Audio for front-panel cables, two of the board’s five PWM fan headers, both of its RGB cable headers, a full nine-pin (two-port) USB header, a case-intrusion-switch header, a five-pin (single-port) USB header, and an Intel-style front-panel switch/LED combo header. The nine-pin and five-pin USB headers explain the odd-looking "1.5" number expressed in our features table.

Three more buttons that highlight the top of the front edge are reset, power, and a mode switch for the three-digit status code display. Modes for the display include POST code, CPU voltage, DIMM voltage, CPU temperature, and PCH temperature.

Nearby connectors include front-panel USB 3.0, fan, and 24-pin power.

Colorful's documentation shows the iGame Z370 Vulcan X V20’s CPU-based PCIe configuration as being capable of x16/x0, x8/x8, and x8/x4/x4 modes, but we didn’t see the extra two two-lane switches that would have allowed the second slot to donate four lanes to the third slot. Confused, we installed three cards and found that the board is instead configured to use PCH lanes for the third slot, leaving x16/x0 and x8/x8 the only available slot options for the CPU. Users who would like to run a pair of PCIe x4 NVMe drives without relying on the crowded PCH-to-CPU link will thus want to get the M.2 version and put those on a PCIe x8 adapter, in the board’s second slot.

Those of us who aren’t as demanding of drive bandwidth can use the two PCH-linked M.2 slots already on the board. One of these is covered by a heat sink that’s secured by screws on the back of the board, though, so swapping it out might be a little inconvenient. Those eight lanes plus the four-lane PCIe slot consume 12 of the PCH’s 30 HSIO resources. The PCIe-based Ethernet controller, USB 3.1 controller, I/O-panel USB 3.0 ports, front-panel USB 3.0 header, three PCIe x1 slots, and six SATA ports consume 17 of the 18 remaining HSIO resources. Colorful says that one of the M.2 slots is SATA-compatible, and the extra interface (unshared) would account for the remaining HSIO pathway.

The iGame Z370 Vulcan X V20 includes a manual, a driver disc, six SATA cables, a pack of label stickers, an I/O shield, and extender blocks for the front panel switch/LED group and USB 2.0. The inclusion of the switch/LED group extension block makes sense because builders can use it to group/bundle their front-panel leads, but the USB 2.0 extender usefulness is hard to imagine.

Also hard to imagine was why the board didn’t include an SLI bridge, when the manual clearly states (in Chinese) “Motherboard provides 3 PCI Express 3.0 x16 slots, supporting 3-Way/2-Way AMD CrossFire and 2-Way NVIDIA SLI technology.” We dropped in a pair of our own cards with our own bridge, reloaded the display driver, and discovered that the Nvidia driver did not read the appropriate firmware hook required for SLI licensing: There was no interface option to enable SLI.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Firmware

Since the iGame Z370 Vulcan X V20 has only the software interfaces included in driver installation packages (such as the packet prioritization suite of its E2500 controller), we can just jump straight to the part Colorful has configured: its firmware.

Colorful’s firmware GUI opens to a basic page that contains mostly monitoring and boot-priority items, along with a button to enable the classically styled Advanced mode interface. There’s not so much as a firmware screenshot hotkey option, though the board did support the old hardware needed to support an ancient VGA screen grabber.

Everything from clock settings upward require the Advanced interface. Its Advanced tab includes a PC Health submenu where the Smart Fan Function sub-submenu is found: Only three of the board’s five outputs are controllable, and there’s no switch to enable voltage-based control on these PWM headers.

Overclocking is addressed within submenus of the C.Oclock menu. The main menu also includes a short display of current settings, LED Configuration, Users Profiles, and Spread Spectrum control.

The iGame Z370 Vulcan X V20 has all the hardware to become an overclocking beast, but first one needs to get past its CPU Overcurrent Protection. Power Limits 1 and 2 are set to “Maximum” by default, and power limits 3 and 4 had no effect on the board’s current limits: We tried 256W (set as 256000mW), 512W, and 768W to no avail, and selecting 1024W caused the system to hang at error code 71.

The board likewise was not configured for our DDR4-3866 memory’s XMP profile. Four modules would only work at the “default” mode of DDR4-2133, and two modules were only bootable at data rates up to DDR4-2600.

Because we couldn’t completely disable CPU over-current protection, we couldn’t even stress-test the board at stock settings without causing CPU current throttling. That would have been 4.30GHz with 12 threads of Prime95 small-FFTs, but instead it fluctuated between 3.0GHz and 4.3GHz whenever our meter showed total system power exceeding 188W. We pushed on, reaching 4.50GHz by reducing the core voltage to 1.15V, and enabling “CPU VDroop Control” to hold that voltage over 1.12V under full load.

The board also pushed around 35mV more to the DIMM slot than we set it to, forcing us to choose its 1.32V setting to keep within the rules we use to enable other boards to compete on an even footing.

RGB color options include Blue/Orange/Red/Green/White/Yellow/Purple and Rainbow cycle, as well as color-cycle frequency ranges from 0 to 255 milliseconds. You also get color-cycle styles that include Breath/Bling/Audio Tempo with a secondary timer ranging from 1 to 10 seconds, and the board can also show a specific color when a component is overheated.

Up to eight custom firmware configurations can be set as user profiles, and these can also be saved and retrieved from a USB flash drive.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

Our growing collection of ATX-form-factor Z370 boards has allowed us to focus our comparative efforts on models at lower prices with less-divergent feature sets.

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Comparison Products

Colorful iGame Z370 Vulcan X V20

Gigabyte Z370 Aorus Gaming 7

NZXT N7-Z37XT

Since the Colorful iGame Z370 Vulcan X V20 is priced over $250, we included all of our over-$250 samples in today's comparison. A quick look at the firmware overclocking options shows that all four boards should be similarly capable.

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks & Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4K Random Read, 4K Random Write128K Sequential Read, 128K Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests & Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19GB 4K mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests & Settings
Ashes of the Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920x1080, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, RainMedium Preset, No AFUltra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

Our basic benchmark set uses baseline frequencies, including SPD-based memory settings. We enable the CPU’s default power-savings features, disable any manufacturer-programmed overclocks in firmware, and disable sleep/suspend/hibernate modes in Windows.

Synthetic Benchmarks

Close results might not be exciting, but they prove that nothing is “wrong” when focusing on individual component benchmarks while using the same CPU, graphics, and DRAM. Colorful matches Gigabyte and NZXT in 3DMark, with MSI’s lead too small for us to seriously question its clocks.

Sandra Arithmetic and Multimedia indicate a minuscule unsanctioned overclock on the MSI board, while once again the Colorful sample matches the performance of the majority.

The Colorful and NZXT boards fall slightly behind in the FFT ocean render test of Compubench, but the Z370 Vulcan X V20 is roughly average across other tests.

3D Games

The Colorful and NZXT boards lose around 5% to other samples in our Metro and Talos benchmarks, with one notable exception: The Z370 Godlike Gaming results are shown with its Nahimic 3D positional audio software enabled. In its review, disabling that software allowed it to reach chart-topping FPS, though at the cost of giving up an MSI-exclusive feature that some users would willingly sacrifice a few FPS to enable.

Timed Applications

Less time means more performance in our office, creativity and productivity suites, but there are no performance deviations large enough to warrant discussion. Moving on…

Power, Heat & Efficiency

As discussed on page 2 of this review, it was impossible to get the iGame Z370 Vulcan X V20 to pull over 188W of total system power consistently, due to CPU over-current protection that could not be disabled. We’d see the wattage spike to around 224W for less than a second before settling in at 188W (occasionally bumping to 189W), after which the CPU frequency would fluctuate between 3.0GHz and 4.3GHz.

We’d discuss how the inability of the board to support the same power tests as other samples invalidates its efficiency score, but we’d rather look at its impact on overclocking capability.

Overclocking

We had to lower the CPU’s core voltage to break out of the 3.GHz-to-4.3GHz cycle set by the iGame Z370 Vulcan X V20’s overcurrent protection system. It’s nice to see the system continuously running at 4.50GHz at such low voltage, but we’re still a little offended that we couldn’t shoot for more. The power ceiling may be adequate for overclocking CPUs with fewer cores, but this is supposed to be a high-end board.

The iGame Z370 Vulcan X V20 was also unstable at our DDR4-3866’s XMP settings, and its highest bandwidth was with four modules at DDR4-2133 (rather than two modules at DDR4-2600).

Final Thoughts

We looked carefully over the Colorful iGame Z370 Vulcan X V20 and found no serious flaws, yet firmware quirks prevented us from doing many of the things we wanted. That makes it a tough sell for the $250-to-$300 high-end market, yet doesn’t impact its “price to performance” ratio. Scoring perfectly average in our performance metric, only its price is reflected in this calculation.

Since there’s nothing noticeably wrong with the board’s hardware, I’m going to retain this iGame Z370 Vulcan X V20 sample for a while and see if Colorful ever offers a new firmware with better overclocking capability and broader high-end memory compatibility. Given its use of previous-generation controllers, a price drop would also work in the board’s favor. Perhaps Colorful will do both! After all, we’re always looking for more buying and building options.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Asus Prime Z370-A ATX Motherboard Review: A Prime Cut for the Bucks

Thomas Soderstrom — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 19:00:00 +0000

Features & Layout

One of the problems value-seeking builders constantly face is knowing where to stop.

Do you really need the overclocking capability of a Z-series chipset, or will a cheaper board do? Isn’t it cheaper to choose a mid-priced CPU (such as the Core i3-8350K) and overclock it, than to pair a higher-model CPU with a cheaper locked board? And once you figure out that the overclocked mid-priced processor is your own better option, would it be better to buy a new graphics card at today’s inflated prices, or carry over a pair of cards from your previous machine? Now that you need a reasonable price and SLI capability, you’re starting to figure out where the board we praised so highly, for doing so well, so cheaply, falls short. Then Asus gives you a nudge and says, “Psst, hey bud...got an extra twenty?”

Recently discounted by up to $30, the $170 Prime Z370-A adds all the switches needed to convert from x16/x0 to x8/x8 transfer modes for SLI support, compared to the previously linked $150 MSI board that’s stuck with all the CPU lanes going to a single slot. The MSI board was also discounted recently by the same amount, maintaining its $20 price spread. So, given those pricing dynamics, let’s see what else the extra $20 gets us!

The Prime Z370-A supports keeping all three of its x16-length slots active, even when hosting two M.2 drives, which should be seen as a significant benefit by anyone who might ever consider installing two M.2 drives. Sharing problems are still present but lessened, as the second M.2 slot gets only two PCIe lanes until the user goes into firmware and sets the slot to x4 mode, which disables two of the SATA ports. That shouldn’t be much of a problem for most buyers at this market level, since four SATA ports are still available when both M.2 cards are configured in PCIe 3.0 x4 mode. If you mean to install more hardware than that, you can probably afford to go even further upmarket on the board, too.

Both CPU-connected PCIe slots have metal bracing and reinforcement pins to reduce the likelihood of damage when handling a finished system. From this angle, we can also see the four SATA ports, the exposed M.2 slot above the top x16 slot, and a cover screwed onto the PCH heat sink that conceals the second M.2 connection.

I began to argue the merits of two I/O panel USB 2.0 ports shortly after Intel switched its PCH design to flexible HSIO (high-speed input/output) pathways. The current 30 HSIO limit applies to USB 3.0, PCIe, and SATA ports, and that limit is the reason users need to choose between the last two SATA ports or the last two M.2 lanes on this board, and why boards with even more connections have more onerous sharing limitations. USB 2.0 doesn’t require HSIO pathways, so provisioning two of these is a good way for Asus to give users keyboard and mouse ports that don’t steal resources from slots and storage.

That’s not to say I'm wholly happy with the Prime Z370-A’s I/O set, as far as USB is concerned. I prefer to leave the two USB 3.1 Gen2 ports open and available for portable external storage devices, yet I still need six ports connected to all my other devices. The Prime Z370-A has only six total I/O panel USB ports, including USB 3.1 Gen2. That's a little light, though a PCI-slot bracket connected to an unused USB header could solve that cheaply enough.

As for the rest of the panel, users get DVI-D, DisplayPort, and HDMI to connect the CPU’s onboard video controller, plus a single Gigabit Ethernet port, five analog audio jacks, and an optical S/PDIF output. Asus doesn’t skimp on the audio, either, adding a DTS Connect license to the onboard ALC1220 codec (in Asus’ S1220A configuration) to let users send live multi-channel sound (such as games) to a DTS-compliant receiver over a single cable.

Asus placed the Prime Z370-A front-panel audio connection around 1.5” forward of the bottom rear corner, which should be helpful to the few users who still find that the cable of their case is a half-inch shorter than it should be. (This was once a common problem.) Moving forward, we find an old-fashioned serial-port breakout header, an RGB LED header, a TPM port, a header for Asus’ proprietary fan extension card (not included), one USB 3.0 and two USB 2.0 front-panel headers, one of the board’s six four-pin fan headers, an Intel-style combo header for front-panel switches and activity lights and, adjacent to those pins, additional pins for a PC speaker and three-pin power LED. All six of the SATA ports, along with the other USB 3.0 front-panel header, point forward along the front edge, so the connectors will slip easily beneath the leading edge of extra-long PCIe cards.

Buyers looking for Asus-exclusive features will find its MemOK button, which allows users to trigger the board to “safe” memory settings to avoid boot hangs, between the onboard power button and boot-progress LEDs. Labeled “CPU, DRAM, VGA, BOOT,” those LEDs turn on to indicate which device is being initialized, and they turn off after initialization. During diagnostics, an LED that stays on will indicate which device has failed the initialization process.

The Prime Z370-A includes a driver disc and documentation, an I/O shield, three SATA cables, an Asus quick connector coupling for the front panel LED/switch group, a fan bracket, a CPU-installation tool that helps ham-fingered builders to not drop the CPU onto its contacts at an angle, and a high-bandwidth SLI bridge.

The fan bracket should get a little extra attention, since it’s designed to hold a 40mm or 50mm fan over the CPU voltage regulator. Liquid cooling isn’t always optimized for airflow over the motherboard, which sometimes results in a high voltage regulator temperature that induces throttling under heavy CPU loads. Using it will require most builders to order an additional fan, since those sizes haven’t been common within the enthusiast PC market for over a decade.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

The Prime Z370-A might be based on a lower-cost Intel platform, but it still includes the same DTS audio and RGB software as the Prime X299-A. The different platform does bring slight changes to the Ai Suite settings, but it still includes TPU overclocking, Turbo App application prioritization, EPU energy-state control, Fan Xpert4 fan profile tuning, Digi+ voltage regulator adjustment, PC Cleaner file cleanup, and EZ Update software updater for included applications.

Asus put much of the DIP software’s focus in its “5-Way Optimization” automatic tuning program, which overclocks and stability-tests the CPU and runs a fan-tuning test to determine an optimized slope. The results of the report are spread across two pages of a small window that can’t be resized: Here are those two windows pasted together (and cropped).

A 5.1GHz overclocking result would be great, except that we never actually saw it “in action,” in part because the overclock includes a CPU multiplier reduction for AVX loads of 3x, and in part because even when we set only a two-core/four-thread load, the CPU would divide that load across all six cores at 6% to 60% loaded. That would again force the lower six-core “Optimized” overclock, along with the 300MHz reduction for AVX loads, with the expected 4.40GHz result. No big deal; manual tuning remains a viable option, but that can also be done in firmware.

Firmware

Firmware is where the real overclocking fun begins, if not at this menu: The Prime Z370-A opens to an EZ Mode GUI, which gives users access to XMP, boot order, fan tuning, and automatic overclocking utilities. Pressing the keyboard’s F7 key brings up its advanced mode GUI.

Asus was one of the leaders in providing a “Favorites” menu, but we haven’t covered it often. It provides access to frequently adjusted settings.

Using Prime95 small FFTs, our CPU tops out at 4848MHz using a 1.30V core. Additional voltage needed to push it past 4848MHz in this application causes it to reach its thermal threshold and throttle back. With that limit in mind, we’re pleased to see any sub-$200 board push it to at least 4800MHz, so a high-five to the Prime Z370-A.

In the middle of the Ai Tweaker menu, the 5G OC Profile set our CPU to around 1.35V to 1.45V, depending on load, with no AVX offset. Unfortunately, Prime95 small FFTs crashed both threads on our fourth core nearly the instant we started stability validation. The good news for those who don’t mind disabling a core is that the other five cores operated flawlessly.

Our DDR4-3866 also reached DDR4-4000 using XMP timings and 1.35V, though the menu’s DRAM voltage settings are a tad off our measure: We measured 1.351V at the DIMM slots when using the board’s 1.3332V setting, even though the board reported only 1.328V. Let's not be overly critical about this, though, since most competing boards also provide 15 to 20 mV more than the setting indicates.

The plethora of memory-optimization settings includes a full set of primary, secondary, and tertiary timings.

In a phenomenon that overclockers have labeled “Vdroop,” CPU core voltage tends to sag as heavier software loads are applied. The Prime Z370-A includes Asus’ CPU Load-Line Calibration to offset that sag, and its “Level 6” setting allowed our CPU to drop just a smidge, from 1.30V to 1.28V. Most of us would be happy to settle for 4.80GHz on a 4.85GHz-capable CPU, knowing that the tiny drop in frequency came at significantly lower temperatures (around 10° C). The alternative, “Level 7” Load-Line Calibration, boosted our CPU to around 1.34V under load, which caused thermal throttling.

The Tweaker’s Paradise menu provides advanced controls that can help those with a competitive streak gain those last few additional MHz on a CPU that isn’t so tightly limited by its internal thermal interface.

“DRAM CTL REF Voltage” sounds like a single setting, but opening up that menu reveals a flurry of settings for all eight memory “ranks.” (The interface on each side of a DIMM is called a “rank.”)

Under the Advanced menu, the “Onboard Devices Configuration” submenu gives users the ability to, among other things, reassign the HSIO pathways of two SATA ports to PCIe for the second M.2 slot. When left to defaults, the second M.2 slot operates with only two pathways, and all six SATA ports are operational.

Fan controls for all six onboard headers are available in both PWM and voltage-based modes across four groups, and the board even includes three groups for Asus’ optional fan extension card with the same settings. Options include several programmed profiles, an automatic tuning algorithm, and manual slope configuration.

Other tools include a firmware update mode, storage for up to eight user-defined firmware configurations, ability to export or import firmware settings as a configuration file using a USB flash drive, and a report of the memory’s primary SPD configurations.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

Our growing collection of ATX-form-factor Z370 boards has allowed us to focus our comparative efforts on models at lower prices with less-divergent feature sets.

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Comparison Products

Asus Prime Z370-A

MSI Z370 Tomahawk

ASRock Z370 Extreme4

We limited our comparison group to boards priced below $220, including the $210-MSRP ROG model shown from Asus. Similar overclocking options will help us see whether a higher-priced model is really required to push the liquid-cooled limits of our unmodified Core i7-8700K.

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks & Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4K Random Read, 4K Random Write128K Sequential Read, 128K Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests & Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19GB 4K mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests & Settings
Ashes of the Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920x1080, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, RainMedium Preset, No AFUltra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

We start our benchmark set with Synthetic tests, which tend to indicate specific strengths and weaknesses of various hardware beyond the limitations of ordinary program code. Real-world benchmarks follow these.

Synthetic Benchmarks

The Z370-A beats most of its competitors in 3DMark’s graphics score, which is interesting since we’re still using the same old drivers from our X299 series (having blocked updates).

PCMark, on the other hand, shows nothing out of the ordinary.

Sandra Arithmetic and Multimedia reflect our observations, that no CPU overclocking was being used to game the test. What else could be going on?

The Asus advantage is revealed in Sandra’s Memory Bandwidth test, and similarly reflected in its bandwidth-constrained Cryptography Encrypt/Decrypt cycles. Various manufacturers tune their boards for either increased memory performance or increased memory stability, and Asus has historically attempted to do both by optimizing secondary and tertiary timings to a wider variety of specific modules.

3D Games

Game performance is typically limited by GPU performance as quality level increases, but things like memory and CPU performance have a larger impact at lower settings. We’re not too surprised to see the bandwidth-blessed Asus boards beat up competitors at the lower settings of Ashes and F1 2015.

Three boards broke past 200 FPS in Metro Last Light Redux, with the Prime Z370-A taking a marginal win. The more-expensive Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC fell behind in Talos with its included Nahimic 3D audio-positioning software enabled, but its review showed competitive Talos performance with Nahimic software disabled.

Timed Applications

The Prime Z370-A picks up a noticeable lead in 7-Zip compression, which, as we’ve seen in memory reviews, is bandwidth-constrained. We see on-par performance in our mix of audio and video utilities.

We see no significant performance margins in our Adobe CC applications, and the Prime Z370-A fell behind a few of its competitors in our lightweight Office suite.

Power, Heat & Efficiency

The Prime Z370-A has a few settings enabled by default that would have made our test results non-comparable, namely that it enables both Load Line Calibration and power limit throttling by default. Core voltage would rise to around 1.35V under Prime95 small-FFTs, after which the power limit would engage to throttle back the CPU.

Disabling those defaults allowed the CPU run at the expected 4.40GHz continuously, with all 12 physical and virtual cores engaged, whereupon the power use would climb to 208W (at the wall), with XTU indicating a mere 136W TDP.

Perhaps we should have changed the firmware’s default “SVID mode” from default to “typical”? Doing so allowed the full load wattage to drop to 172W, without lowering CPU frequency.

The charted temperatures also use the board’s default SVID mode: Changing that mode to “typical” allowed the CPU and voltage regulator temperatures to decline by 9 and 3 degrees, respectively.

A 1.6% lead in performance is offset by a 10.4% above-average power use, setting the Prime Z370-A’s efficiency at 7.9% below the average of all Z370 boards we’ve tested (including those not shown in today’s charts). However, had we used the 172W full-load number attained from changing SVID mode from “default” to “typical,” it would have been 6.7% more efficient than average. So bear that in mind if power consumption is key for you.

Overclocking

While we were pleased to see the Prime Z370-A push our CPU to 4.80GHz at only 1.28V, the competing Z370 Tomahawk held up our 1.30V intended setting to achieve a slightly higher 4848MHz.

Both the Prime Z370-A and Z370 Tomahawk reached the same DDR4-4000, but we’d sure love to see if Asus’ default bandwidth advantage extends to the overclocked configuration.

Sure enough, the Prime Z370-A keeps its bandwidth advantage when overclocked. Indeed, its bandwidth advantage is far greater than its core overclocking deficit, so that users who run bandwidth-dependent applications will be better served by the Asus board.

Final Thoughts

Many readers love to see value charts even though performance-per-dollar doesn’t reflect differences in feature set. SLI capability is the Prime Z370-A’s main advantage, and its $20 price premium includes both the onboard PCIe switch set needed to interface the second card, and the high-bandwidth SLI bridge needed to team it.

There are a few other advantages, though small. For example, it’s possible to use both M.2 slots and all three x16-length PCIe slots simultaneously on the Prime Z370-A, but only if you’re willing to let the second M.2 slot run at x2 mode. On the other hand, the MSI board has two more USB 3.0 ports on the I/O panel.

The USB quibble aside, we award the Z370-A our Editors' Choice award for its feature-set balance, the SLI factor, and its performance given the price. Alas, we don’t also have a “Fair Price!” award. But if we did, the Prime Z370-A would surely receive it, too. To date, it’s the best Z370 SLI board for the money.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Asus ROG Strix Z370-E Gaming Motherboard Review: Right-Priced RGB?

Thomas Soderstrom — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Features & Layout

We’ve been breaking motherboards into our own defined market segments for a few years, at least since before the boards themselves quit doing some "breaking" of their own. By which we mean: Motherboard prices went up when the PC-enthusiast market broke away from traditional PCs, and since then anything marketed for less than $160 has typically been equipped with only relatively basic features. The middle market, designed to satisfy most performance enthusiasts, has crept up to a rough range of $160 to $220, while a complete set of high-end features generally costs a bit over $220. And the wild stuff typically happens past $280.

With that said, the Strix Z370-E Gaming is priced at around $210. So, is this a better value in a high-end board, or just a mainstream overclocking board with a few added features? Let's take a closer look.

The single light bar on the board hints that it’s not designed for serious show-offs, but that’s okay with us. Lots of people are more interested in what a board can do than with what it looks like. And besides, there’s nothing unsightly about brushed-aluminum heat sinks or a plastic I/O connector cover that’s been painted silver to match.

Specifications

A quick look over the specs shows primarily high-end intentions, with two ASM3142 controllers that separately provide Type-C and Type-A ports to the rear, and a newfangled USB 3.1 Gen2 header for the front, all at 10Gb/s. Sharing has even been minimized to allow all the SATA ports and M.2 slots to work simultaneously with certain configurations; the second M.2 port (the one under the heat sink) can be set to two lanes to enable the SATA ports it steals, and the upper M.2 only requires an SATA port if its filled with a SATA drive. Performance enthusiasts are all about the NVMe at this point, often reserving SATA for backup drives.

Even with those things in mind, it’s hard to ignore some of the port choices on the I/O panel. Do enthusiasts need three outputs for the CPU’s onboard graphics? Why are there only six total USB ports, when users who want to use the rear-panel USB 3.1 Gen2 will often reserve those two ports for portable devices? Why is there no CLR_CMOS button? And considering that this is an Asus-made enthusiast board, why isn’t there any USB BIOS Flashback?

That last-mentioned omission suggests “because this is an enthusiast-level mainstream board” rather than a true high-end offering. And that's fine, for what it is. In a search for things that would boost it to the top of the mainstream segment—where its price resides—we find an RTL8822BE 2x2 (867Mb/s) controller with Bluetooth 4.2, in Key-E format, mounted to a custom riser card that also holds its antenna connectors. That’s something. It might even be worth $20, to those who want it. And it’s certainly nice to have that feature on the I/O panel, where it won’t occupy valuable slot space.

That means the rest of the board, in theory, only needs to compete against products around $190. And that's a much easier hill to climb, particularly considering its dual USB 3.1 Gen2 controllers. We can also see that the two metal-sided PCIe x16 expansion slots, which automatically switch from x16/x0 to x8/x8 modes when a second card is installed, are reinforced with soldered-down through-pins. The third long slot is connected via four lanes to the PCH.

Another quick look back at the possible-configurations table shows that while the two-lane front-panel USB 3.1 Gen2 controller steals pathways from two PCIe slots, those two slots that get disabled are the ones directly under graphics cards. In other words, for most users of SLI or CrossFire, the two disabled slots were going to be covered up by graphics-card coolers anyway. You might think that’s not such a big deal, until you see that one of Asus’ biggest competitors hasn’t figured that out yet…on motherboards costing more than twice as much. Smart move, here, by Asus' designers.

The Strix Z370-E Gaming’s front-panel audio header is moved about an inch forward of its traditional corner to aid builders whose cables are a little short. There’s also a header for vintage serial-port breakout plates, which looks incongruous on a gaming-market motherboard, but we'll take it. Next to that are one of the board’s two RGB headers, a TPM header, an addressable LED, an Asus proprietary fan hub, one of the board’s two front-panel USB 3.0 headers, two USB 2.0 headers, and one of the board’s six fan headers. The front panel LED/button header contains a standard Intel pin layout, with PC Speaker and alternative (3-pin spaced) power LED segments added near the forward edge.

Five more fan headers surround the CPU, the second regular RGB LED header is located at the Strix Z370-E Gaming’s top edge, and all six SATA ports point forward, right next to the upper USB 3.0 front-panel header, to avoid mechanical interference with long expansion cards. Additional mounting points are placed in key locations for optional 3D-printable shrouds.

In the box, the Strix Z370-E Gaming includes a load of gear. You get four SATA cables, RGB LED and addressable-LED extension cables, a thermistor lead, a Wi-Fi antenna, an HB-SLI bridge, a CPU installation tool, a CPU fan holder, cable ties, documentation, a driver/application disc, the I/O shield, a doorknob hanger card, and stickers.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

Asus has done an excellent job of developing and promoting its Aura lighting-control software, which is compatible with various third-party devices (such as RGB DRAM lighting), in addition to the Strix Z370-E Gaming’s single light bar, RGB LED headers, and Addressable LED header.

3D Audio is designed to help gamers hear the direction and distance of the noises made by their opponents. Asus Sonic Radar 3 provides a video overlay to those who still need help.

Asus Sonic Studio 3 provides similar tools to a certain famous brand’s add-on software, such as Smart Volume to help maintain audio output at a more consistent level, Voice Clarity to boost dialog, and virtual surround sound.

Asus AI Suite 3 includes its Dual Intelligent Processors 5 system tuning app with TPU automatic tuning, Turbo App manual overclocking, EPU efficiency optimization, Fan Xpert 4 (to determine the lower limit and slope for use in fan speed temperature curves), a manual overclocking menu, Digi+ VRM additional controls for the CPU voltage regulator, and the PC Cleaner trash utility.

There’s lots of branding going on in AI Suite 3, and TPU runs its 5-Way Optimization program for automatic overclocking, fan tuning, and idle voltage tuning for improved efficiency. In our anecdotal testing, it picked a 1.35V core for our CPU to allow it to operate at 4.8GHz, with a -3x multiplier for AVX loads. It scaled down to 4x when fully loaded due to thermal throttling, before suddenly rebooting eight minutes into our Prime95 test.

Our own tests show that our own processor should be limited to 1.30V to avoid thermal throttling, even if that imposes tighter overclocking limits. Asus’ software could do that, but its firmware can do it outside the operating system. So you may want to do the manual-tuning thing to get the most out of this board if the auto feature doesn't delight.

Other Asus Applications include Asus EZ Update server polling, GameFirst IV network prioritization, Ramcache II hidden memory partition for caching frequently accessed files, and the Asus Clone Drive cloning and drive-imaging utility.

Firmware

The Strix Z370-E Gaming firmware opens to an EZ Mode interface, which includes the ability to enable XMP mode, set boot order, select fan profiles, and run its EZ System Tuning utility. We ran that utility, selecting “Gaming/Media Editing” as our primary task and “Liquid Cooling” as our cooling format, and were rewarded with a 5.15GHz overclock at 1.45V. Prime95 crashed our fourth CPU core instantly, however. Retrying it with “Tower” cooling selected, the program chose 1.425V CPU core at 5.05GHz, whereupon Prime95 crashed core 4. Our third try, choosing “Boxed” cooler, set a 4.95GHz clock at 1.40V and likewise saw Prime95 crashing core 4 instantly.

Pressing the keyboard’s F7 key switches the firmware GUI to Advanced Mode, where manual settings are only a few clicks away. Our CPU reached 4747MHz at 1.30V core, a bit shy of its previously attained 4848MHz limit. Dropping back to a 100MHz BCLK, we found the board capable of supporting our DDR4-3866 memory at DDR4-4000. Note that the DRAM is set to 1.3266V, since our voltmeter showed that the board has a +25mV offset at the DIMM slots (which the board only reports as an approximate 17mV offset).

The Strix Z370-E Gaming includes a full set of primary, secondary, and tertiary timing adjustments for memory, along with a few related settings to help tuners find their best memory performance at any given data rate.

The CPU overclocking limitation was found to be within the Strix Z370-E Gaming’s Load-Line Calibration limits, where Level 6 would allow CPU core voltage to slowly drop to 1.28V. The next setting, Level 7, caused it to spike to 1.350V before dropping, and that much core voltage causes our CPU to reach its thermal limits and throttle back.

We said on page 1 that the front PCIe 3.1 Gen2 output can be enabled by disabling the two PCIe x1 slots directly beneath the two main graphics card slots, and that SATA ports 5 and 6 can be enabled by reducing the second M.2 slot to four lanes. This is indeed the default configuration. If you want those two x1 slots, or you’d like to give up two SATA ports to boost bandwidth to the second M.2 slot, you can do it from the Advanced/Onboard Devices Configuration menu. Having said that, the entire chipset is fed by only four lanes, and the upper M.2 slot is x4 by default.

Since four of the Strix Z370-E Gaming’s fan headers are paired, it has only four control groups. These can still be switched between PWM and voltage control mode, and the fan tuning algorithm seen in software is also found in firmware.

Built-in tools include a firmware-flashing utility, secure erase for drives, storage for up to eight sets of firmware settings with the ability to import and export these profiles, and a utility for reading DRAM information from its SPD IC.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

We initially upgraded our test bed during the X299 launch to handle the tremendous heat produced by the Core i9-7900X. Our award-winning Fractal Design S24 liquid cooler system sample serves the same purpose for the newer, lower-heat Core i7-8700K.

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Cooler Master’s HAF-XB provides an optimal layout to blow the Celsius S24’s fans sufficiently over each motherboard’s voltage regulator.

Comparison Products

Asus ROG Strix Z370-E Gaming

MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC

EVGA Z370 FTW

Today, we compare our entire range of previously reviewed $200-to-$250 motherboards to the Strix Z370-E Gaming. As indicated by the table, all six boards have similar overclock settings.

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4k Random Read, 4k Random Write128k Sequential Read, 128k Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests and Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19 GB 4k mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests and Settings
Ashes of Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920x1090, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, RainMedium Preset, No AFUltra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Result & Final Analysis

One note: Under Prime95 small FFTs, the board would spike to around 194W and hold momentarily due to current-limit throttling, before power-limit throttling would cause it to drop to 144W at 4.0GHz. Since some of the other boards were holding the CPU up at 4.30GHz by default, the only way to make this a direct comparison was to disable power-limit throttling.

Disabling both limits allowed system power to climb to 210W, with a reported CPU TDP of 160W. Since we were seeing the proper Turbo Boost frequencies for various numbers of loaded cores, we considered this “good enough” to get an accurate comparison.

Synthetic Benchmarks

The Strix Z370-E Gaming has a 100.3MHz BCLK, which may account for its small lead in 3DMark. Surprisingly, that doesn’t seem to have as much impact on Sandra’s Arithmetic and Multimedia scores.

The Strix Z370-E Gaming's gains in Sandra Cryptography are more closely related to its memory-bandwidth score than its minuscule CPU overclock. Advanced memory timings are the one place a manufacturer can attempt to seek performance gains.

3D Games

Memory performance really is a big deal in some benchmarks, such as our lower test settings of Ashes of the Singularity and, more acutely, F1 2015. We’re somewhat surprised to see such small changes in bandwidth show up at the lower settings of Metro and Talos, however.

Timed Applications

Less work time means better performance in most applications. The Strix Z370-E Gaming wasn’t consistently faster or slower than its competitors across our mixed workloads or Adobe Creative Cloud, but it did lag trivially behind in Office.

Power, Heat, & Efficiency

Our EVGA Z370 FTW review showed similar power behavior to the Strix Z370-E Gaming, yet increasing its limit to allow Prime95 small FFTs to run at a constant 4.30GHz CPU clock caused peak wattage to climb only from 129W to 148W. The Strix Z370-E Gaming went from 144W to 210W. Most of the competing boards fall somewhere in the middle.

More watts means more heat, generally speaking, but the Strix Z370-E Gaming stays reasonably cool even with its power limits removed.

Without CPU throttling, the Strix Z370-E Gaming’s efficiency is on par with that of the ASRock Z370 Taichi.

Overclocking

Most boards near the Strix Z370-E Gaming’s price will reach a CPU ratio of 48x at 101MHz BCLK with 100% stability (even Prime95 small FFTs) at 1.30V CPU core, a point that our CPU has been unable to cross due to its thermal limits. Two boards were slightly behind that high mark, and the Strix Z370-E Gaming was one of these, in our tests. At least it pushes DDR4-4000…

A few generations ago, several motherboard manufacturers were using quite loose advanced timings to reach DRAM overclocking records without regard for performance. Because the goal of most overclockers is to improve performance, we’ve added a chart to show how well the modules work at these high settings. This Asus board does well, as does the EVGA and the Gigabyte.

Final Analysis

Certain readers want to see some kind of value chart, even though such performance-per-dollar charts can’t accommodate changes in features. Having noted that, the Strix Z370-E Gaming’s feature set is fairly solid for the sub-$220 market. That makes sense since, at $210, it sits near the top of that market.

Priced around $10 lower than the Strix Z370-E Gaming, MSI’s Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC lacks the Asus board’s second USB 3.1 Gen2 controller. The value of that controller is probably a bit more than the price difference , yet those who don’t have the required case might not want to pay for the extra controller. Concerning value, your need for that interface should determine the winner.

For around $10 more than the Strix Z370-E Gaming, ASRock’s Z370 Taichi gives users dual Gigabit Ethernet, an added SATA controller, and a two-digit status code display. It also does x8/x4/x4 from the CPU across its x16-length PCIe slots, which would be a huge boon to storage geeks, but that configuration also prevents it from supporting SLI when a card is installed in the third slot. SLI requires at least eight lanes per card. But maybe you are a storage geek? Or maybe you aren’t going to use that slot? It’s a blessing or a curse, depending on your configuration.

The most feature-packed of the competitors, Gigabyte’s Z370 Aorus Gaming Seven has dual Gigabit Ethernet and dual USB 3.1 Gen2 controllers, but no onboard Wi-Fi module. This might look like a fine board for buyers who eschew Wi-Fi on desktops, but it’s also priced $40 more than the Strix Z370-E Gaming. Show builders will appreciate the extra onboard RGB lighting, overclockers will appreciate that we reached a slightly better CPU clock, and coupon cutters will be able to appreciate that it's frequently discounted to $220 or less.

That leaves the Strix Z370-E Gaming at roughly a tie with the major competitors outlined here, apart from a very, very minor overclocking deficit that won't matter to any but the most tweaking-minded. Once again, we’d make our choice based on interface preferences, but this is a solid board that

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How to Choose the Right CPU for 1080p Gaming: 14 Processors Compared

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Fri, 23 Mar 2018 18:30:00 +0000

Introduction

Last year, we saw innovation from AMD and Intel that we hadn't experienced in a long, long time. The Zen architecture made AMD competitive in segments of the CPU market it previously couldn't touch, and Intel moved as quickly as possible to defend its incumbent position. We thoroughly enjoyed the back-and-forth as both companies jockeyed for enthusiasts' adoration.

But even as new platforms were springing up with more PCIe connectivity than ever before, graphics-card availability dried up. Cryptocurrency miners bought up everything they could find to capitalize on rising valuations. Even today, you can't find modern models anywhere near their suggested retail pricing. We've resorted to buying pre-built systems and scouring the forums for previous-generation cards, trying to score a bargain.

The best spread of CPU technology in ages, paired with sky-high GPU prices, is a recipe for confusion for PC builders. For the same amount of money, enthusiasts can afford less graphics performance than they could not long ago. That makes it easy to overspend on host processing, since balance is thrown out of whack. But you can also get a lot more CPU for your dollar than this time a year ago. How do you make sure you're getting the most for your budget?

Well, we set out on a mission with 14 CPUs and three different GPUs to find the best combination in nine popular games.

Moving The Goalposts

For the last 11 years, Core i7 and Core i5 CPUs featured four cores. Coffee Lake changed this. Now, Core i3s sport four cores, Core i5s include six cores, and Core i7s boast six Hyper-Threaded cores. Intel also gave its low- and high-end models a makeover: Skylake-X stretches up to 18 cores/32 threads for high-end desktops, while Pentium processors have now gained Hyper-Threading technology.

Of course, AMD introduced its line-up of Ryzen 7, 5, and 3 models with copious core counts. Moreover, the Ryzen Threadripper series landed with up to 16 cores/32 threads and such friendly prices that Intel was forced to make its Skylake-X chips more affordable.

The Contenders

As you might imagine, the old rules of picking a CPU family to go with certain graphics cards changed as a result of these new processors. Thus, we decided to investigate using the best performers from each CPU class.

Representing AMD, we have the Ryzen 7, 5, and 3 models. We didn't bother testing last-generation Bulldozer-based CPUs, but we did throw in the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X for good measure.

For Intel, we have K-series Core i7, i5, and i3 CPUs from the Coffee Lake and Kaby Lake generations. We also added the Core i9-7900X and Core i9-7980XE to cover high-end desktops. Out of curiosity (or because we're gluttons for benchmarking punishment?), we couldn't help but include two of the latest Pentium processors, too.

That gives us 14 processors spread across five test platforms. We paired these with the GeForce GTX 1080, GTX 1070, and GTX 1060 (6GB) graphics cards. Although the GTX 1080 is considered an extravagance these days, we have to imagine it'll come down in price someday.

Finally, we selected nine games for testing. Some of the titles are new, while others are older. We did weigh the suite, though, more toward modern games. Some of them are CPU-dependent, others are decidedly graphics-bound, and a few are actually pretty well split down the middle. This allows us to explore bottlenecks from different angles.

Today's tests are all run at 1920x1080. (We have more data coming at 2560x1440 and 3840x2160, too, so expect a follow-up story or stories to present our findings there.) To best represent the experience we'd want to have, all benchmarks were run with the highest graphics settings possible.

Test Systems

To avoid variance from GPU Boost as our GeForce GTX graphics cards heat up, we use multiple runs from each benchmark in quick succession. We select the median value from the last recordings.

Test System & Configuration

Hardware

Intel LGA 1151 (Z370) @ 2666/2400AMD Socket AM4 @ 2667 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270) @ 2400AMD Socket SP3 (TR4) (In Game Mode) @ 2667 Intel LGA 2066 @ 2666 Common To AllGigabyte GeForce GTX 1060 G1 Gaming 6G 1TB 1500W (Creators Update Version 1703)

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Ashes Of The Singularity: Escalation

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080

Ashes of the Singularity was one of the first titles to receive a Ryzen-optimized patch. And it appears that host processing is always going to be your bottleneck if you're using a GeForce GTX 1080 at 1920x1080. As we can see, the 18-core/36-thread Core i9-7980XE takes a healthy lead over the rest of the field, while the 10C/20T Core i9-7900X captures second place.

This benchmark scales well with increased core counts, highlighting some of the generational transitions in Intel's line-up. The 6-core/12-thread Core i7-8700K illustrates a big jump over Intel's previous-gen 4-core/8-thread Core i7-7700K, which basically ties the Core i5-8600K.

The Core i3-7350K (and every CPU below it in our chart) struggles mightily during the benchmark.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070

Stepping down a notch to the GeForce GTX 1070 finds Intel's Core i9-7980XE and Core i9-7900X providing nearly identical performance, while the rest of the field scales down as we'd expect.

Really, the Core i7-7700K and most processors under it offer nearly the same performance as they did paired up to a GeForce GTX 1080. We do measure a 2.3 FPS delta between the i5-8600K with both graphics cards, but that appears to be an exception. Such small variances hardly make it worth stepping up to the GeForce GTX 1080 in this title at this resolution.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

The limitations of a GeForce GTX 1060 become clear, even in this CPU-bound test, though Intel's Core i9-7980XE still maintains a healthy lead over the rest of the field.

At this point, a graphics bottleneck is emerging, pushing the GTX 1060 to its limit. As a result, the Core i9-7900X and Core i7-8700K fall a few positions. It's possible that a lighter workload isn't pushing the execution cores hard enough for them to maintain their highest Turbo Boost bins. If true, the uncore frequency drops as well, slowing the cache and ring bus frequencies, reducing performance throughout. We'll see this phenomenon in other titles, too.

Compared to our GeForce GTX 1080 results, we see similar performance from every CPU beneath the Core i5-8600K, showing that lower-end processors are still the bottleneck.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI Graphics

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080

Intel's Core i9-7900X leads this benchmark with an impressive 106.6 FPS. The remainder of the results are uneventful, generally following trends we've observed through past CPU reviews. The Core i7-7700K averages 102.8 FPS, and the nearest mainstream Ryzen competitor achieves 80.1 FPS.

We tested the Threadripper 1950X in Game Mode simply because there wasn't enough room in our charts for the many combinations that AMD enables. Head over to our Threadripper 1950X Game Mode, Benchmarked article if you're interested in the impact of the various modes on Threadripper's performance. Just be aware that the processor behaves differently in many games, depending on the settings you choose.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070

Stepping down to the GeForce GTX 1070 exposes a graphics bottleneck with some of our faster CPUs. Intel's Core i9 models push the limits at around 94 FPS, landing within the range we'd expect for a graphics-bound situation. The rest of the field falls into line based on host processing power, though some CPUs fare worse than others.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

A more definite GPU limitation irons out some of the variance between CPUs. Worthwhile scaling is no longer observable. Case in point: There is only a 6.4% delta between the Ryzen 5 1600X and Threadripper 1950X, showing how a midrange graphics card can neutralize the benefit of a high-end processor if you aren't careful to maintain balance.

Fortunately, this also means you can snag an affordable Ryzen 3 or Core i3 and enjoy almost the same performance as you would with a much more expensive model.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Dawn Of War III

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080

Dawn of War III scales well with increased execution resources. As we can see from the fastest CPUs, though, it also favors high clock rates.

Intel's Core i7-8700K reaches up to 113.6 FPS. However, its 1.5 FPS advantage over the Core i7-7700K isn't very impressive considering the Core i7-8700K boasts 50% more Hyper-Threaded cores.

Meanwhile, the $1000 Core i9-7900X doesn't offer as much performance as a $175 Core i3-8350K. This is why we don't recommend HEDT processors for purpose-built gaming rigs.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070

The same general scaling trends persist with the GeForce GTX 1070, albeit at a lower performance level. Intel's Core i3-8350K continues behaving like older Core i5 CPUs, while the Core i5-8600K really hits a price/performance sweet spot with this pairing.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

Again, some of the highest-end processors drop a few places because they aren't utilized fully. There's only a 3.3 FPS (4%) delta between the Core i9-7980XE and the first-place finisher...but that chart-topper is a Core i5!

Again: Striking the right balance is important. Not only is it a waste to buy too much CPU if you don't need the processing power for other workloads, but you can even handicap it with a graphics card incapable of keeping it busy.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry Primal

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080

Far Cry Primal's Dunia Engine 2 responds well to high clock rates and IPC throughput. However, it also benefits when we turn off simultaneous multi-threading. As a result, you'll notice that the Core i5s are very competitive.

An increasing number of games are being tuned for quad-core CPUs, and this one is no exception. We think it'll take some time before chips with more cores start distinguishing themselves, though Coffee Lake fares well enough.

Although AMD doesn't do as well in our average measurements, its Ryzen 5 1600X and Ryzen 7 1800X processors demonstrate the least amount of frame-time variance. Rest assured that they offer a smooth gaming experience.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070

We observe much less variance between CPUs as we step down to a less powerful GeForce GTX 1070. The 6-core/12-thread Ryzen 5 1600X continues outmaneuvering the 8-core/16-thread Ryzen 7 1800X, while the Threadripper 1950X inexplicably jumps higher in the rankings.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

We enter graphics-bound territory with the GeForce GTX 1060, which mixes up the finishing order. Notably, even though they don't lead when it comes to average frame rate, Intel's Core i7-8700K and i5-8600K provide the smoothest performance with the least frame-time variance. The Pentium models also respond well to this pairing.

AMD's Threadripper 1950X is the only processor that lands below our expectations. Then again, we've proven that Game Mode isn't the best option for this title. A bit of tuning might rectify the issue.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Grand Theft Auto V

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates. It may seem odd that the Core i5-8600K beats Intel's Core i7-8700K, but we've observed this tendency on other occasions.

Did you notice that Core i3-8350K out there in front of the quad-core Core i5-7600K? Clearly, Coffee Lake propels the Core i3 family to new performance heights.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070

The finishing order remains intact as we test with Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1070, though average frame rates fall a bit. Still, many of the slower models land within 1 FPS of what we saw from the GTX 1080, suggesting that we're not seeing a graphics-bound workload. Host processing appears to be the limiting factor.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

Plain and simple: Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1060 restricts performance at this point.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Hitman

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080

We began our testing with the Pentium CPUs and worked our way up, benchmarking all nine games for each processor before moving on to the next. So, you can imagine how thrilled we were when we discovered that IO Interactive implemented a 90 FPS frame cap at some point through a patch. Soldiering on anyway, we observed little scaling above the Core i9-7900X.

Intel's Pentium processors average a solid 60+ FPS, though we could see quite a bit of hitching during the test sequence. The Ryzen 3 1300X and the Core i3-7350K fare better, but you want a Ryzen 5 or a Kaby Lake-based Core i5, at the least, for smooth performance in this title.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070

The frame cap continues to be a killjoy, but at least a GeForce GTX 1070 and a reasonably-priced Core i5-8600K push Hitman's limits at 1920x1080. There is a bit of unevenness to report from the Ryzen 3 1300X and Pentium models, which manifests in our frame-time variance chart.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

We finally duck under the frame cap, but only because Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1060 isn't fast enough.

There's only a 3% delta between the quad-core Core i3-8350K and first-place finisher. This is definitely a graphics-bound workload that only breaks apart a bit when we drop to the lowest-end CPUs.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Shadow Of War

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080

Middle-earth: Shadow of War doesn't scale as dramatically as some of our other benchmarks, and it certainly isn't as sensitive to IPC throughput and frequency as Shadow of Mordor. CPU reviews tend to focus on games that scale well with certain host processing specifications, such as core count, clock rate, cache size, or memory bandwidth. But some games just can't get enough graphics performance.

This title exhibits a 12.6 FPS (~16%) gap between the fastest and slowest processors in our pool, but every system surpasses the 70 FPS mark easily. There is a difference in smoothness between the Pentium and Ryzen 3 1300X processors, but it isn't extreme.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070

Naturally, a GeForce GTX 1070 is even more tied up, tightening the delta from top to bottom to just 3.3 FPS.

The Pentium processors still struggle a bit with hitching.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

A GeForce GTX 1060 puts all of these CPUs on an even footing. Subjectively, there is no difference between the processors, even though our data suggests that the Core i7-8700K lags behind.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Project CARS 2

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080

Project CARS 2 is purportedly optimized for threading, and it seems to scale well with increased host-processing resources. After all, we see a 41 FPS delta between the fastest and slowest processors in our test pool. The Core i5-8600K leads, and it is followed closely by Intel's Core i7-7700K.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070

The Core i3-8350K shows that it's a surprisingly capable quad-core CPU, besting AMD's entire line-up. With that said, the Ryzen 5 1600X specifically offers most of what higher-end models can do, but at a much lower price.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

The GeForce GTX 1060 limits performance at 1920x1080. AMD's Ryzen 3 1300X is the only processor to exhibit a marked amount of hitching during our recording.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds (PUBG)

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080

PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds can be a frustrating title to benchmark. Its constant cadence of updates seems to introduce more problems than are solved, and we've seen visible hitching from even the fastest CPUs and GPUs.

Aside from the Pentiums, scaling in PUBG is fairly meager. AMD's Ryzen 3 1300X suffers the most jarring stuttering during playback of our recorded game.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070

Stepping down to a GeForce GTX 1070 confirms that we're decidedly graphics-bound. Not that this game is particularly detailed; it may just be poorly optimized. Either way, there's no real meaningful conclusion we can draw from such an outcome.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

Our final test leaves little to explain: There are no meaningful differences between CPUs when you're constrained by a GeForce GTX 1060.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

The Best Combinations of CPU and GPU at 1080p

Boiling our testing down into one general recommendation is almost impossible, especially given the pricing of graphics cards right now. But we can identify some of the more obvious trends.

Fast-paced first-person shooters tend to prefer high clock rates and fast graphics cards. Nimble CPUs like the Intel Core i5 and i7, and AMD's Ryzen 5 and 7, fare best in our performance measurements. Some titles are easily graphics-bound, though that could be due to poor optimizations or minimal effort to parallelize the game engine. PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds is the perfect example. It doesn't respond at all to faster processors. It's far better to buy a higher-end graphics card if that game is your main squeeze.

Real-time strategy titles seem to respond more favorably to CPUs with lots of cores; so do many turn-based games. Of course, that genre isn't as sensitive to graphics performance because it doesn't require quick response times. But a fluid experience in RTS games is a must. Often, host processing is the bottleneck, so dialing back your GPU investment and buying a better CPU yields the best performance possible.

Charting Out The Trends: The Best Pairings

We typically plot our test results on a scatter chart with price and performance on two axes, but we aren't even going to take a stab at graphics pricing during these tumultuous times. Instead, we're providing a geometric mean of the 99th percentile frame times, representing smoothness, converted into an FPS measurement for each class of graphics card. Each game factors into this calculation except for the artificially hamstrung Hitman.

Balance is the goal here. Intel's Core i7-8700K is the first chip we think of when it comes to top-of-the-line for gaming PCs. But it doesn't always lead in our benchmarks. It would likely fare better with more heavily threaded titles tested. Otherwise, the Core i5-8600K seems to be a better value pairing for Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1080.

The GeForce GTX 1070 pairs well with either a Core i5-8600K or Ryzen 7 1800X, though the latter notably offers additional performance in other enthusiast-oriented desktop apps. We've also found that the Ryzen 7 1800X is a great chip for game streaming, so give it serious consideration for more taxing workloads. If you're looking to go Intel, aren't interested in overclocking, and want to save a few dollars, the Core i5-8400 complements a GeForce GTX 1070 well, too.

On the value scale, Core i3-8350K and Ryzen 5 1600X both pair well with a GeForce GTX 1060. If you're willing to do a bit of overclocking, though, a Ryzen 5 1600 looks even better.

Speaking of overclocking, most of the CPUs we tested can operate at even higher frequencies. AMD has a much friendlier policy here; all of its chips are unlocked. Meanwhile, Intel charges a premium for its unlocked K-series SKUs. If you want to know more about available headroom, we have plenty of test results with every processor overclocked in their individual reviews, so head to those for an idea of potential gains.

Of course, our findings would be all the more interesting if we could run out and build a well-balanced machine with affordable hardware. Here's hoping the availability of graphics cards improves sometime soon!

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

ASRock Z370 Extreme4 ATX Review: A Solid Coffee Lake Board for Value-Minded Enthusiasts

Thomas Soderstrom — Fri, 16 Mar 2018 13:00:00 +0000

Features & Layout

Before the idea of an enthusiast motherboard broke completely away from the general consumer market and shot into the price stratosphere, $180 would get you a “high end” board that could be appreciated by gamers and power users alike.

Buyers of such boards would usually get an extra local storage controller, an extra high-bandwidth external interface, and a big voltage regulator that wouldn’t be likely to burn out when the CPU was overclocked. In more recent times, though, “high end” has since come to mean something completely different to enthusiasts. Welcome, ASRock’s Z370 Extreme4, to the enthusiast mainstream.

PCI Express storage has mostly outmoded add-on storage controllers, and sheer dollars-and-cents inflation has bumped prices upward. Yet the Z370 Extreme4 still provides a high-bandwidth add-on controller for modern external devices…but at old-school prices. What other surprises did we see on this board given the price? Let's take a look.

You also get RGB, for what it’s worth, both onboard and via a single lighting-cable header. But beyond those things, we’re basically looking at Z370 PCH functions. We still get an oversize voltage regulator for overclocking, and ASRock is thoughtful enough to provide the latest high-mainstream ALC1220 audio codec. The Z370 Extreme4 is even able to support two M.2 and one slot-mounted NVMe drive simultaneously without dipping into the CPU’s 16 PCIe lanes: It’s always nice to see a company make full use of the chipset’s limited capabilities.

The high-bandwidth interface is USB 3.1 Gen2, courtesy of ASMedia’s PCIe 3.0 two-lane controller, which feeds a Type-C and a Type-A port. ASRock wasn’t so kind as to also include a pair of USB 2.0 ports for a keyboard and mouse, which would have made sense given the Z370’s HSIO limitations, but there is a PS/2 port for your vintage keyboard or mouse. There’s even a VGA port for customers old enough to have Y2K flashbacks.

The only annoyance around the lack of additional USB ports, even if they must be USB 2.0, is that some of us like to leave the 10Gb/s ports open for portable devices. Doing so leaves only four USB 3.0 ports (a.k.a. USB 3.1 Gen1). Buyers also get DVI-D and HDMI, six analog audio jacks, and a digital optical audio output that is feature-enhanced with a DTS Connect license.

The antenna bracket resides directly behind a Key-E M.2 port, which can hold a notebook-style Wi-Fi module. We often criticize ASRock for not including antenna cables with these brackets, but the proximity should allow builders to remove the module and antenna wires from an adapter card that’s been assembled in the same manner. The benefit of using this Key-E interface isn’t just that you’ll spare a PCIe slot, but also that you won’t need to run that annoying USB internal link cable that’s required by adapter cards.

You may have noticed the Gen2 front-panel USB 3.1 header and questioned why it hasn’t been mentioned yet? That’s because it doesn’t use a Gen2 interface. Instead, it receives one USB 3.0 lane. And since USB 3.0 lanes are typically paired, the other lane feeds one of the USB 3.0 headers via a two-port hub. The other USB 3.0 header gets two lanes directly from the PCH. (For those counting HSIO resources, that’s four.)

Eight of the remaining 26 HSIO ports are allocated to two M.2 drive slots, four to the bottom x16-length slot, four to SATA, four to the USB 3.0 ports of the I/O panel, three to PCIe x1 slots, two to the USB 3.1 Gen2 controller, and one to the Key-E slot. If you’re wondering why only four are required for the SATA ports, that’s because the other four ports steal lanes from M.2 slots. Or vice versa. The answer depends on whether you’d rather use eight SATA drives or four SATA and two M.2 drives.

Fed directly by the CPU, two metal-shrouded PCIe x16 slots transition from x16/x0 to x8/x8 modes when a card is detected in the second slot. We already mentioned the four-lane bottom slot, but should add that the three x1 slots are open-ended so that longer cards can be installed. For two of those slots, the length of the card interface that fits will be determined by the length of any M.2 device mounted before it.

Along the bottom edge are a front-panel audio header, a CLR_CMOS jumper, an RGB cable header, a Thunderbolt add-in-card header, two four-pin fan headers, a Trusted Platform Module interface, three USB 2.0 headers, a serial COM port breakout header, and a front-panel button/activity LED header cluster. Two more fan headers are on the top edge, and another is slightly forward of the I/O panel audio jacks for easy reach to rear exhaust fans.

In addition to documents and software, the Z370 Extreme4 includes a case badge, an I/O shield, four SATA cables, and an HB-style SLI bridge.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

ASRock Live Update & App Shop includes a bunch of utilities, plus freeware/shareware/trial apps that we cropped out here so that you wouldn’t have to expand the image to see the important stuff. A separate tab provides easy access to ASRock’s servers for driver and software updates.

ASRock's RGB LED software hasn’t changed from previous reviews, but the board image this time shows the Z370 Extreme4’s four lighting zones. These can be synced or addressed separately, with multiple color and pulsation options, plus a color-cycle pattern that other companies often label as a "rainbow pattern."

The EZ OC page of ASRock A-Tuning pulls factory-programmed overclocking profiles from firmware, including a 4.5GHz fixed-clock setting at “Auto” CPU core, a 4.6GHz fixed-clock at 1.32V CPU core, a 4.7GHz fixed-clock at 1.36V CPU core, a 4.8GHz fixed clock at 1.39V CPU core, and a 5.0GHz fixed-clock at 1.50V CPU core. Since our CPU reaches its thermal limits under extreme loads at 1.30V and 48.48GHz, none of these settings is appropriate.

A-Tuning’s manual overclock settings worked very well through our evaluation, and they were even well-reported by its monitoring software. That’s right, by default the board sets 1.35V DIMM, and by default the result of that setting is 1.376V.

Firmware

The Z370 Extreme4 firmware opens to “EZ Mode” by default, which still allows users to pick boot order, set fan profiles, and enable or disable XMP memory settings.

Tapping the keyboard’s “F6” key loads the board’s Advanced Mode, where ASRock’s OC Tweaker menu provides the above-mentioned factory-programmed overclocking profiles in addition to a link to the CPU, DRAM, and Voltage configuration submenus, storage for up to five custom firmware settings profiles, and a shortcut to import or export one of those overclocking profiles to a USB flash drive.

Often capable of reaching 4848MHz, our CPU was slightly limited (to 4800MHz) on the Z370 Extreme4. We also encountered an issue in Firmware 1.30 where setting XMP memory mode would cause the board to force a 3.7GHz fixed clock rather than the intended overclock. Manual memory settings above DDR4-2800 caused the same issue. Experimentation revealed that these memory setting changes caused an error in the board’s Intel Turbo Boost configuration, which was correctable by disabling Intel Turbo Boost to cancel the error. That, in turn, would disable the custom multiplier. Re-entering the custom multiplier would re-enable Intel Turbo Boost, without the CPU ratio error.

The Z370 Extreme4 perfectly handled the XMP value of our DDR4-3866, but overclocking beyond DDR4-3866 caused the board to configure more-relaxed advanced settings to remain stable. Since those settings caused a net loss in performance, our memory’s XMP was the board’s practical limit.

If we had infinite time, we suspect we could have found a proper set of timings to configure a perfect-performing DRAM overclock, beyond our XMP values. The Z370 Extreme4 provides a full set of secondary and tertiary timings to help with that, along with a “DRAM Tweaker” page to help us get back to the memory’s programmed settings without resetting our manual changes.

Voltage was the most likely reason we couldn’t reach the full 4848MHz capability of our CPU: The Z370 Extreme4’s “Level 1” CPU Load-Line Calibration is a little too aggressive, so that we had to use a lower baseline voltage to prevent our CPU from overheating. On the other hand, the “Level 2” setting was far too reserved, allowing CPU voltage to sag far below what was needed to run it above 4.8GHz.

Also note that the DRAM is set to 1.325V, as the Z370 Extreme4 adds ~26mV to whatever the user selects. That’s equally true of its automatic values and its XMP settings for our DRAM. We use a voltmeter to check the voltage at the memory slot, and were happy to at least see that the board’s monitoring software showed the same voltage as our meter: Some other brands go to great lengths to hide their DRAM over-voltage.

Overclockers who don’t like hitting the F6 key to enter Advanced mode will find a setting within the Advanced table of Advanced mode, from which they can change UEFI Setup Style from Easy Mode to Advanced Mode. While a simple enough thing to do, the setting gets erased when using CLR_CMOS or loading Optimized Defaults.

The Tool menu offers an RGB interface identical to that of ASRock’s control software, plus a few niceties such as an e-mail sender for tech-support questions, a utility to copy RAID drivers from the installation disc to a thumb drive, a firmware-flashing utility, a network utility that polls the server for new firmware and downloads it to your USB flash drive, a utility to copy the active firmware to backup firmware, and a network configuration utility.

Even the hardware monitor of the Z370 Extreme4’s firmware is showing realistic results for our voltage settings, and we’re really happy to see a company at least attempt to be honest about these things. Scrolling down, we find the Fan Tuning program that tests system fans to determine the appropriate lower limit and adjust fan curves appropriately, and the Fan-Tastic Tuning link for manual fan configuration.

Only the two headers marked as pump-compatible can be switched from PWM to voltage-based control mode, and both of those headers have a 1.5A (18W) rating. The other three headers are each rated to support up to 1A (12W).

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Cooler Master’s HAF-XB provides an optimal layout to blow the Celsius S24’s fans sufficiently over each motherboard’s voltage regulator.

Comparison Products

ASRock Z370 Extreme4

MSI Z370 Tomahawk

MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC

Overclock settings for the $175 Z370 Extreme4 are very similar to those of the $220 Z370 Taichi, and approximately equaled by both MSI and EVGA boards to produce solid competition in our overclocking comparison.

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks & Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4k Random Read, 4k Random Write128k Sequential Read, 128k Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests & Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19GB 4K mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark-driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark-driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark-driven routine
Game Tests & Settings
Ashes of the Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920x1090, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, RainMedium Preset, No AFxUltra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

Synthetic Benchmarks

After testing two boards that returned some slightly lower-than-average graphics scores, we’re glad to see the Z370 Extreme4 confirm our graphics card in good order. Synthetics are great for finding bugs, after all.

The only benchmarks that really stand out for the Z370 Extreme4 are Sandra’s Cryptography and Memory Bandwidth test. It’s tied with the other ASRock board for last place, which is at least consistent: A slight deficit in Sandra Cryptography is usually caused by that test’s dependence on high memory bandwidth.

3D Games

The Z370 Extreme4 produces slightly average frames in Ashes, but performs surprisingly well at our most memory-constrained settings of F1 2015...as did its pricier sibling, the Z370 Taichi. These are the same two boards that finished dead last in Sandra Memory Bandwidth, and the contradiction is a little startling.

The Z370 Extreme4 finishes our gaming suite about average in overall performance. The odd Talos results for one of the competing boards is attributable to an included third-party program, as explained in its review.

Timed Applications

Both ASRock boards show slight deficits in our 7.Zip benchmark, but appear average across our timed workloads as a whole.

Power, Heat & Efficiency

Our use of Prime95 small-FFTs hasn’t always met the approval of manufacturers, as the load level on AVX registers far exceeds most real-world applications. It’s a good way to make sure a product is 100% stable under any stress level, though, and a good way to find the maximum power consumption.

Intel specifies that Turbo Boost drops from 4.7GHz under single-core loads to 4.3GHz under six-core loads, and all five boards are configured to do that in our tests. On the other hand, the lower clock is supposed to allow the CPU to run at lower core voltage, and ASRock’s competitors appears to scale back their voltage a little more. Remember, we checked to make sure they were all running at 4.3GHz, and all power-saving features were enabled for this test.

The Z370 Extreme4 runs a little warm and…who are we kidding? That voltage regulator is hot. We added a fan over it prior to overclocking assessment.

Our percent charts are shown against the average of every Z370 board we’ve ever reviewed, which is a little more than twice as many as the ones shown. That average includes a couple of terribly inefficient boards that push the Z370 Extreme4’s rating up, but it also pushes up the ratings of the other boards. At full load, it slurps watts.

Overclocking

The amazing thing in our overclocking test is that the low-cost Z370 Tomahawk holds its own against our top boards. The Z370 Extreme4 is close enough for horseshoes, but it hits only the outer bull in darts.

The Z370 Extreme4 performed best at our memory’s DDR4-3866 XMP value. MSI and EVGA scaled a little higher, and EVGA also had some memory-timing advancements that put it far ahead in the overclocked memory-bandwidth test.

Final Thoughts

The Z370 Extreme4 falls exactly between the Z370 Tomahawk and Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC in price, and that’s also where it ends up in our Performance Per Dollar chart. Is it also halfway between these boards in worth?

All three boards have a single USB 3.1 Gen2 controller. ASRock adds a front-panel “Type-C” cable header to the Z370 Extreme4, but it’s not connected to any Gen2 controller. ASRock also adds a VGA output, while the two MSI boards offer DisplayPort. But don’t jump to any conclusions yet: The Z370 Tomahawk’s three x16-length slots are equally deceiving, having 16/x4/x1 bandwidth. At least the Z370 Extreme4 can flip its top two slots from x16/x0 to x8/x8 for SLI compatibility and full dual-card graphics performance, and at least its bottom slot provides an always-active x4 interface so that users can match an NVMe drive placed there with two others placed in the M.2 slots.

For more comparison, the Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC adds a high-end Intel Wi-Fi module on a PCIe adapter. That alone is worth the price difference, even though the layout of the board makes us reticent to install it. And because that module is removable from the card (complete with antenna wires), the best deal would probably be if an MSI fan teamed up with an ASRock fan to sell him that card for half the price difference. The Z370 Extreme4 has a perfect place to install that module and its antenna wires. The MSI fan could brag that he got an extra 48MHz out of his overclock, the ASRock fan could brag that he got an extra feature for the same money, and both participants in that transaction would win.

In sum, the Z370 Extreme4 is at least an average value compared to the two MSI boards that already received our stamp of approval. Accordingly, the Z370 Extreme4 gets the same.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

MSI Z370 Tomahawk Motherboard Review

Thomas Soderstrom — Mon, 05 Mar 2018 14:00:00 +0000

Specifications & Layout

PC enthusiasts and early adopters of a new platform have come to expect high prices, even when shopping on a “tight” budget. Perhaps it’s because we know we’re paying for lower-volume products, where the development and production configuration costs are spread across fewer buyers. Whatever the psychology, the result was that we expected the high-end “Z” version of Intel’s mainstream platform to have a starting price of around $160. Anything less would require a sacrifice in component quality or basic features, right? And if a company is determined to maintain quality, which basic features should be cut to get that board down to $150?

MSI’s Tomahawk comes with limited RGB, which makes sense, since many buyers have never really wanted to pay for that feature, anyway. Those few who swoon over RGB, however, likely won’t be disappointed by its minimization at this price level, while others who passionately hate it can simply turn it off. But that’s not the only feature that MSI scaled back on this relative "budget" Z370 board.

To begin with, most of those slots are for looks. The top slot is fixed at 16 lanes, so the rest can only be fed by the Z370 PCH, which we all know has limited resources, specifically in its 30 flexible HSIO pathways that can be purposed as PCIe, SATA, or USB 3.0. Four of those are needed by the first M.2 slot, eight for front and back panel USB 3.0, two for the USB 3.1 controller, and one by the fixed-pathway bottom slot. The pathways are half accounted for before we even touch the middle slot, the second M.2 slot, or the SATA ports.

The biggest surprise is probably that MSI decided to keep its I/O-panel Type-C port at full 10Gb/s spec, using the same high-bandwidth ASM3142 controller as found on more expensive boards. That means the adjacent Type-A port also gets 10Gb/s. We’ve already tested a pricier board that omitted the feature altogether, and two other pricier boards that used an older, slower controller to reduce cost.

We’d like to remind everyone that USB 2.0 ports are perfect for keyboards and mice, while having the advantage of not using HSIO resources. The PS/2 port, likewise, is a “freebie” from a resource standpoint, and we’re sure a few people still have a classic keyboard or mouse they’d wish to put there. The Z370 Tomahawk I/O panel also includes four USB 3.0 ports, DVI-D and HDMI video outputs, a Gigabit Ethernet jack, five analog audio jacks, and a digital optical audio output.

Now, about those slots? First, we realized long ago that the slot under a graphics card is usually worthless because most of our readers were using graphics cards with double-slot coolers. MSI knows that, as well, so it wired the top two PCIe x1 slots to the same pathway. You can use one or the other. Given that most users can’t even get to the top x1, we’d have preferred that MSI would have just left it off.

The middle slot has an x16 connector with up to four of the chipset’s pathways, but it gets shut off as soon as a builder sticks an NVMe drive in the second M.2 slot. MSI certainly saved money on switches by not feeding the middle slot with eight lanes from the top slot, but the PCIe switch wasted on the two top x1 slots causes us to question its cost-savings priorities.

Building with two NVMe M.2 drives leaves you only one other place to put a second graphics card: the bottom slot, which, as we already noted, has only one lane. MSI could have used an open-ended x1 slot to accomplish the same goal, aside from the marketing impact of buyers seeing an x16-length connector in that location.

Perhaps the designer originally planned four lanes for the bottom slot? Adding the six SATA ports brings our count to 27 out of 30 HSIO pathways, so three more lanes might have been available. Then again, the entire Z370 PCH connects to the CPU by only four pathways, and there’s nothing MSI could do about that.

It looks like nearly all of MSI’s economizations focused on slot configuration, as the remaining layout is darned good. The COM port header just forward of front-panel audio seems a little out of place on a modern board, but these remain common on less-expensive boards for some reason. (Perhaps for legacy dongles?) Forward from that is one of the six four-pin fan headers, the board’s single RGB header, an LED demo connector, a TPM header, two USB 2.0 headers, a beep-code speaker header, an AC-97-style front-panel LED/switch header, and another four-pin fan header. All six fan headers can be manually configured between PWM or voltage control mode, or left to automatic detection.

The six SATA ports and one USB 3.0 header face forward to slip under cards, and the other USB 3.0 header is located above the uppermost card slot to avoid installation conflict.

The Z370 Tomahawk includes two SATA cables, an RGB extension cable, the usual I/O shield, documentation, and a driver/application disc.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

Most of MSI’s applications still launch from its App Manager menu, which resides in the notification area of the task bar. While the applications haven’t changed from our previous description, Mystic Light conforms to the different layout of the two boards. Revisions of the latter have been done under the GUI so that it no longer locks up.

MSI Command Center hasn’t changed, and we confirmed its ability to change our CPU’s clock and voltage settings. DPC Tuner can also make a few of those changes, but we found that setting a 45x multiplier in that program caused it to “stick” at 45x.

The Z370 Tomahawk doesn’t have the Killer network controller of the previously linked board, so it gets a different network-management suite. MSI’s Gaming LAN Manager is a customized GUI for the popular cFos OEM package.

Z370 Tomahawk Firmware

MSI Click BIOS 5 opens the first time to EZ Mode, but it remembers what mode was being used the last time it was closed and applies it upon reentry. The OC menu of Advanced mode is where things get interesting.

Our Core i7-8700K reached its expected 4,848MHz clock at a 48x 101MHz setting and 1.30V core. Memory was a little fussier, and part of the problem was that the Z370 Tomahawk only supports 10mV vDIMM increments: We won’t let one manufacturer “cheat” more than the others, and have thus implemented a 1.355V limit as measured at the slot. The Z370 Tomahawk’s 1.330V memory setting showed 1.348V on our meter, and the next higher setting, 1.340V, would have produced 1.358V.

CPU Loadline Calibration reduces the amount by which the core voltage drops under heavy software loads, and the “Mode 4” setting was perfect up to 4.7GHz. At 4.8GHz and above, we had to switch to the more aggressive “Mode 3” to keep our CPU stable. The actual limit was heat, as our CPU runs around 96°C on most motherboards when overclocked to 4848MHz, and additional voltage only causes thermal throttling.

Our G.Skill-supplied four-DIMM DDR4-3866 kit reached a data rate of 3905MHz as a set, and dropping back to two DIMMs even got it to DDR4-4000 without errors. We used XMP timings, but hardcore tweakers can get even more performance by playing with primary, secondary, and tertiary latency adjustments available within Z370 Tomahawk firmware.

Memory-Z provides an informative reading of each DIMM’s SPD and XMP tables.

Other useful tools include M-Flash firmware programming, storage space for up to six overclocking profiles (plus an export function for USB flash drives), individual and customizable fan maps for each of the Z370 Tomahawk’s six fan headers, and a “Board Explorer” map that shows which devices have been detected by the board. That last feature can help users figure out whether the part that disappeared in Windows did so based on a software problem or a hardware one.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

Our growing collection of ATX-form-factor Z370 boards has allowed us to focus our comparative efforts on models at lower prices with less-divergent feature sets.

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Comparison Products

MSI Z370 Tomahawk

MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC

EVGA Z370 FTW

The Z370 Tomahawk has a lower CPU core voltage limit than the more-expensive samples, but it still pushes beyond the thermal limits of our CPU. The only workaround for our CPU would be to remove its heat spreader, and that type of risk is far beyond the desires of most budget builders.

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4k Random Read, 4k Random Write128k Sequential Read, 128k Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests and Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19 GB 4k mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6 GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark driven routine
Game Tests & Settings
Ashes of the Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920x1090, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, RainMedium Preset, No AFxUltra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, Very High Quality, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

Intel’s Turbo Boost scheme is designed to provide higher multipliers when fewer cores are heavily loaded, topping out at 4.7GHz under single-threaded applications and dropping to 4.30GHz under six-core loads. Manufacturer-applied “Enhanced” settings can force a six-core load to run at 4.7GHz, but those kind of “enhancements” typically come with hefty voltage requirements and with certain other power-saving features disabled. To determine motherboard capabilities at CPU defaults, we disable any manufacturer “enhancements” and re-enable the CPU’s full range of integrated capabilities for both basic performance and power tests.

The point of Intel’s Turbo Boost scheme is to provide ultimate performance in tasks such as games without causing the CPU to overheat. We’ve even see thermal throttling at motherboard default voltage levels when manufacturer-applied “enhancements” are enabled, as the heat simply can’t get from the CPU core to its heat spreader fast enough to deal with the increased voltage. Conversely, running Intel’s default Turbo Boost ratios allows the CPU to scale back core voltage. Some boards don’t do that appropriately, but the Z370 Tomahawk does. This should give MSI a handy bump in our efficiency chart!

Synthetic Benchmarks

The Z370 Tomahawk starts off with strangely reduced graphics scores in 3DMark, and that oddity continues to the bottom of our synthetic benchmark section into Compubench. CPU and storage scores are on par, and we didn’t find any configuration issues to explain the small-but-noticeable discrepancy.

Memory tweaks are the easiest place for manufacturers to seek performance gains without tripping any overclocking alarms, and the Tomahawk does well there. This also translates into on-par Sandra Cryptography scores.

3D Games

While the Tomahawk graphics performance remains slightly behind the other MSI board in our gaming charts, it’s not consistently at the bottom. Good scores in F1 2015 help!

Timed Applications

The Z370 Tomahawk completes several of our timed workloads ahead of competing boards, finishing second overall in mixed apps and first in Adobe CC apps.

Power, Heat, & Efficiency

The Z370 Tomahawk appears to idle to a lower power state compared to the second-most-miserly board, the Z370 FTW. Both pull 148W at full load using Intel’s default Turbo Boost scheme.

EVGA’s huge voltage regulator heat sink is part of the board’s higher price, along with features like SLI capability. Since both it and the Tomahawk consume the same amount of power at full load, both return the same CPU temperature.

EVGA edges out the Tomahawk in overall performance, but the Tomahawk’s lower idle power consumption gives it a slight lead in average efficiency.

Overclocking

The Z370 Tomahawk is completely average in overclocking capability, which is completely excellent since that average is derived from results from some heavy hitters. The top three boards push the thermal limit of our CPU at 4848MHz.

People overclock to get more performance, and the EVGA Z370 FTW takes the win in overclocked memory bandwidth.

Final Analysis

The two cheapest ATX-sized Z370 boards we’ve tested to date cost $200, and the Z370 Tomahawk undercuts those by 25%. That means the other two boards are 33% more expensive than the Tomahawk. Ah, math. (Note about the chart below: We’re using averages of every Z370 board ever reviewed on our end, which skews the chart scaling a little.)

What does the buyer of the Z370 Tomahawk give up to save $50, compared to the Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC or the Z370 FTW? At a minimum, SLI is gone. If you’re running two NVMe M.2 drives, CrossFire is also gone. In fact, you can scratch that middle slot off your features list completely. The bottom slot has only one lane, while the other two boards provision four lanes, so that the Tomahawk might as well be a MicroATX board from a features standpoint. Except it isn’t: It’s full ATX, and its biggest feature deficit is the lack of pathway switches that the other boards use to convert the top x16 slot into an x8/x8 dual-slot configuration.

Buyers who don’t need the middle x16 slot, as well as those who are willing to leave out the second M.2 drive simply to enable the middle slot’s x4 mode, should be perfectly happy with the Tomahawk. That sounds like a fair number of tight-budgeted gamers to us.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Asus ROG Strix Z370-I Gaming Motherboard Review

Thomas Soderstrom — Tue, 20 Feb 2018 02:00:00 +0000

Features & Layout

Famed for the quality of its enthusiast-market motherboards, Asus quickly became the overclocking champion long before less expensive brands figured out what to do with things like BIOS. The company's ROG brand recognizes that legacy even as its competitors became ever more nimble. Is there any room for leadership at the top? We started small to find out.

From a motherboard design perspective, today’s gaming market means overclocking. Anyone who isn’t taking Mini-ITX overclocking seriously is living in the distant past, as the ROG Strix Z370-I Gaming will attempt to prove.

Specifications

There’s so much crossover between performance enthusiasts and show systems that the RGB lighting seen in the promotional photo is almost a given, yet Asus left the standard RGB header off the Strix Z370-I Gaming. It still gets an addressable RGB LED header for WS2812B LED strips that use a single data pin (via a WS2811 driver).

I’m a demanding customer, and eight I/O panel USB ports are one of my demands. Asus meets those demands in an odd way by provisioning four USB 2.0 ports rather than the two that would have been sufficient for a keyboard and mouse, and by using only the integrated USB 3.0 controller for its “USB 3.1 Gen1” Type-C port. The Strix Z370-I Gaming has a high-bandwidth ASM3142 controller, but it's reserved for a front-panel connection. Furthermore, the light resource load of Mini-ITX causes us to question why Asus used USB 2.0 at all. Perhaps its engineers ran out of room to rout the additional traces?

The I/O panel also includes DisplayPort and HDMI outputs, an M.2 Wi-Fi module on a custom riser, five analog audio jacks, and a digital optical audio output. The DisplayPort can push a 60Hz refresh at 4096x2304, but the HDMI only goes up to 2160p at 24Hz.

The ROG logo decorates a thick aluminum M.2 shield that hosts both PCIe x4 and SATA-based M.2 drives. A front panel USB 2.0 and a system fan header are beneath it, Front Panel audio is behind it, and two SATA 6 Gb/s ports are before it. The metal-shielded PCIe x16 slot farther beneath it features four metal reinforcement pins to prevent damage when moving around completed systems that have heavy graphics cards.

A USB 3.0 front-panel header, two SATA ports, a PC Speaker and front-panel switch/LED header, and the previously-mentioned addressable RGB LED connector are located along the front edge beneath the 24-pin primary power jack. Above that jack, four status LEDs indicate initialization of the boot device, graphics device, DRAM, and CPU.

Two more fan headers are found on either side of the “STRIX”-branded rear voltage regulator heat sink, and the front-panel USB 3.1 header is shoved into the upper rear corner. If you’re worried about CPU cooler clearance, the top heat sink projects 27mm above the motherboard’s surface, which is approximately 20mm above the CPU, and the rear sink stands 10mm higher.

The bottom of the Strix Z370-I Gaming features 12 RGB LEDs (along the front edge) and a second M.2 slot that supports only PCIe drives. Both the top and bottom slots support 80mm and 60mm M.2 lengths, and Asus includes a pair of adapters to secure 42mm drives.

The M.2 standoffs, screws, and 60mm-to-42mm adapters are individually wrapped, along with a “tool” that helps butterfingered installers put in the CPU without dropping it edgewise on the LGA contacts. The Strix Z370-I Gaming also includes driver disc, a full manual, an I/O shield, an Addressable LED extension cable, a bundle of cable ties, four medium-length SATA cables (two with a right-angled end), a Wi-Fi antenna, a front-panel lead bundler, a coupon code for a cable mod site, and a sheet of ROG stickers.

Asus was one of the first companies to adopt Intel’s 9-Pin front panel LED/switch connector back when everyone’s cases still had three-pin power LED connections. Builders complained. Asus reverted to its legacy connector at the same time as case manufacturers switched to split Power LED connectors that would support both 3-Pin and 2-Pin spacing. Soon other motherboard brands began using the Intel 9-Pin pattern, leaving Asus the odd brand out. And now that all the popular brands have the same 9-Pin front-panel connection, it’s probably a good time for case manufacturers to follow suit. Since that hasn’t happened yet, Asus came up with this handy cable bundler.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

Asus Aura was one of the first motherboard RGB software applications to support third-party hardware and has even extended that support to RGB memory. One of the nicest things about Asus’ suite is that it has been stable and functional for a few product cycles, whereas some of its competitors are just now catching up. We poked around and changed the on-board lighting colors and patterns but didn’t add any addressable LED strips.

Asus Sonic Studio III offers audio enhancements similar to a certain well-known, third-party app—things like Smart Volume to reduce changes in amplitude and Voice Clarity to boost the volume of dialog. Choosing “Advanced Mode” even allows user to select different settings for each game.

Asus even includes an overlay application that visually indicates from which direction noises originate, which is handy for finding sneaky opponents. Opinions concerning compatibility and functionality of Asus’ audio suite can be found in dozens of online user comments.

Asus Clone Drive didn’t allow cloning of our M.2 drive to a USB-connected SATA drive, but it did provide backup image function.

Asus Gamefirst IV provides application prioritization and monitoring of network access.

Asus Dual Intelligent 5 system and overclocking utility reminds users to run its 5-Way Optimization program, allowing it to fine-tune its overclocking, fan control, and power savings features. It says it pushed our CPU to 5.0 GHz in Performance mode, and that our fans have a 20% to 100% range (a few lesser fans shut off at 40% to 50% PWM duty cycle).

While the main menu provides a few links with additional information, the full list of available features is revealed at the left edge of the DIP5 GUI.

While the main menu showed 5.0 GHz, the CPU Frequency menu shows that the 50x multiplier only applies when up to four cores are loaded. Adding any stress to the 5^th or 6^th core causes the system to drop to 4.7 GHz, and that’s still just a theoretical maximum. In reality, running six threads of Prime95 caused core voltage to spike to 1.30V while frequency plunged to 4.40 GHz, and we never saw the CPU run at over 4.7 GHz with even a single thread loaded, and that came with the CPU core at 1.36V. We still got 5 GHz at idle, and our DDR4-3866 ran at DDR4-3200 using its XMP timings.

We also tried using the utility manually, and found the CPU multiplier, BCLK, CPU Cache Ratio, and CPU Core Voltage all adjustable on-the-fly.

Other useful features include system file cleanup, manually configurable fan maps, and an SPD reading utility.

Firmware

Strix Z370-I Gaming firmware opens to an EZ Mode GUI by default, where users can enable XMP, change fan settings, set boot order, and enable an automatic overclocking utility. Advanced Mode is selectable by pressing a keyboard’s F7 function key, and one of the menus there allows users to change the default GUI to Advanced Mode (unless firmware is reset).

After entering Advanced Mode, we were easily able to set a stable 4800 MHz CPU clock and DDR4-4133. Our CPU normally reaches 4848 MHz on a well-equipped full-ATX motherboard, but that small increase caused it to crash on the mini-ITX Strix Z370-I Gaming.

The Strix Z370-I Gaming has one factory-programmed overclock, which sets the CPU multiplier to 50X and allows its core to drift between 1.35 and 1.40V. Our Core i7-8700K’s fourth core is the weakest overclocker, crashing threads 7 and 8 almost as quickly as we could start Prime95 with small FFTs.

Notice above that the DRAM Voltage is custom set to 1.3266V: the Strix Z370-I Gaming pushes approximately 25mV more to the DIMM slots than the setting suggests, and we’ve chosen a 1.355V limit (as detected by a voltmeter) to keep overclocking comparisons fair.

A complete set of primary, secondary, and tertiary memory timings are selectable to help memory geeks find their ultimate performance at any stable data rate.

The Strix Z370-I Gaming offers seven levels of Load-Line Calibration, which compensates to varying degrees for the “vdroop” phenomena of a CPU’s voltage sagging under high application loads. We found Level 6 to be more stable than Level 7, the latter far exceeding our 1.30V setting. Another oddity is that this is enabled by default, and when paired with the unmodified default clocks and voltage, it allowed CPU voltage to climb past 1.35V under Prime95.

Additional settings allow users to raise the power limits of both the core and cache, and alter various DRAM reference voltage settings.

All three fan headers can be automatically or manually switched between PWM and voltage-based speed regulation, where users can select between various programmed temperature-to-speed profiles or configure their own manually.

A “Tool” menu provides access to a firmware update app, a Secure Erase utility, an overclocking profile utility with room for eight local profiles and import/export to USB flash drives, and an SPD/XMP memory programming report.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

With three Mini-ITX boards to compare, we can finally drop the ATX from our small motherboard comparisons. We’re still using the big test components though, if only to produce results that can be translated from one article to another.

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Back during the X299 launch, we upgraded our test bed to handle the tremendous heat produced by the Core i9-7900X. Our award-winning Fractal Design S24 liquid cooler system sample serves the same purpose for the newer, lower heat Core i7-8700K. Cooler Master’s HAF-XB provides an optimal layout to blow the Celsius S24’s fans sufficiently over each motherboard’s voltage regulator.

Comparison Products

Asus ROG Strix Z370-I Gaming

Gigabyte Z370N WiFi

MSI Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC

All of the boards in today’s test have a broad enough range of overclock settings to reach similar heights, but Asus’ smaller DRAM voltage increments make it more likely that overclockers will approximate their target DIMM voltage.

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4k Random Read, 4k Random Write128k Sequential Read, 128k Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests and Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19 GB 4k mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6 GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark driven routine
Game Tests and Settings
Ashes of Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920x1090, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, RainMedium Preset, No AFxUltra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, VeryHigh Quality, VeryHigh Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

We’re not beta testers, and we don’t do retakes. That was once easy to say, before power setting variations in X299 platforms led to other oddities in Z370. Yet here we are again with another conundrum that can only be settled by providing readers with additional data. Remember two pages ago when we said CPU Load-Line Calibration (aka Vdroop Compensation) was enabled by default and allowed CPU core voltage to ramp up to 1.35V using an “automatic” core voltage configuration? Clock throttling was the consequence of that happening at default amperage limits. Simply starting Prime95 with small FFTs and 12 threads selected allowed the CPU to leap to 184W, whereupon the firmware would throw up the red flag and clock the CPU down to 3.7 GHz. The system would then draw 134W continuously.

Tracking the problem down to the Load-line Calibration setting took some time. First we increased the Long Duration and Short Duration Package Power Limit settings to 4095W (simply because it’s the highest setting), then we increased the CPU Core/Cache Current Limit Max to 255.50A (again, because it’s the highest setting), and we watched as the voltage climbed to 1.335V at 274W (non-overclocked) before having a Load-Line setting eureka moment.

Turning Load-line Calibration off prevented the CPU voltage from climbing, while turning all of the power limits up allowed the CPU to run at the expected 4.30 GHz under 12 threads of Prime95 using small FFTs. Rather than spike to 184W and then drop to 134W continuously, the CPU spiked at around 204W and ran at 202W continuously, as shown at the top and bottom of the above chart. The altered settings put it in the same league as Gigabyte’s Z370N WiFi, and the Strix Z370-I Gaming will be presented both ways.

A third method—stock power limits with Load-Line Calibration manually disabled—produced 162W at 4.1 GHz. While this gets the Asus board close to the Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC, presenting a third set of benchmarks for a single board would have been excessive to the point of favoritism. But know that the option is there.

Benchmark Results

Synthetic benchmarks tend to show when something is wrong, and we already knew something was wrong with the Strix Z370-I Gaming’s stock configuration. Fortunately for Asus, 3DMark and PCMark put too little load on the CPU’s AVX registers to push it down to 3.7 GHz.

Sandra’s a little harder on the CPU, and the factory misconfiguration shows mildly in Arithmetic and moderately in Multimedia and Cryptography’s AVX Hashing test. The “correct” numbers are shown on the bottom where it says Maxed Power.

3D Games

The Strix Z370-I Gaming’s power issues have little impact on Ashes or F1 2015, though the memory misconfiguration of Gigabyte’s Z370N WiFi is reflected. We also gave that board a second run with manual intervention in its review.

The Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC isn’t immune from performance hiccups, but its loss in Talos is the result of something working, which in this case is its Talos-compatible Nahimic audio solution. It also got a retest.

Timed Applications

If not for the oddball power measurements, the oddball performance results in Blender (CPU render) and Photoshop were enough to tip us off concerning the Strix Z370-I Gaming’s power oddities. Remembering that lower is better when it comes to completion times, the “Maxed Power” results put Asus straight.

Heat & Efficiency

Having already discussed power at the top of the page, it’s not surprising that the Strix Z370-I Gaming’s continuous temperatures are way down at stock settings, and way up at power-maximized settings.

Throttling down under heavy loads has more impact on a power test than it does on most applications, so the default Z370-I Gaming settings look good in the efficiency chart.

Overclocking

Power levels are increased for overclock evaluation, so the extra data set isn’t applicable to this chart. The Strix Z370-I Gaming slides slightly behind MSI's Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC, but surges ahead of Gigabyte's Z370N WiFi.

The Strix Z370-I Gaming produces the same bandwidth at its maximum overclock for our memory, in spite of that clock rate being slightly slower.

Final Analysis

The 3% average performance difference between the Strix Z370-I Gaming’s stock power limits (top) and maxed-out power (bottom) shows as a 4% value gain when compared to other boards, if only due to rounding errors.

MSI tops the chart because its board is cheaper, but is the Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC even in the same features class as the Strix Z370-I Gaming? Both boards have a single USB 3.1 Gen2 controller, but MSI feeds it out to two I/O-panel ports while Asus sends its ports to the front panel. If you have a case with the new 10 Gb/s Type-C interface, Asus will win you over. On the other hand, the Type-C connectors of most cases are still wired to an old-fashioned USB 3.0 connection.

Asus also has twice as many M.2 interfaces, and the inclusion of only one M.2 drive interface on MSI’s board is almost unforgivable. Almost. The MSI board overclocks slightly better and works properly out of the gate, while the Asus board had that weird power issue. While fixing the power issue is as easy as changing Load-line Calibration from the default “Auto” setting to the alternative “Default” setting, the presence of such an obvious quirk in a public firmware release from a reputable firm is unfathomable.

The Strix Z370-I Gaming also has 12 RGB LEDs, while the Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon has only eight. They’re located in the same place, respectively, but more LEDs make the rainbow wave look smoother if that matters to you. And if that’s not enough to win you over, maybe the USB port differences will? MSI comes up two ports short on the I/O panel, at six. While Asus has eight ports, four of those are only USB 2.0 and, as noted above, none of them are USB 3.1 Gen2.

Street price differences range from $10 to $24 depending on where and when you buy these boards, and to be frank, I’d probably pay the extra cash to get the Strix Z370-I Gaming’s extra M.2 slot. On the other hand, it's simply too difficult to give a board with an obvious firmware flaw that affects stock operation our stamp of approval yet.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Do The Meltdown and Spectre Patches Affect PC Gaming Performance? 10 CPUs Tested

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Wed, 07 Feb 2018 14:00:01 +0000

Gaming With Meltdown And Spectre

Imagine that nearly every PC, server, and mobile phone on the planet was suddenly vulnerable to data theft at the hands of nefarious actors. Then, imagine the exploit responsible for this vulnerability couldn't be detected by antivirus software because it merely took advantage of normal CPU operations.

Although this sounds like a bad movie script, it unfortunately became a known truth during the first few days of 2018.

On January 2nd, The Register exposed Intel's then-secret Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabilities through investigative journalism. But unbeknown to most of the world, Google’s Project Zero researchers, along with two other independent teams, discovered the vulnerabilities 200 days earlier. As a courtesy, the researchers gave Intel, AMD, IBM, Qualcomm, and ARM a grace period to develop mitigations before making their findings public. Those companies, along with developers contributing to Windows and Linux, worked together behind a veil of secrecy for months.

Perhaps understandably, the initial response to The Register's report was chaotic because it preempted that planned group disclosure. What happened after, though, appeared to be a comedy of errors, especially given the amount of time affected companies had to prepare.

Then again, the firms were trying to plug holes that were baked into hardware and software for more than a decade. In fact, nearly every Intel processor since 1995 was found to be vulnerable, so fixing the issues without breaking compatibility proved to be a mind-boggling challenge.

The patches supposedly have performance implications. So now that the industry is a month into cleaning up its mess, we're ready to start assessing the damage. First up: game performance.

The Land Of Patch Confusion

There are two general vulnerabilities in play here, and they're broken up into three categories. Variants 1 and 2 are what we've come to know as Spectre, while Variant 3 is Meltdown. Intel, ARM, and Qualcomm are susceptible to all three, while AMD is only affected by Spectre.

As we can see, Variant 1 and 3 can be patched in the operating system, while the most nefarious bug, Variant 2, requires both motherboard firmware/microcode and operating system patches.

The initial industry scramble resulted in a flurry of immature and buggy updates. Because the patches weren't distributed as drivers, processor vendors couldn't push them out directly. Instead, they filtered out through Microsoft, Linux-based operating systems, OEMs, and motherboard manufacturers. A rapid sequence of patches, re-patches, and un-patches confused enthusiasts in the know. Everyone else had to have been completely lost.

This is how bad it got: Intel released a motherboard firmware/CPU microcode patch that could cause reboots, system instability, and potential data loss/corruption. Its partners pulled the update. Microsoft published a patch of its own for AMD systems that left some of them unbootable. It, too, had to reverse course, blaming improper documentation from AMD. A fix was released several weeks later.

For now, Intel doesn't have an operating system or microcode patch for Spectre Variant 2. AMD has an OS patch for it, but the company does not have a microcode update to offer. And because microcode patches will have the biggest impact on system performance, today's benchmark results are subject to change.

Intel says it will provide patches for CPUs dating back five years and then move on to older models. Many folks speculate that we may never see patches for those legacy products, though. Both Intel and AMD claim they will have silicon-based mitigations in their next-gen processors. Of course, it remains to be seen how each company works around their security holes without compromising performance.

For now, one thing is for sure: today's patches, particularly those for Spectre Variant 2, affect performance in some workloads. Older CPUs are said to be hit the worst. Microsoft predicts that "some" users with Windows 10 on pre-Broadwell architectures will suffer noticeable slow-downs, while "most" users on Windows 7 and 8.1 on comparable systems will notice a decrease in performance.

Measuring the impact hasn’t been an easy task in our labs. The changing nature of these patches complicates matters: we’ve begun testing several times only to have a patch altered or removed. We’re diligently working on the next round of application benchmarks, and are expanding our scope to include older CPUs. For now, let's focus on gaming with a good selection of recent Ryzen, Kaby Lake-, and Coffee Lake-based processors.

MORE: CPU Security Flaw: All You Need To Know About Spectre

MORE: Best Gaming CPUs

Exploiting The Unexploitable

Meltdown and Spectre are vulnerabilities exploited through side-channel attacks, which are incredibly difficult to block. These occur when an attacker observes the traits of a computer, be it the timing of certain operations or even noise and light patterns, and uses that information to compromise security.

It all starts with data, of course. A CPU loads information from main memory into its registers by requesting the contents of a virtual address, which is in turn mapped to a physical address. While fulfilling this request, the CPU verifies the address' permission bits, indicating whether the process has permission to access the memory address, or if only the kernel can access it. The system approves or denies access accordingly. The industry assumed this technique securely bifurcated memory into protected regions, so operating systems automatically map the entire kernel into the user space memory map's virtual address space. That means the CPU can attempt to access all of the virtual addresses if needed, but it also exposes the entire virtual address map to the user space.

The problem has to do with speculative execution, which is part of out-of-order processing. Pipelined CPU cores process instructions in stages, such as instruction fetch, instruction decode, execute, memory access, and register write-back. Today’s processors break each of these fundamental stages down further, sometimes into 20 or more stages. This helps facilitate higher clock rates.

CPUs employ multiple pipelines to allow for parallelized instruction processing. That's why, in the image below, we see four different colors passing simultaneously through the four stages. Instruction branches can cause the pipeline to switch to another instruction sequence, creating a stall. That means the pipeline doesn’t process data for several clock cycles while it waits for inputs from memory.

To help avoid this, when the processor encounters a branch, its prediction unit tries to guess which instruction sequence the processor will need next. But it makes that determination before processing the instruction. The processor then fetches the predicted branch's instruction and speculatively executes it. This avoids the latency normally incurred if the pipeline stalls (due to the branch), and then fetching the next instruction from memory.

Depending on the address location (L1, L2, L3, RAM), fetching data from memory requires 10s to 100s of nanoseconds. That's slow compared to the sub-nanosecond latency of processor cycles, so having the instruction already in-flight speeds operation tremendously. Most operations are committed because branch predictors often have a 90%+ success rate. The processor simply discards the instruction and flushes its pipeline if the instruction isn't needed (misprediction).

Google's researchers found a sliver of opportunity in how the system handles cached memory access during speculative executions. Normal security checks that keep the user space and kernel memory separate don't happen fast enough during speculative executions that access cached memory. As a result, the processor can momentarily speculatively fetch and execute data from cached memory that it shouldn't be able to access. The system eventually does deny access and the data is discarded, but again, because this doesn't happen fast enough, a window of opportunity for an exploit is opened. Meltdown exploits the branch predictor to run code against the cache, all the while timing this process. That allows it to determine what data is held in the memory, as seen in the short video below.

In the case of Meltdown, an attacker can read passwords, encryption keys, or other data from protected memory. That data could also be used to assume control of the system, rendering all other forms of protection useless. The biggest concern for data centers is that the exploit also allows an application resident in one virtual machine to access the memory of another virtual machine. This means an attacker could rent an instance on a public cloud and collect information from other VMs on the same server.

Attackers can exploit this vulnerability with JavaScript, so you could expose your system simply by visiting a nefarious web site. Browser developers have updated their products to reduce timing granularity. But attackers can also just use normal code delivered via malware or other avenues to execute an attack.

For now, the Meltdown operating system patch involves adding another layer of security checks during memory address accesses. That hampers the latency of system calls, thus slowing performance when applications issue kernel calls. Applications that tend to remain in the user space are less impacted. Intel's post-Broadwell processors have a PCID (Post-Context Identifiers) feature that speeds the process, so they don't experience as much of a slowdown as older models.

The Spectre exploit is much more nefarious because it can exploit a wider range of the speculative execution engine's capabilities to access kernel memory or data from other applications. Some researchers claim that fixing this exploit fully could require a fundamental re-tooling of all processor architectures, so it's possible we'll live with some form of this vulnerability for the foreseeable future. Fortunately, the exploit is extremely hard to pull off, requiring an elevated level of knowledge of the target processor and application. Intel and others have come up with patches for the current Spectre variants, but it is possible that vendors will play whack-a-mole as new Spectre derivatives arrive in the future.

MORE: CPU Security Flaw: All You Need To Know About Spectre

MORE: Best Gaming CPUs

Test Setup

Our methodology for this story is fairly simple in practice. First, we performed a round of benchmarks on our Windows 10-based systems. Then, we applied the relevant patch and repeated the tests. Although the Variant 2 operating system patch we're using was deactivated via Windows, it should represent worst-case performance for now. We did not use a BIOS with Spectre mitigations because none are currently available (they were pulled). We'll follow up with more comparative testing as firmware updates arrive.

We tested each processor at its stock settings, including representatives from the Core i3, Ryzen 3, Core i5, Ryzen 5, Core i7, Ryzen 7, and Pentium line-ups. Naturally, overclocked systems will fare better. And as always, we disable Enhanced Multi-Core Turbo on our test systems.

In order to avoid variance from GPU Boost as our GeForce GTX 1080 heats up, we use multiple runs from each benchmark in quick succession. We select the median value from the last recordings, so, in many cases, the patched/unpatched results could land higher or lower than each other due to the tight variances you'll see today.

Test System & Configuration

Hardware

Intel LGA 1151 (Z370) @ 2666AMD Socket AM4 @ 2667 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270) @ 2666 All 1TB 1500WWindows 10 Creators Update Version 1703, pre- and post-patch

MORE: CPU Security Flaw: All You Need To Know About Spectre

MORE: Best Gaming CPUs

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

Comparison CPUs

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X

AMD Ryzen 5 1600X

AMD Ryzen 3 1300X

VRMark & 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to represent real-world game performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

Futuremark's VRMark test lets you gauge your system's suitability for use with the HTC Vive or Oculus Rift, even if you don't currently own an HMD. The Orange Room test is based on the suggested system requirements for current-generation HTC Vive and Oculus Rift HMDs. Futuremark defines a passing score as anything above 109 FPS.

Futuremark specifies a 3% maximum variance between runs if we adhere to normal testing best practices, such as ensuring similar configurations and drivers between systems, allowing the PC to enter an idle state, and conducting tests with the same environmental factors. Of course, there are sub-tests in suites like PCMark 10 that can fall outside the 3% window, at which point we rely upon averages. We didn't encounter those issue with these gaming-focused tests, though.

VRMark reflects a negligible impact from the patches across our entire field of CPUs. At times, the patched operating systems are slightly faster, but these values land within the 3% margin of error. That means those higher results are merely a byproduct of normal run-to-run variability.

The DX11 and DX12 CPU benchmarks respond to core counts and increased parallelism. Frankly, these tests don't show us much of interest. There is some jockeying between patched and unpatched configurations, but the results are uneventful overall.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation scales nicely with the addition of computational horsepower, so graphics aren't limiting us.

We observe minor variations between the patched and unpatched systems. For instance, a patched Core i7-8700K outpaces the vulnerable configuration. But a 1.6% delta is still within our expectations of normal run-to-run variance. We also don't record any extreme changes to the frame time or frame time variance metrics.

Notice that we split our results into two classes due to the sheer number of tests we ran. Be sure to scroll across the album for our comparison of Core i3, Ryzen 3, and Pentium processors.

MORE: CPU Security Flaw: All You Need To Know About Spectre

MORE: Best Gaming CPUs

Civilization VI Graphics & AI, & Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

The Civilization VI AI test measures CPU performance in a turn-based strategy game, and tends to favor a mixture of physical cores, clock rate, and IPC throughput.

Our results are a mixed bag; half of the processors are slower after the patch, but five turn out to be faster. Our largest variance is 0.15 seconds, though, so its hard to ascribe any significance to the outcome.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

The results of our Civilization VI graphics test aren't any more surprising than what we saw in Ashes of the Singularity. There's little to no observable impact from the patches, and both configurations take turns in the lead. Ryzen 7 1800X encounters the most variance, and that's a mere .8 FPS on average (less than 1%). Even the 99th percentile metrics bounce back and forth between the patched and unpatched configurations.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Dawn of War doesn't seem to be hampered by the patches either, although we do see our first result exceeding a 1 FPS delta. The patched Ryzen 7 1800X falls behind by 1.1 FPS, yielding a mere 1.2% difference. Again, it's a relatively mundane outcome.

MORE: CPU Security Flaw: All You Need To Know About Spectre

MORE: Best Gaming CPUs

Far Cry Primal, Grand Theft Auto V & Hitman

Far Cry Primal

Far Cry Primal's Dunia Engine 2 responds well to high clock rates and IPC throughput. However, it also seems to prefer when we turn off simultaneous multi-threading, so you'll notice the Core i5 processors are very competitive.

We do see a bit more frame time variance between certain models, but the lead again shuffles back and forth between patched and unpatched configurations. That means we can chalk these differences up to expected variances.

Typically, our reviews include similarly-priced models, so the floors and ceilings aren't so pronounced. Today's exploration gives us a good opportunity to see how different CPU classes scale. For instance, the average frame rate delta between Intel's Pentium G4560 and Core i7-7700K is 27 FPS.

Grand Theft Auto V

The Grand Theft Auto V benchmark again reveals little variance between configurations, and a negligible impact on frame times.

We do spot several notable outliers from Intel's Core i3-8350K, but those occur whether the CPU is patched or not. We also record a 42 FPS 99th percentile measurement with the patched Core i3-7350K compared to the unpatched configuration's 47 FPS. That's one of the largest deltas reported in today's data.

Hitman (2016)

We're graphics-bound in our Hitman test, so there is little to no variation between the Core i7 and i5 processors.

MORE: CPU Security Flaw: All You Need To Know About Spectre

MORE: Best Gaming CPUs

Shadow of War, Project CARS 2 & PUBG

Middle-earth: Shadow of War

We swapped out the aging Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor for Shadow of War during this round of tests. We like that its built-in benchmark is very consistent.

Shadow of War isn't as sensitive to clock rate and IPC throughput as its predecessor. We don't see much variance between the Core i5 and i7 models, which are largely graphics-bound. There is, however, more distance between the lower-end models. But there is only a 13.2 FPS delta between the Core i7-8600K and Pentium G4620.

Project CARS 2

We're also swapping out Project CARS for Project CARS 2.

There's a bit more scaling to observe in this title, with the slowest processor lagging the leader by 41 FPS. Regardless, though, there isn't any significant variance attributable to security patches (aside from a 1.7 FPS delta between the Core i3-8350K results).

PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds (PUBG)

This is also our first outing with PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds.

Although we're using a saved game sequence to ensure repeatability, we recently learned that PUBG recordings can lag in-game multiplayer performance by ~4-8 FPS. This is an odd tendency because recorded game sequences usually run faster than actual multiplayer matches. Nevertheless, we recorded a few sessions with our tool and then compared them to in-game results using the same path. Sure enough, the FPS line charts didn't overlap, even though the results indicate similar peaks and valleys. That means the recording is an accurate representation of trends, albeit with slower frame rates.

That doesn't mean the results are any more interesting than they have been, though. The game engine simply doesn't scale well; we only recorded a 5.9 FPS delta between the fastest and slowest processors in our test pool. We probably could amplify this difference by reducing graphics quality. However, we prefer setting the eye candy to maximum for a more enjoyable experience, rather than deliberately creating a synthetic metric.

MORE: CPU Security Flaw: All You Need To Know About Spectre

MORE: Best Gaming CPUs

Game On...For Now

This first round of Meltdown and Spectre patch testing proved fairly uneventful. There really wasn't much to report across our suite of game benchmarks. But that's partly because the status of patches keeps changing. We originally planned to test with both the operating system and microcode updates for Spectre Variant 2, which are expected to impose a significant performance overhead.

Unfortunately, Intel and its partners pulled the microcode patch during our testing, and AMD still doesn't have a fix of its own. We've been told that Intel's updated update is undergoing rigorous validation, but we don't have a time frame for its release. The same goes for AMD's Variant 2 microcode. Of course, we'll add test results with the new patches once they are available.

For newer processors, it looks like the operating system patch won't affect gaming workloads much, if at all. Most games are confined to the user space and don't make frequent kernel calls, so it's possible that the impact on older CPUs could be minor as well (game testing on those is in-progress).

The current patch does have an impact on storage performance, at least when it's measured with synthetic benchmarks. A laggy hard drive would obviously affect level loading times and the storage subsystem's ability to feed the game engine, possibly resulting in choppy scene transitions. We scrutinized our load times and cut scenes closely, and while entry-level CPUs did take longer and were less smooth, it's hard to chalk that up to a security patch because slower processors are, well, slower. We didn't notice any dramatic changes in performance consistency or frame time variance, so any minor impact would likely be limited to storage-imposed symptoms, at least with the patches as they sit currently.

Most of the vulnerability-oriented storage testing we've seen is happening at high queue depths, or using pure read or write workloads that aren't the best indicator of operating system performance. Most real-world accesses occur at lower queue depths, and radical changes in SSD performance, either for better or worse, don't correspond linearly to application performance.

The Spectre Variant 2 patches still loom large for Intel and AMD. Hopefully, both companies can deliver solid updates with minimal impact. We've heard that some applications can be optimized to minimize overhead. And Intel has mentioned that existing patches will mature into more efficient implementations.

For now we remain vulnerable to Spectre Variant 2, and proof-of-concept code is already popping up in the wild, unfortunately. That leaves us exposed while we wait on Intel and AMD, not to mention the rest of the industry, to correctly patch what could be the greatest vulnerability of our time. At least we can enjoy some gaming while we wait.

MORE: CPU Security Flaw: All You Need To Know About Spectre

MORE: Best Gaming CPUs

MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC Motherboard Review

Thomas Soderstrom — Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:00:00 +0000

Features & Layout

What does $200 get you? By way of comparison, the number of added features is akin to the $180 boards of yesteryear and the $160 boards of Tom’s Hardware’s earliest days. We find a reasonably oversized voltage regulator, a few high-end codecs, and a couple extra controllers. In the case of MSI’s Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC, those controllers are USB 3.1 Gen2 and Wi-Fi.

Unlike most competing boards, the Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC’s Wi-Fi comes on a PCIe/USB to M.2 Key-E adapter card. The module is worth over $20, and adapter cards with the module are generally priced a few dollars higher, yet the Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC costs only $10 more than its non-Wi-Fi version: Could this be the starting point of good value?

Specifications

Around back we find a classic PS/2 port for legacy mice and keyboards, two USB 2.0 ports, a DisplayPort 1.2 connector with a meager 24 Hz refresh rate at 4096X2304, USB 3.1 Gen2 ports in Type A and Type-C versions fed by a dual-lane PCIe 3.0 controller, four SATA 3.0 ports (MSI calls these 3.1 Gen1), an HDMI 1.4 output with a still-meager 30 Hz refresh rate at 4096x2160, five analog audio jacks, and a digital optical audio output. Meager 4K refresh rates for on-board video shouldn’t bother gamers, because that target market uses graphics cards.

Since you are using graphics cards, you’ll be pleased to see that the two CPU-fed PCIe slots are reinforced to reduce the chance of damage that often occurs when moving around a PC with extra heavy graphics coolers. Spaced three slots apart to make room for large card coolers, these two slots switch from x16/x0 mode to x8/x8 modes when a card is detected in the second metal-shrouded slot.

A third x16-length slot is fed with four lanes from the PCH. Though technically compatible with 3-way CrossFireX, we prefer to have all of our graphics cards on the same controller. The Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC also has three PCIe x1 slots, and this is where we question the inclusion of the Wi-Fi adapter card: If the two graphics cards you’re using are more than 40mm thick, you probably won’t have a place to put it. If your card thicknesses are 40mm or less, you’re stuck sticking the adapter in either the black x16-legth slot or middle x1 slot. Putting it in the middle x1 slot means wrapping its USB cable over the top of the second card to a header on the board’s bottom edge. Meanwhile, the top x1 slot will be covered up by all but the thinnest of graphics cards, which causes us to question its dedicated resource.

The only reason we’d need to question the implementation of a dedicated resource to a slot we can’t use would be if the board had a resource shortage, and here’s the shocker: All feature-packed Z370 boards have resource shortages. In this case, the lower M.2 slot steals two HSIO resources from SATA and transfers them to PCIe, unless the M.2 card is SATA, in which case it steals only one port. On the other hand, the upper M.2 slot is fully provisioned for PCIe, stealing a SATA lane only when the M.2 drive is SATA.

The upper M.2 slot also has MSI’s M.2 shield heat spreader, which helps to hide those ugly M.2 drives. That part is also removable, just in case the M.2 drive you’re using isn’t ugly.

Four SATA ports and a USB 3.0 header point forward along the front edge, in front of the cards. A second USB 3.0 header is found next to the main power jack, and uses a perpendicular connector since it’s not in the way of any cards. Similarly, the two other SATA ports along the board’s bottom edge are perpendicular, because you’re probably not going to use that bottom slot for a graphics card.

The bottom edge also contains, back-to-front, a front-panel audio, RGB LED, PWM-style fan, TPM, LED power indicator, PC Speaker, Front-panel button, two USB 2.0, and Rainbow LED headers. In the midst of those headers is a demo button for on-board RGB LEDs and a jumper to change the function of the demo button.

A second standard RGB LED header is found next to the EPS12V connector, and a special Corsair LED strip connector is located near the top front corner. Many readers have asked us not to talk about RGB connectors in terms of value, but other readers will certainly be able to appreciate the breadth of connectivity.

The Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC includes six four-pin PWM fan headers, and all six have voltage control modes available. In addition to automatic detection, the board provides the ability to manually force the alternative fan control method.

The Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon is packed with cables: Though SATA is limited to one straight and one right-angle cable, it also includes an 80cm RGB splitter cable, an 80cm Rainbow LED extension cable, a 50cm Corsair HD RGB LED extension cable, and a USB cable for the M.2-based Wi-Fi module. Buyers also get an HB-SLI Bridge, the Wi-Fi adapter card with installed module, two Wi-Fi antennas (the Brits will hate me for that), an I/O shield, a sheet of cable labels, a quick install guide, a full user manual, and a driver/application disc.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

The Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC contains the software suite of MSI’s high-end Godlike Gaming, minus the Killer suite that’s unique to those network controllers. The Nahimic 2+ software suite, TriDef VR, OBS Multiplatform, WTFast, an MSI customized version of CPU-Z, and Dragon Eye are available in addition to MSI’s App Manager group.

A customized interface for cFos packet prioritization, MSI’s Gaming LAN Manager replaces the missing Killer suite. Live Update 6 continues to offer users a quick way to poll MSI servers for both software and firmware updates.

MSI Mystic Light finally worked without crashing or excessive lag, and the image shows that we were even able to set up some custom colors. The list of lighting modes now includes Off, No animation, Breathing, Flashing, Double Flashing, Marquee, Meteor, Stack, Rainbow, Lightning, CPU Temperature, Random, POP, RAP, JAZZ, Play, and Movie.

MSI Gaming App offers the above-linked submenus, and its OC Mode refers to the board’s single factory-programmed overclock of 1x over stock CPU multiplier at 1.20V CPU core.

Command Center hasn’t changed either, which is good for now as it still works. We were able to verify CPU multiplier, BCLK, and CPU core voltage using CPU-Z. Most other changes require a reboot. The Game Boost button found here functions identically to the OC Mode of MSI Gaming App.

Firmware

MSI Click BIOS 5 opens into its EZ Mode interface the first time, but is also configured to remember what mode was being used at last exit. Clicking the F7 keyboard function brings users to the advanced menu, where they can do more than just enable Game Boost (1x over-stock multiplier), XMP, or change boot order.

Our Core i7-8700K sample reached 4848 MHz on most boards, so the Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC’s matching result wasn’t exactly exciting. Getting the desired 1.30V under load required a combination of two settings—a 1.295V CPU core from the main OC menu and Mode 3 Loadline Calibration from its “DigitALL Power” submenu.

Our TridentZ DDR4-3866 memory was stable at data rates up to DDR4-3946 with two modules installed, and DDR4-3906 with four modules installed. It probably would have gone farther, but we’re using a hard limit of 1.355V measured at the slot to keep our DRAM overclocking comparisons somewhat consistent. Most companies try to cheat, and the Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC reached 1.348V at its 1.330V setting. DRAM voltage steps are only 10mV on this motherboard, and our experience indicates that an extra 5mV would have likely pushed our RAM over DDR4-4000 without violating our limits.

Memory tweakers should be able to find everything they need to optimize performance within the Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC’s Advanced DRAM Configuration submenu.

If you get lost in your memory tweaking, the Memory-Z submenu can help you figure out what the original timings were supposed to have been.

Although many motherboards now require customized power limits to prevent CPU throttling under full load when overclocked, the Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC kept our CPU at 4848 MHz under 12 threads of AVX-optimized Prime95 without manual intervention.

Few things are more frustrating than getting close to an overclocking limit and having the firmware crash, only to lose those settings forever. The Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC has enough space to save six custom profiles, and will even let users transfer them to and from a USB flash drive.

The Hardware Monitor tab provides custom fan mapping capability, along with the previously-mentioned PWM/DC control mode overrides for all six fan headers.

MSI Board Explorer shows detected hardware, making it a great tool to figure out whether something not detected in the OS isn’t being detected by the board. Pointing the cursor to different areas allows user to see which SATA, USB, and I/O panel devices have been detected.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

The Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC goes up against its most closely priced rivals in today’s comparison.

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Back during the X299 launch, we upgraded our test bed to handle the tremendous heat produced by the Core i9-7900X. Our award-winning Fractal Design S24 liquid cooler system sample serves the same purpose for the newer, lower heat Core i7-8700K. Cooler Master’s HAF-XB provides an optimal layout to blow the Celsius S24’s fans sufficiently over each motherboard’s voltage regulator.

Comparison Products

MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC

EVGA Z370 FTW

ASRock Z370 Taichi

All of the boards in today’s test have a broad enough range of overclock setting to reach similar heights, but some have finer increments than others. EVGA’s 1mV setting steps are deceiving in that we couldn’t tell where we’d end up without excessive testing (the 15mV jump in DRAM, for example, was merely discovered after testing many 1mV increments).

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4k Random Read, 4k Random Write128k Sequential Read, 128k Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests and Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19 GB 4k mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6 GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark driven routine
Game Tests and Settings
Ashes of Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920x1090, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, RainMedium Preset, No AFxUltra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, VeryHigh Quality, VeryHigh Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Conclusion

As of this writing, the Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC comes in at the same price as EVGA’s Z370 FTW. That makes these products direct competitors. Less expensive boards are listed beneath these, in order of cost. Our cost-to-features analysis is reserved for the bottom of this page.

Synthetic Benchmarks

The Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC grabs a few top scores in 3DMark and PCMark, but that’s not always a good thing as it sometimes indicates cheating. Fortunately, we didn’t find any hidden overclocks.

Memory tweaks are one of the few places a firm can optimize its motherboard for performance, without getting called out for cheating. MSI edges out two competitors in Sandra Memory Bandwidth, and that advantage puts it in a tie for first in Sandra Cryptography.

Cinebench and Compubench show all four boards producing extremely similar performance.

3D Games

The two boards closest to the top of the chart have price and memory performance in common, and they even have similar performance in Ashes. The Z370 FTW squeaks past the Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC in F1 2015, however.

Nahimic Audio Solution is Talos compatible, but that compatibility comes with a performance penalty. The lighter bars indicate performance without the software enabled.

Timed Applications

Less time means more performance in our applications suite, yet the only thing remotely noteworthy is the shorter completion time for the Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 in Adobe Illustrator. The other boards make up for that loss in other tests.

Power, Heat, & Efficiency

We expect our Core i7-8700K to run at 4.30 GHz in Prime95 small-FFTs, and that’s exactly where all three landed. The Z370 FTW required a little coercion to get there (in the form of increased cache current via Intel XTU), but the Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC did not. This is legit power savings for performance enthusiasts.

EVGA had a cooler voltage regulator, but both boards did a good job of keeping the components well below throttling thresholds.

That means MSI takes second place in efficiency, though EVGA stretched its first place percentage by also having slightly better overall performance.

Overclocking

The Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC matches Gigabyte’s Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 in CPU overclocking for a first place tie, yet the Gigabyte board’s slightly closer-to-max DRAM voltage also allowed it to get a slightly higher data rate.

Performance is the point of overclocking, and the Z370 FTW produced more bandwidth at full O/C than any of its competitors. Then again, it never reached the same CPU clock.

Final Thoughts

Some of you only care about the value chart. That’s a shame, because performance-per-dollar doesn’t benefit from the added features of the two more expensive boards, the Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC and the Z370 FTW.

The Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC comes out one feature ahead of the Z370 FTW, and that feature is a Wi-Fi card that, due to the board’s layout, will likely go unused in a significant number of systems. Notice we didn’t say most systems, since most people run a single graphics card, and since there are many SLI or CrossFire options using cards that are no wider than two slots. And it’s not like “Gaming Pro Carbon” buyers who don’t use the Wi-Fi adapter have run out of options, since the non-AC version is available without the adapter, and a decent seller could ditch the adapter for more than the $10 price difference.

There’s also the overclocking stuff. MSI’s voltage settings got our CPU closer to its limit without passing it. On the other hand, EVGA’s board did a better job of overclocking our memory at even lower DIMM voltage.

The Z370 FTW already got our stamp of approval, so the Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC at least deserves that. Perhaps it deserves a bit more since the Wi-Fi adapter is worth something (even if you’re giving it to a friend). And MSI’s USB 3.1 Gen2 controller is a generation newer than the one used by EVGA, giving it twice the total bandwidth . . . but we no longer carry the “bit more” award.

Oh, and don’t forget MSI’s RGB (wink).

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

A New Player in Motherboards: Our NZXT N7-Z37XT Review

Thomas Soderstrom — Tue, 09 Jan 2018 15:00:00 +0000

Specifications & Layout

It’s not every year that we see a new motherboard brand. Heck, it’s not even every 10 years. In the world of enthusiast-level PCs, certain things are relatively easy, while others present larger challenges. Slapping a label on an Asetek-made CLC? Relatively easy. Hiring a designer to work with an established production facility to make a variation of an existing case that looks slightly different than everything else? Not too difficult. Getting that facility to produce an entirely new case design that may involve new tooling? Slightly challenging.

But producing an entirely new motherboard from a clean sheet? Only the most experienced motherboard brands would do that. Until now?

Labeled as having been designed in California and manufactured in China, the N7-Z37XT is NZXT’s first foray into the motherboard market. We aren’t given details about how much control the ODM was given concerning its circuit design, although it’s likely that NZXT was at least responsible for specifying which connectors to use and where to put them.

Designed to support NZXT’s Grid+ (fan) and Hue+ (lighting) controls, the N7-Z37XT is available with either -W1 white or -B1 black shrouds.

Specifications

Conspicuously absent from the N7-Z37XT spec sheet are any USB 3.1 Gen2 controllers, in an enthusiast market where nearly every traditional brand has recently upgraded to the latest PCIe 3.0 x2 version. Some boards in its price class even have two of those, the second dedicated to a recently-introduced front-panel header. We’ve only tested one case with the newer Gen2 connector, but it will be interesting to see if NZXT introduces one that isn’t supported by this board.

Boards in the N7-Z37XT’s price class typically have dual gigabit Ethernet as well, and the absence of that extra feature leaves a noticeable gap in the I/O panel. On the other hand, a few absent features have allowed NZXT to avoid resource sharing, which is something its competitors aren’t even attempting to do. All of the N7-Z37XT’s features can be used simultaneously.

Intel’s Z370 PCH is still limited to 30 HSIO resources, and NZXT employs 29 of those as two NVMe M.2 slots, two additional PCIe x4 slots, a PCIe x1 slot, eight USB 3.0 ports, and four SATA ports. NZXT fills some of the I/O panel with USB 2.0, which doesn’t require HSIO resources. We also find enough analog audio ports to support 7.1 surround, Line In and Line Out simultaneously, along with an optical S/PDIF output, HDMI, DisplayPort, and a CLR_CMOS button.

While it’s possible to configure up to four NVMe drives using a combination of four-lane M.2 and four-lane PCIe x4 slots, the chipset’s link to the CPU is still limited to Intel’s four-lane DMI. And while there isn’t any HSIO sharing that would disable slots or devices, the CPU’s separate x16-lane PCIe controller still serves the two x16-length slots in either x16/x0 or x8/x8 modes, using automatic detection of a second card to make that transition. There are no magic tricks or latency-inducing hubs; just a design that’s well-planned to make full use of available resources.

Available in blue, red, purple, white, and black, heat sink shrouds are made of the same painted steel as the larger motherboard shroud. Removing the upper heat sink shroud also eases access to connectors along the upper edge.

Removing two plastic covers exposes the two M.2 slots and a Port 80 diagnostics code display. A third plastic piece of similar style covers nothing of import, and was likely added to match the style of the M.2 covers.The primary USB 3.0 connector and four SATA ports can also be seen from this angle.

The bottom edge has a front panel HD-Audio header, power and reset buttons, three USB 2.0 headers, a second USB 3.0 header, four fan headers, an AC-97-style front-panel button and LED group, a BIOS IC selector switch, and a button that, when deployed, copies the active firmware ROM over the inactive ROM.

The N7-Z37XT’s upper edge has five fan headers and an RGB LED connector. A second RGB LED connector is seen in the rectangular shroud hole near the top of the front edge.

While the black plastic I/O hood is screwed on, the painted steel motherboard shroud is secured with metal snaps. Underneath these are a traditional-looking upper-range board with matte-black mask.

The original N7-Z37XT installation kit includes four SATA cables, two magnetic/adhesive RGB lighting strips, two RGB adapter cables, two RGB extension cables, a single-link SLI bridge, an I/O shield, and a nondescript set of threaded hardware. NZXT is revising the contents of its next motherboard shipment to remove the RGB strips and cables, and has reduced its MSRP by $50 to match this hardware reduction. A few buyers will likely "luck out" by receiving the original kit at the new, lower price.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

The biggest news for NZXT’s N7-Z37XT is that it supports the firm’s CAM cooling management and RGB software. Readings are adequate, but the CPU temperature appears to be an average rather than a maximum, and it’s a few degrees cooler than the “Package Temp” we use from Intel XTU.

Night mode is an optional color scheme to make the menu emit less light from your monitor. There’s also a toggle for the two main readings menus to switch from gauge style to line-graph logging mode.

The CPU overclocking menu functions as expected, but one thing you might not have expected was to see the CPU core at 1.294V when fully loaded using default settings. That’s certain to hurt its efficiency score.

The fan menu also works well. Users should click the “Edit” icon to reach the settings menu, where standard profiles are available and custom slopes can be configured.

RGB controls address both outputs either in tandem or separately, and the latter created some unusual light shows during our tests.

Shown in “night mode,” a miniature display can be used to monitor changes with less intrusion on desktop space.

Firmware

N7-Z37XT firmware opens to a simplified interface by default, but only when using certain types of graphics output. The firmware doesn’t include screenshot saving capability, and outputs that worked with our antique capture device did not support the simplified interface. Advanced mode is where the real action happens, anyway.

Once inside Advanced Mode, the CPU & Ram menu provides links to overclocking submenus and clock readings.

Our CPU reached its expected 4848 MHz final clock by simply increasing the CPU ratio to 48x and the BCLK to 101.00 MHz. This allowed Turbo Boost settings to be ignored.

Primary and secondary timings can be manually configured, and the settings of the chosen mode remain when switching to “Custom Profile.” In our case, selecting XMP Profile 1 first, then switching to Custom Profile, allowed us to pick a different multiplier while maintaining XMP timings. Still, our highest DRAM data rate came at the XMP Profile’s 38.66 setting.

The board reports that its 1.34V DIMM setting produced up to 1.364V, but our meter only showed 1.354V. Most companies cheat in the other direction, as some competitors have been known to bolster their overclocking credentials by tricking builders into using more voltage than they intend.

The N7-Z37XT can store up to eight complete firmware settings as user profiles and export those profiles to a USB flash drive.

The N7-Z37XT doesn’t have PWM to voltage-control fan mode switching, and its firmware-based fan utility is limited to four modes (the "Disabled" setting is full-speed mode).

One thing that users of NVMe drives must do to make their drives bootable is disable RST support for Port 21. Manually. Because the firmware isn’t intelligent enough to automatically configure the only installed drive to its only functional mode.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Cooler Master’s HAF-XB provides an optimal layout to blow the Celsius S24’s fans sufficiently over each motherboard’s voltage regulator.

Comparison Products

NZXT N7-Z37XT

EVGA Z370 FTW

ASRock Z370 Taichi

The N7-Z37XT provides overclock settings competitive with the similarly priced products used in today's comparison, apart from the lacking PCH voltage adjustment and the broader 50mV steps of CPU VCore. We don't overclock the PCH, and the larger VCore steps still got us to our 1.30V goal, so we should expect similar achievable frequencies from all models.

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4k Random Read, 4k Random Write128k Sequential Read, 128k Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests and Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19 GB 4k mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6 GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark driven routine
Game Tests and Settings
Ashes of Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920x1090, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, RainMedium Preset, No AFxUltra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, VeryHigh Quality, VeryHigh Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

Synthetic Benchmarks

The N7-Z37XT shows slightly-off graphics scores in 3DMark, but its overall scores are comparable to other boards. That small deficit is repeated in Compubench, but nowhere else.

Sandra’s CPU and memory test show perfect results, so it’s time to move on to some real-world tests!

3D Games

The N7-Z37XT performed about average in Ashes, but came up a hair short in Metro and Talos. Speaking of short, the MSI board’s Talos-compatible Nahimic software suite put that otherwise class-leading board behind the pack.

Timed Applications

There’s nothing odd, either good or bad, to discuss about the N7-Z37XT’s performance in our mixture of timed workloads. Even its GPU-accelerated task performance is on-par.

Power, Heat, & Efficiency

Power use is the N7-Z37XT’s Achilles heel, as the board uses the CPU’s highest voltage setting even as Intel Turbo Boost defaults instruct it to clock down to 4.3 GHz (from a maximum of 4.7 GHz) under six-core loads. Lower clocks are supposed to have a lower voltage requirement.

Although Intel’s XTU utility shows a supposed 164W TDP, actual power consumption far exceeds the 190W or so that would be required of the system to maintain that TDP.

Of the four competing boards, the Z370 Taichi shows the power we’d expect our system to draw to maintain that high TDP, and the Z370 FTW shows the power we’d expect our system to draw if voltage were fully optimized for the 4.3 GHz six-core-loaded frequency.

The high power draw imparts high temperatures for both the CPU and voltage regulator, although the N7-Z37XT’s large voltage regulator sink does a good job of minimizing that second heat penalty.

The best news might be for future reviews, since these terrible power numbers will go into the averages that those other boards must compete against.

Overclocking

One might say that the firmware interface for N7-Z37XT overclocking is a bit under-developed, but others might just call it sparse or simplified. It certainly has all the controls our processor needed to reach its 4848 MHz goal under 12 threads of AVX-heavy Prime95, and that target is based on the thermal limits of the CPU’s core-to-heat-spreader interface. We couldn’t go higher without modifying the CPU package.

In fact, the only thing under-developed from a review standpoint is that the board didn’t appear to automatically compensate for higher BCLK. You’re free to make some of those adjustments manually, but we prefer to start our overclocks with the CPU multiplier anyway.

At a 3906 MHz data rate, the DRAM barely exceeded its XMP-3866 rating before it became unstable on this board. Performance is the point of overclocking, and we can clearly see a division between boards that optimize secondary and tertiary timings for performance, and those that don’t. While the N7-Z37XT is among that second group, it’s in good company with the Z370 Taichi and Z370 Godlike Gaming.

Final Analysis

As with the other percentage benchmarks, the N7-Z37XT is compared to all previously-reviewed boards in the performance-per-dollar chart. Perhaps we should have narrowed it down to include only today’s contenders? It’s $300 price would still have put it in fourth place, simply because three of the comparison boards were cheaper.

What we’re really looking at is the price of features, where the EVGA Z370 FTW is the cheapest of the five boards compared and also the one with the fewest added features. It doesn’t even have any RGB headers. It does, however, have a Gen2 USB 3.1 controller.

Moving up to something closer to the N7-Z37XT’s price, the Z370 Taichi has two Gen2 USB 3.1 controllers, plus dual Ethernet, plus a low-model Intel Wi-Fi controller, plus a couple of added SATA controllers, plus a front-panel header for Gen2 Type-C ports. On the other hand, it only has one RGB LED header. Oh, and it’s only $220.

The closest we can get to the N7-Z37XT’s price is with the $250 (MSRP) Z370 Aorus Gaming 7. It swaps out the PCIe 3.0-x1/PCIe 2.0-x2 interface of the older Gen2 USB 3.1 controller for a pair of the newer controllers, which use PCIe 3.0-x2. It has two RGBW LED headers plus two D-LED headers for strips that have their own controller IC.

Those competing boards have something else in common: Due to the 30 HSIO limit of Intel’s Z370 PCH, they’re all forced to disable some on-board device to enable some other on-board device or interface. At least the N7-Z37XT is an honest board.

The major value-added feature that’s supposed to set the N7-Z37XT above its competitors is integration of NZXT’s famed fan and lighting controller functionality. While those are indeed strong selling points, they’re also the reason why I’ve been recommending other boards that have similar integrated features as an alternative to external controllers. Asus’ Aura software, for example, is famed for its functionality, even supporting third-party devices such as RGB RAM lighting. The RGB Fusion software of the compared Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 isn’t far behind that of Asus Aura. Even the pared-down RGB LED interface of the Z370 Taichi is functional, though that particular model has but one RGB output. Only the EVGA board gets cut from that race, and only because it’s designed for builders who eschew RGB.

The N7-Z37XT’s steel shroud is the one feature that all the competing models lack, and whether that feature is worth $100 on its own is up to readers to decide. Competitive builders will certainly blow big cash to get a specific look, and it would be terribly difficult to replicate such a piece by hand in less than a day. What’s a day’s work worth to you? And then there’s the cost of design and development: The economies of scale require that buyers of low-volume products pay a larger portion of the development cost for those products. If a large-scale manufacturer later offers us a review sample with similar features, the math for that product will be completely different.

I can’t recommend for or against the N7-Z37XT from a value perspective: If you’re an interested buyer within this lower-volume market, “can’t recommend against” should be considered adequate praise.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

MSI Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC Motherboard Review

Thomas Soderstrom — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 14:00:01 +0000

Features & Layout

It’s important for a few of us to remember that many buyers want a system that only does a few things extremely well, particularly when we’re looking at the variety of interfaces some boards make available to end users. A gaming system builder once asked me to recommend an extreme overclocking board with only four USB ports and one front-panel USB header. MSI’s Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC isn’t quite that sparse.

Rather than pack the top surface with a bunch of controllers and M.2 slots, MSI decided to focus on expanding the voltage regulator of its Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC. We find one USB 3.0 header (which MSI likes to call USB 3.1 Gen1), one USB 2.0 header, four SATA ports, and a few miscellaneous connectors near the I/O panel. As for what’s under the board, well, that begins with RGB LEDs.

Specifications

Under-board features nearly end at that point, as the only other two things of interest are the M.2 connector and the Gigabit Ethernet PHY. Various power regulation components are also scattered about, but we were a little surprised to see that the board only supports a single PCIe 3.0 x4 M.2 drive. Legacy SATA M.2 drives are excluded, according to MSI.

The I/O Panel isn’t complicated either, with its single Type-C and single Type-A USB 3.1 Gen 2 ports, two USB 3.0 ports, and two USB 2.0 ports. The Z370’s 30-device HSIO resource limitation is the best reason for manufacturers to add USB 2.0 ports to the I/O panel of fully loaded ATX boards, but the Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC is as far from that standard as the performance enthusiast market would allow it to go.

We also find a PS/2 port, which can be handy for legacy keyboards or mice, the RJ45 connector for the previously mentioned Ethernet controller, two Wi-Fi antennas on an M.2 Key-E riser, five analog audio jacks, a digital optical jack, a DisplayPort adapter that only supports 24Hz output at its 4096x2304 maximum resolution, an HDMI output that only supports 30Hz output at its 4096x2160 maximum resolution, and a CLR_CMOS button. That configuration appears perfectly targeted at the home gaming market where the scarcity of DTS-Connect receivers pushes gamers to choose analog outputs for their live 3D audio streams. The Nahimic virtual surround likewise strengthens MSI’s marketing appeal within the headphone-wearing portable gaming market.

Perhaps MSI was trying to provide more air space around its voltage regulators when it decided to use a big chunk of I/O Panel real estate for internal headers? In that gap we find a four-pin RGB header, a proprietary three-pin version that allows MSI’s Mystic Light software to control Corsair’s addressable LED strips and fans, an undefined header labeled JT1, and a secondary set of pins adjacent to the clock battery connection. The Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC follows the recent Mini-ITX trend of placing its front panel audio header above the graphics card slot, behind the Z370 PCH, front-panel USB 2.0, and CPU fan headers.

The front edge USB 3.0 connector is perpendicular to the board’s surface to avoid fitment issues in cases that have drive racks or power supplies mounted in front of the board. Above it are two of the four SATA ports, the single case fan header, and the front panel LED/switch group. Two more SATA ports are placed between the DIMMs and Z370 PCH, forcing users to pull a couple cables if they’d like to replace their DRAM. MSI was smart enough to face the latching side of those two SATA ports away from DIMMs, but most users will need to pull their memory to access latches on the forward SATA ports.

MSI miniaturized the Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC’s manual so it would fit inside the box a certain way, rather than leave it full size and turn it the other way. The installation kit includes two Wi-Fi antennae, a standard RGB extension cable, a three-pin Corsair HD RGB cable, two SATA cables (one with a single right-angle end), an I/O shield, cable label stickers, and a driver/application disc.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

MSI’s Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC software suite includes the applications discussed in our Z370 Godlike Gaming review, minus the Killer network suite, which has been replaced with its “Gaming Lan Manager” custom interface for cFos network prioritization suite. MSI’s applications launch from its App Manager, which is set to reside in the system tray by default. The installation also adds a desktop icon, which is handy since the “close” function closes the shortcut menu rather than minimizing it to the tray.

MSI Command Center continues to provide users full Windows access to many firmware-based overclocking, monitoring, and fan control functions. We verified the function of CPU multiplier, base clock, and core voltage controls.

Game Boost for the Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon simply increases the CPU multiplier by 1x. Instead of dropping from 4.7 GHz to 4.3 GHz at full AVX load, it dropped from 4.8 GHz to 4.4 GHz.

The “Advanced” control group includes additional voltage settings, a fan control menu for the single case fan header, a DRAM timings menu, and a visual guide to temperature readings that doesn’t appear to be accurately mapped to the board. Alterations to DRAM timings require a reboot, and the fact that this applet works is somewhat of an accomplishment given its prior history.

Other applications include system status logging, system alter controls, receiver settings for MSI’s Mobile Control phone app, and several device information tables.

MSI Mystic Light worked through a few settings, and then it didn’t. It’s also a receiver program for MSI’s lighting control phone app. Perhaps I should have tried using that?

Firmware

MSI’s firmware remembers whether you exited from EZ or Advanced mode, and shows the corresponding GUI at the next entry. Switching between modes is as easy as tapping the keyboard’s “F7” function key.

Our Core i7-8700K CPU typically reaches 4848 MHz at full 12-thread AVX load, and the Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC gets us there despite its diminutive size. Our DDR4-3866 samples typically reach DDR4-4040, but the Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC blows past that limit on its way to a 4176MHz data rate.

CPU voltage sags a little at these settings, but not enough to change the ultimate stable overclock. More surprising was the DRAM voltage, where a 1.320V setting produced 1.350V as measured at the slots. That’s a 30mV cheat!

The previous several motherboards have been programmed to radically lengthen memory timings to increase memory overclocking capability, thereby reducing the performance achieved with that overclock. The Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC dropped our sample memory to CAS 19, but we were able to get the performance back by only resetting its primary timings to XMP defaults.

The DigitALL power menu includes CPU LoadLine Calibration, from which Mode 2 brought us to just below the expected power and heat levels our CPU normally produces when running 4848 MHz. Mode 1 raised the voltage slightly too high under full load.

If you want to know more about your memory’s programming, Memory-Z will reveal it.

We set every power limit to its highest level to prevent throttling during our overclock. FCLK is set to 1000 MHz by default though, and “Auto” allows it to adjust for higher BCLK settings.

The Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC onboard ROM has enough space for six custom firmware configurations stored as “Overclocking Profiles,” and the menu for storing these also allows them to be transferred to and from a USB flash drive.

The “Hardware Monitor” menu includes PWM and DC mode fan regulation settings, which can be defined using firmware programming, modified to a user-configured slope, or set to “full speed.”

Hardware Monitor provides a visual cue to connections, though it can’t detect whether a USB cable is connected and simply assumes that it is. Pointing the cursor to the I/O panel reveals an image from that angle.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

Now that we have an adequate collection of Z370 test data, we’re ready to drop the previous boards from our tables. MSI’s Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC competes against larger models using the same oversized hardware, most of which would also fit into a portable gaming cube.

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Back during the X299 launch, we upgraded our test bed to handle the tremendous heat produced by the Core i9-7900X. Our award-winning Fractal Design S24 liquid cooler system sample serves the same purpose for the newer, lower heat Core i7-8700K. Cooler Master’s HAF-XB provides an optimal layout to blow the Celsius S24’s fans sufficiently over each motherboard’s voltage regulator.

Comparison Products

MSI Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC

Gigabyte Z370N WiFi

ASRock Z370 Taichi

Is the Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC strong enough to compete against the big boards in overclocking? We included all prior Z370 contenders to find out!

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4k Random Read, 4k Random Write128k Sequential Read, 128k Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests and Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19 GB 4k mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6 GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark driven routine
Game Tests and Settings
Ashes of Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920x1090, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, RainMedium Preset, No AFxUltra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, VeryHigh Quality, VeryHigh Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

The Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC faces off with no less than four competing models, three of which are full ATX. Bigger boards have more features, but nobody said they needed to have more performance.

“Enhanced Turbo” overclocks interrupt Intel’s basic Turbo Boost scheme to instead use the maximum turbo ratio regardless of the number of cores stressed. We disable any such overclocks, and enable available power-saving features, in order to retain the CPU's intended efficiency.

Core i7-8700K specification requires the CPU ratio to drop from 47X to 44X when increasing the load from one core to six. The foreground image shows that the Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC correspondingly drops the CPU core voltage in an attempt to maximize efficiency, which we don't always see in its competitor’s products. The background image shows a different issue, that the board also limits CPU current to Intel’s 140W TDP: Since nobody else does that, we “uncapped” its settings during our power test. All of the CPU’s other power-savings features remain enabled on every model and test in today’s comparison.

Synthetics

Because enabling XMP memory mode has prevented us from disabling Turbo Boost “Enhancements” on previous products, we use SPD defaults throughout performance tests. The competing Z370N WiFi increased our memory’s DDR4-2133 timings from 15-15-15-36 to 15-19-19-39, hindering its performance in several test suites.

The Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC occasionally wins a few of our PCMark and 3DMark tests, but Sandra shows that it’s not due to overclocking. Falling behind in Sandra’s memory-intense Cryptography test is a result of its lower memory bandwidth, which in turn is a result of its use of only two memory modules. The big boards were tested with four modules, the modules are single-rank, and Intel’s memory controller works best with at least four ranks of memory deployed.

The balance of synthetic benchmarks shows that there aren’t many places where the performance difference between four-ranks and two-ranks of memory are easily seen. We’ve mostly noticed the difference at our lower game settings: Allons-y!

3D Games

Ashes shows the Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC falling every-so-slightly behind the Z370 Godlike Gaming, but not that anyone playing the game would notice. F1 2015 on the other hand is known for its memory bottlenecks, and the Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC falters slightly more.

Nahimic Audio Solution includes a map of where your opponents are based upon the noises they’ve made. I guess they could also throw things to distract you, but the point today is that the compatible game, Talos, takes a performance hit when it’s enabled. The patterned marks on the charts show the score with Nahimic disabled.

Timed Applications

The Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC performs well in timed applications, but doesn’t win any of them. Winning these is a task best left to its big brother, the Z370 Godlike Gaming.

Power, Heat & Efficiency

One of MSI’s competitors is going to get very frustrated over the Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC’s power numbers and ask us if we forgot to increase its power to allow 4.40 GHz operation with six cores loaded. No, we didn’t. Default power limits originally dropped its maximum continuous draw to 127W under 12 threads of Prime95 small-FFTs, and likewise drops its frequency to 4.00 GHz to keep it within that envelope. The watts shown are the 4.40 GHz numbers.

Lower power consumption leads to lower temperatures . . .

. . . and greater efficiency. The Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC performed at 0.2% below the average of all five Z370 motherboards, but drew 15.1% less power in the average of idle and full load.

My boss recently reminded me that in order for readers to follow the math, they must use 100% baselines. That just means adding a 1 (100%) to all the percentages shown . . . or starting from the top.

Overclocking

Memory is the only place the Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC wins in overclocking. Everything else is a tie with the winning boards.

We retest our memory overclocks with Sandra to make sure motherboard manufacturers aren’t using crippled timings to win overclocking comparison while reducing performance. All five boards achieved reasonable increases from defaults.

The Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC can’t catch its big brother in memory bandwidth, because that board had four modules installed. The situation may have been reversed if dual-rank modules were used, because the performance increase from four to eight ranks is far less than the performance increase from two to four ranks. This is all theoretical until someone builds a set of dual-rank DIMMs that operate at DDR4-4176.

Performance Value?

Modestly priced by gaming component budgets, the Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC compares directly to the Z370N WiFi. Unfortunately, the competitor’s poor memory timings held it back in the default performance arena.

From a features standpoint the Z370N WiFi walks all over the Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC, but a performance-to-price chart can’t reflect its addition of a second Gigabit Ethernet controller, a third fan connector, a seventh USB port (couldn’t we get eight?), improved onboard graphics outputs, or a second M.2 port. Heck, the Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC doesn’t even support legacy SATA M.2 modules, which means some users will need to start from scratch rather than upgrade, and it’s not like the extra connection would have required an additional controller.

The Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC adds a Gen2 USB 3.1 controller, but that was something missing from its competitor’s product and hardly justifies all the other missing stuff. But maybe it doesn’t need to. The Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC just works better. And some people don’t want the “stuff.”

I’m not one to pay for features I’m not getting, and I probably wouldn’t buy a board that supported only one M.2 module and one case fan. I accept there are those that will. And the Z370I Gaming Pro Carbon AC works so well, it just might be their perfect choice.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Gaming And Streaming: Which CPU Is Best For Both?

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 14:00:00 +0000

Introduction

Game streaming is immensely popular right now. And with more than 2 million broadcasters serving approximately 100 million viewers a month, Twitch is unquestionably the leading platform for gamers looking to show off their skills.

Streaming is pretty easy to set up once you decide what you'll use to encode your content. There are several options, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. Hardware-accelerated encoders, powered by Nvidia's NVEnc, AMD's Video Coding Engine, and Intel's QuickSync, all promise to wrap your gaming experience up in a good-looking and easy-to-stream package without hammering your CPU. But it's generally agreed that these encoders sacrifice quality and flexibility compared to software-based alternatives.

Conversely, software encoding with the x264 library is easy alongside utilities like Open Broadcaster Software (OBS) and XSplit. It offers better stream quality than GPU-driven approaches, but at similar bit rates. That's important for services with defined bit rate limitations (like Twitch). Streaming can also chip away at bandwidth caps. Just one hour of streaming at 10 Mb/s equals 4.5GB of data, so you want the most efficient encoder possible.

A host processing-based approach offers more flexible configuration options. Better quality comes at a price, though. Software encoding is a CPU-intensive process, which obviously tugs the other way against our usual aim of running games at the highest frame rates possible.

Hitching, stuttering, lag, and generally bad performance curse gamers who try doing too much with limited software encoding resources. Thus, it's often recommended to use a secondary system for high-quality streaming. In fact, that's the best way to achieve an unencumbered gaming experience while also providing your audience a crisp video stream. That requires attaching your gaming rig to another computer via capture card or local area network to offload the encoding workload, though. Many casual gamers simply don't have the money for such a configuration.

Software encoding can have a huge impact on gaming performance. Until recently, if you wanted to stream and game using the highest-quality solutions on one PC, you almost assuredly had to buy a pricey CPU with lots of threads to throw at the problem. But now those high-end desktop processors are more accessible than ever. AMD's Ryzen 7 chips lowered the bar for getting lots of cores into affordable platforms, and most games can't fully utilize them. That leaves lots of horsepower leftover for streaming at a reasonable price.

Intel's Coffee Lake processors recently debuted with more cores as well, giving those Ryzen CPUs a run for their money in multi-tasked, multi-threaded workloads. Good thing, too. As we'll see, the previous-gen Kaby Lake architecture simply cannot compete against like-priced AMD alternatives. Today's story compares a number of different host processors in combined gaming/streaming workloads. Along the way, we developed test methodology you'll see used in our future CPU reviews.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Test Setup

How We Tested

Repeatability is one of the most important components of any useful benchmark methodology. All tests have some degree of uncertainty, but we're looking for a minimal and consistent amount of variability. Results plagued by wild swings in performance from one run to the next aren't usable as accurate benchmarks.

As an example, we've yet to develop any reliable multi-tasking benchmarks. In response to reader requests, we have worked diligently to create a series of tests that measure gaming performance with background applications like Web browsers, email clients, media players, Discord, and Skype open. Windows' prioritization appears to be based on fickle and unexplained factors. The operating system suspends various background processes unpredictably during one scripted sequence, then leaves them fully active during the next (even when the test environment hasn't changed). This unpredictability becomes more, well, unpredictable, as the number of open applications increases. Switching Windows into Game Mode only complicates matters further. So far, we have no solution. Our multi-tasking experiments yield deltas from 5 to 15 FPS between successive runs, which means they land nowhere near our expectations for a reliable benchmark.

Luckily, game streaming is much easier to control. Encoding is a CPU-intensive task that chews up plenty of cycles, so Windows doesn't suspend or otherwise interfere with it. This allows us to create repeatable benchmarks without extreme outliers.

What We're Measuring

Evaluating game streaming performance works across two axes: game quality and stream quality. Of course, we'll measure average, minimum, and 99th percentile frame rates with and without streaming in the background. We'll also include our usual frame time and variance results, which become more important once we start streaming.

We also need to account for stream quality. That means recording the percentage of frames encoded. Each processor pushes different frame rates, so each run correspondingly generates a different number of frames. As such, we measure the percentage of frames successfully encoded as "% of Frames Delivered." In the test below, a Threadripper 1950X CPU encoded 98.9% of the frames generated by our gaming session, meaning it skipped 1.1% of the frames due to encoding lag.

We're streaming at 60 FPS, so we also measure stream quality by listing the percentage of frames encoded within the desirable 16.667ms (60 FPS) threshold. We also include the percentage of frames that land above and below the 60 FPS threshold, which helps quantify the hitching and stuttering a viewer would see on the stream. Subjective visual measurements are still important, so we'll call out tests that generate a bad-looking stream.

Open Broadcaster System

There are several software encoding applications, but we chose Open Broadcasting System (OBS) due to its flexible tuning options, detailed output logs, and broad compatibility with streaming services. We're using the x264 software encoder, along with YouTube Gaming for our streaming service. Any run that reports frames dropped due to networking interference is discarded.

Our ultimate goal is to develop a test that measures CPU performance, so we select parameters that remove the most obvious bottlenecks. Gaming at 1920x1080 with an EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE side-steps a GPU limitation (as much as possible). Encoding overhead isn't as high with lesser video cards that generate fewer frames per second. We also test with a 10 Mb/s upload rate, though you can stream at 6 Mb/s or less. Our Internet connection would accommodate up to 35 Mb/s uploads. To vary game selection, we chose Grand Theft Auto V, Middle-earth: Shadow of War, and Battlefield 1 for our tests.

There are several other scenarios we could have added to increase the complexity of our testing, such as a simultaneous video stream from a webcam, recording the game to the host system, or streaming to multiple services at once. We went with just one service to reduce the number of variables...at least for now.

Finding the best streaming options requires some tuning for every game and hardware configuration. There is a delicate balance between game performance on the host system and stream quality for the remote viewer, so fine-tuning is needed to yield the best mix. We picked somewhat general settings that offered a good range of performance by our subjective measure. We also stuck with options that'd establish a level playing field for a wide range of test systems. Just be aware that there are plenty of knobs to turn, some of which could offer better performance than the ones we use (lowering the stream to 30 FPS, for instance, cuts encoding overhead significantly)

Tuning the encoding presets is one of the most direct ways to adjust streaming performance and quality for your system's capabilities. Slower encoding increases compression efficiency, which provides better output quality and reduces compression artifacts. OBS has 10 presets ranging from "ultrafast" (the lowest-quality setting with the least computational overhead) to "placebo" (offering the best streaming quality and consuming the most host processing resources). The placebo setting is aptly named; there is certainly a rapidly diminishing rate of return on stream quality after passing the "slower" preset (two ticks before placebo). More strenuous settings can quickly cripple even powerful processors, particularly if you are streaming from a single host system. Placebo with care.

We split our test groups into three different classes. After evaluating a few Core i3- and Ryzen 3-class processors and determining that they can't stream effectively at our settings, we chose Ryzen 5 and Core i5 models for our entry-level systems. We used the "veryfast" encoding setting for this class of CPU. Naturally, higher-end processors, such as our Ryzen 7/Core i7 and Threadripper/Core i9 chips, offer more performance, so we use the "faster" and "fast" settings, respectively, for brawnier CPUs.

Because we're testing with different encoding presets, you cannot compare test results for the different classes directly.

Test System & Configuration

Hardware

Intel LGA 1151 (Z370)Intel Core i5-8600K, Core i7-8700KMSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sAMD Socket AM4AMD Ryzen 5 1600X, Ryzen 7 1800XMSI Z370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 MT/sIntel LGA 1151 (Z270)Intel Core i5-7600K, Core i7-7700K MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sAMD Socket SP3 (TR4)AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950XAsus X399 ROG Zenith Extreme4x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sIntel LGA 2066Intel Core i9-7900X, Core i9-7980XEMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sAll EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500-TI, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703Corsair H115i

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Intel Core i5 & AMD Ryzen 5

We generated our stream using the "veryfast" encoder preset for this class of processors.

AMD Ryzen 5 1600X

Intel Core i5-8600K

Intel Core i5-7600K

Battlefield 1

First, we run a set of baseline tests to gauge performance without an active YouTube stream. Intel's Core i5-8600K fares best, but the Core i5-7600K and Ryzen 5 1600X aren't far behind.

The story changes when we add streaming to the mix. All three CPUs lose varying amounts of performance, with Ryzen 5 1600X ending up on top (though not by much).

We have two entries in our charts for the Kaby Lake-based Core i5-7600K: normal and high-priority. First, let's talk about the normal results. Intel's 4C/4T architecture hamstrings the Core i5-7600K, and it loses nearly half of its average frame rate. Unsurprisingly, this has an impact on in-game frame time variance and unevenness measurements. Those numbers don't tell the entire story, though. Battlefield 1 is basically unplayable due to hitching and stuttering during our stream.

The stream quality chart shows that Core i5-7600K only delivers 23.6% of its frames during the test, which means it drops an astounding 76.4% of the frames. This also results in a completely unwatchable stream. Flip over to the CPU utilization charts; they tell a profound story. In short, Core i5-7600K doesn't have any headroom available to handle the parallelized encoding workload throughout most of our benchmark.

The OBS software has several different settings to optimize performance, and adjusting process priority is a common tactic to improve streaming on Kaby Lake-based processors. So, we selected the high-priority setting (marked HP Stream in the charts). Effectively, this allows the encoder to steal cycles from the game engine, resulting in lower frame rates. But the encoder successfully processes 100% of the frames. Our Core i5-7600K fell to 51.6 FPS, and its 99th percentile measurements nosedived. On the flip side, less performance means fewer frames to encode per second, which in turn boosts encoding efficiency. Surprisingly, 91.05% of the frames landed within the desirable 16.667ms range.

We could always dial-back the encoder preset to accommodate Intel's lackluster -7600K, but similarly-priced processors in the test pool handle these quality settings adeptly. While streaming, Core i5-8600K provides nearly the same in-game average frame rate as AMD's Ryzen 5 1600X and it encodes 100% of the frames. The -8600K's streaming quality isn't as impressive as Ryzen's: 89.44% of frames land within the desirable range and ~10% of frames fall either above or below the threshold. In our opinion, the stream looked fine, but wasn't as smooth as the Ryzen 5 1600X's output.

A glance at the 99th percentile FPS chart tells us that Ryzen 5 1600X delivers the smoothest gaming experience during our streaming session. It also has plenty of reserves left in the tank, even during the streaming workload. In other words, you could probably increase the encoding preset to a higher level than the competing processors.

AMD's Ryzen CPUs don't overclock as well as Core processors, though. We tuned each model to see if the Intel's available headroom turned the tables. The x264 encoder uses AVX instructions extensively, so it serves as a nice stress test for overclocking stability. No doubt, Coffee Lake's AVX offset could come in handy, though it might also result in lower frequencies during streaming if you activate the feature (or leave it on Auto in the UEFI).

Overclocking nudges the Core i5-7600K ahead of Ryzen 5 1600X during our baseline gaming test, but it does little to rectify the issues encountered during our streaming workload. Four threads just can't hack it. Streaming suffers even after adjusting the priority status. The -7600K does serve up a higher percentage of frames with the overclocked settings and normal prioritization, but it still costs the chip game performance. Priority adjustments have little bearing on gaming smoothness: the -7600K's 99th percentile measurements are terrible with both settings.

A 4.9 GHz overclock does boost the Coffee Lake-based Core i5-8600K's 99th percentile measurements. However, it still trails Ryzen 5 1600X. The tuned -8600K is certainly competitive thanks to a compelling gaming experience, but it can't match the Ryzen 5 1600X's streaming performance. It's apparent the encoder appreciates lots of threads, so Ryzen's 12 are a big advantage.

The frame time chart summarizes in-game performance well. Kaby Lake-based processors scribble their way across with extreme variance. The Core i5-8600K is also easy to spot during our streaming workload. Meanwhile, Ryzen 5 1600X provides a much more consistent in-game experience.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V scales well with additional host processing resources and tends to favor Intel architectures. It isn't surprising to see the Core CPUs lead during our baseline tests. But we weren't expecting the Core i5-8600K to maintain its advantage over the competition while streaming.

The Core i5-8600K delivers 100% of its frames during the test, though only 89.71% fall into the perfect 60 FPS bucket. We see a nearly even split of 5% above and below that mark. Visually, the stream looks fine. The -8600K takes more of a hit in the 99th percentile measurements, though it still leads the rest of our contenders.

AMD's Ryzen 5 1600X starts out with the lowest average frame rate during our baseline and falls to 60.7 FPS during the stream. It doesn't suffer too badly in 99th percentile measurements. Meanwhile, the chip provides stellar streaming performance, dropping no frames and almost landing at a smooth 60 FPS.

The Core i5-7600K provides a decent gaming experience during normal streaming, churning out 79.2 FPS. That's because it really isn't encoding frames, though—it drops 84.9% of them. The stream is unwatchable by any measurement. Again, we can boost the -7600K's encoding performance to 100% by specifying high priority, but then the gaming experience is terrible. In fact, large portions of the scene simply do not render correctly.

Overclocking the Core i5-7600K doesn't help; it's still entirely saturated during the streaming test. But tuning does benefit Intel's Core i5-8600K, which leads the pack in both average and 99th percentile metrics. Its streaming quality is decent as well.

The Ryzen 5 1600X's performance improves after overclocking, too. It doesn't provide the absolute best frame rate while streaming, but it is perfectly playable. Also, Ryzen 5 1600X still offers the smoothest stream, if only just barely.

Middle-earth: Shadow of War

Intel's Core i5-7600K continues to disappoint. It serves up an average of 51.4 FPS while streaming (using the high priority setting) and encoding 100% of the frames. Unfortunately, game smoothness goes out the window again. The 15.9 FPS 99th percentile measurement tells us everything we need to know.

The Ryzen 5 1600X offers decent gaming performance while streaming, but that Coffee Lake-based -8600K continues leading.

AMD's Ryzen 5 1600X offers the best of both worlds, though Core i5-8600K is also very capable. Perhaps tuning the encode could get more performance from the Intel chip. Then again, you could say the same thing about Ryzen 5, which offers the best mix of streaming and frame rates in its class. It's obvious from these results that a Kaby Lake-based Core i5 owner needs to dial back streaming settings dramatically or turn to faster hardware.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Ryzen 7 & Intel Core i7

Paying more for a processor should also get you more performance, right? With that in mind, we're stepping up to the "faster" encoder preset for this CPU class.

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X

Intel Core i7-8700K

Intel Core i7-7700K (Kaby Lake)

Battlefield 1

The Core i5-7600K disappointed us in the previous round of tests, and Core i7-7700K picks up where the i5 left off. This chip just isn't well-equipped for streaming, despite the additional four threads enabled by Hyper-Threading. The -7700K dropped 94.3% of our frames using the normal settings, which comes as a side effect of excessive CPU utilization. We triggered the high priority setting to try rectifying this situation, but were presented the same bipolar behavior as Intel's Core i5-7600K. There just isn't a straightforward way around saturated CPU cores. You can either stream well or game well, but you can't do both with Kaby Lake-based processors and OBS streaming at 1920x1080/60FPS.

The Ryzen 7 1800X bears down with eight cores and 16 threads to provide solid streaming and gaming performance.

Core i7-8700K, which brings Coffee Lake up to a Hyper-Threaded six-core design, also performs well in this test. Overall, it offers the best gaming performance while streaming, 99th percentiles included. It even ekes past Ryzen 7 1800X with 100% of frames encoded to the stream. AMD's Ryzen 7 delivers 99.9% of the frames, and dropping 0.1% doesn't concern us. The stream is still smooth.

Overclocked, Ryzen 7 1800X delivers an ever-so-slightly better stream. But the Core i7-8700K leads in overall gaming performance. Of course, the 1800X's 117.8 FPS average, while streaming, is plenty impressive. Both processors prove up to this task.

Our encoding workload pegs the -7700K's cores at 100%, while the high priority settings help bring down CPU utilization. Simply, that's because the CPU has fewer frames to encode as a result of lower gaming performance.

Grand Theft Auto V

The Core i7-8700K takes a healthy lead during the baseline and streaming tests. It even provides more in-game performance while streaming than an unencumbered Ryzen 7 1800X.

Ryzen 7 1800X again achieves lower gaming performance, but a slightly superior stream than Intel's -8700K. The differences are pretty much imperceptible, though. Kaby Lake, on the other hand, simply can't compete.

Turning up the clocks benefits Coffee Lake greatly. Core i7-8700K offers the best overall performance, while Ryzen 7 1800X is competitive.

Middle-earth: Shadow of War

Coffee Lake continues to impress with strong in-game and streaming performance. The Ryzen 7 1800X does encode a higher percentage of frames than -8700K within the desirable 16.667ms range, but it also generates fewer frames. AMD's Ryzen does have more headroom to spare during our streaming workload though, so it'd likely accommodate more taxing encode presets.

We find that the stream frame time variance isn't very noticeable unless the 16.667ms percentage drops below a 90% threshold, such as what we see from Intel's Core i7-7700K. The -7700K does serve up better frame rates while it's streaming, even besting AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X. But that goes to show why we need to keep an eye on performance from every angle. Core i7-7700K drops 40% of its frames during this test! That makes any gaming performance advantage meaningless.

Ryzen 7 1800X musters a solid 75.4 FPS during the streaming test and provides a crisp stream to YouTube, as well.

Overclocking amplifies the trends we've been talking about. The same inherent strengths and weaknesses are still apparent. Ryzen 7 1800X and Core i7-8700K are both solid choices for streaming.

The Core i7-7700K demonstrates lower CPU utilization than usual during this test. Surprisingly, that doesn't equate to a usable combination of in-game and streaming performance, though, suggesting other architectural influences may be affecting our numbers.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

AMD Threadripper & Intel Skylake-X i9

You expect the best when you drop $1000+ on a CPU for gaming and streaming simultaneously. So, we shifted to the "fast" setting for this round of tests.

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X

Intel Core i9-7900X

Intel Core i9-7980XE

Battlefield 1

AMD didn’t design Threadripper for "just" gaming, particularly at lower resolutions. But an intense streaming workload might expose more of the architecture's benefits.

Threadripper does have several configurable modes to tailor to its response to various tasks, as we outlined in our AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X Game Mode, Benchmarked article. Game Mode and Creator Mode both impact various titles differently, and we expect those same trends to carry over to our streaming benchmark. As such, we tested the Threadripper 1950X both ways.

The Threadripper 1950X pulls into range of Intel's Skylake-X models during our baseline tests. Creator Mode (CM) exposes all 32 of the 1950X's available threads, yielding more potential horsepower than Game Mode (GM). The 1950X's Creator Mode also makes it possible to encode 100% of the test run's frames, while Game Mode drops 1.6% of them. That isn't a huge sacrifice, but Game Mode also causes Threadripper to average 26 FPS fewer. That means it isn't encoding as many frames, either. We would have expected higher frame rates from a lighter encoding workload, but disabling half of the 1950X's threads in pursuit of higher game performance doesn't always work well when you're streaming, too.

The 18C/36T Core i9-7980XE doesn't perform as well as the 10C/20T Core i9-7900X during the streaming tests. Rather, the -7980XE stumbles in the smoothness department as its 99th percentile frame rates fall below the Threadripper 1950X, despite a lead in average frame rates.

Aside from Threadripper 1950X in Game Mode, all of these processors encode 100% of the frames.

The Core i9-7980XE's game performance is higher than the Threadripper models during our streaming test after bumping up clock rates. It also delivers a much better 99th percentile measurement.

AMD's Threadripper configurations fare better after tuning, too. Both encode 99.9% of the frames we send their way, which is adequate for a quality stream.

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V's in-game performance goes Intel's way during the baseline benchmarks. Moreover, Core i9-7980XE redeems itself when it comes time to stream. That chip does command quite a premium though, so its advantage doesn't necessarily represent the best value.

Again, Threadripper's Game Mode just doesn't appear to be ideal for streaming. Game Mode provides better baseline frame rates in this title, but it falls to the bottom of our chart once we start encoding video.

Middle-earth: Shadow of War

Once again, Intel's processors offer the best in-game and streaming performance. This isn't entirely surprising; Threadripper may even be overkill for this type of enthusiast workload. We'd expect the architecture to handle workstation-class production workflows more adeptly.

Core i9-7900X does encounter a hiccup as its 99th percentile scores fall below Threadripper 1950X's during the streaming workload. The 1950X in Creator Mode also experiences some variance, with 20.38% of its frames falling below the 16.667ms threshold.

Even after a bit of tuning, Core i9-7900X provides a higher average frame rate than the 1950X in Creator Mode during our streaming benchmark, but can't match AMD's 99th percentile performance.

The Threadripper 1950X's difficulty in Creator Mode while streaming Middle-earth is even more pronounced. Some aspect of OBS doesn't agree with Creator Mode and this one game. We ran the tests several times to ensure it was a repeatable phenomenon.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

AMD democratized access to high core counts with an attractively-priced Ryzen portfolio. In a way, we can thank the company for Intel's newfound interest in competing on a $/core basis. Just look at the difference in our results from Kaby Lake to Coffee Lake. As a result, high-quality software encoding on a gaming PC is becoming more realistic to mainstream gamers.

Our testing is indicative of general performance trends. Given enough time and energy, you could almost certainly improve upon our results. Part of that is by design: we're using these settings to compare large groups of processors against one another on a level playing field, as opposed to wringing the most performance out of any one processor. While we can't use our benchmarks to make definitive statements about the possibilities with each chip, we can draw some fair conclusions about how certain architectures behave.

Encoding is a parallelizable workload. If software encoding is your primary goal, you'll definitely want to seek out CPUs with lots of cores and simultaneous multi-threading capabilities. Intel's quad-core Kaby Lake models illustrate how chips that once offered class-leading gaming performance can fall apart during streaming. You can boost their performance by using less intensive quality presets, lowering the streaming frame rate, or sacrificing some quality with GPU acceleration. However, competing processors offer much more performance than Kaby Lake at the same presets and roughly the same price.

Many streamers place video quality over maximizing the frame rate of whatever game they're playing, so your own priorities will largely dictate how you tune your system. In fact, turning on v-sync may be a good way to balance streaming and gaming performance.If you seek the highest in-game performance while you stream, Intel's Coffee Lake-based Core i7-8700K is a good fit. The Ryzen 7 1800X is also competitive and tends to offer better streaming performance. Using our settings, the 1800X also had more CPU headroom leftover for more taxing encode settings, if desired. Granted, some of that extra horsepower is due to the 1800X's lower gaming performance, which means there are fewer frames to encode.

Two extra cores on the Coffee Lake-based Core i5 certainly help its standing, but the lack of Hyper-Threading has a definite impact on streaming performance. In the end, a six-core Core i5-8600K is forced to battle the 12-thread Ryzen 5 1600X, which offers a more balanced profile. Overclocking does help Intel somewhat. It can't overcome the advantage AMD gets from a more thread-heavy architecture, but it shrinks the gap somewhat in streaming workloads.

If you're really serious about streaming and gaming at the same time, the highest-end desktop CPUs are an option. Just expect to pay dearly for them. Most enthusiasts are better served by mainstream processors. Intel's Core i9 models generally provide better performance than the Threadripper 1950X, but they cost more, too. The 1950X is a solid value choice that also offers a diverse range of capabilities.

There are plenty of other solid options for gaming/streaming, and this introductory round of tests only focused on high-end models from each family. We'll expand our testing to locked SKUs as we work through coming CPU reviews.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

EVGA Z370 FTW Motherboard Review

Thomas Soderstrom — Thu, 28 Dec 2017 14:00:00 +0000

Specifications & Features

What set of features qualifies an enthusiast-market board to be labeled as high-end? Once upon a time it was just a second network controller, a storage controller, and a big voltage regulator for overclocking. Such boards were typically priced around $180. Since then, superfluous features such as onboard RGB lighting and multiple headers for RGB strips have worked their way down to enthusiast mainstream, while the traditional high-end market has worked its way up to the $220+ price point. On the contrary, “we don’t need no stinking RGB” is the mantra we keep hearing from a small group of enthusiasts who pine for the more traditional “blacked out” aesthetic. Before that, a similarly small group was asking “why would I want Wi-Fi on a desktop.” But we digress.

EVGA responds to these sentiments with an overclocking board that’s all business, if your business is gaming and/or overclocking. The firm even ditched the second network controller traditionally found on high-end boards, giving its Z370 FTW a solidly enthusiast mainstream feature set, apart from the big voltage regulator. And if you’d gladly give up a few controllers that you’re probably not going to use anyway just to get a decent price on a solid board, the Z370 FTW might just be the design you were looking for. But will it meet your other expectations?

Specifications

A high-bandwidth USB 3.1 Gen 2 controller is the one other add-in that separates EVGA’s Z370 FTW from most enthusiast mainstream boards, though it doesn’t extend to a front-panel header often found on high-end boards. The inclusion pushes I/O panel USB ports to eight, with the other six being the USB 3.0 variety that so many of EVGA’s competitors have renamed “USB 3.1 Gen 1.”

Other I/O panel features include DisplayPort 1.4, HDMI 1.2, an Intel PHY-fed Gigabit Ethernet port, five analog audio jacks enabling live 7.1 surround from Realtek’s upper-level ALC1220 codec, and a digital optical connector that, as usual for onboard sound, provides surround channels only from pre-encoded sources. EVGA also provides a CLR_CMOS button on the I/O panel to assist overclockers who’ve already closed their cases.

Is screen printing a feature? Handy labels allow builders to instantly recognize which slots and ports are shared with their M.2 interfaces. Intended for consumer-added notebook Wi-Fi modules, the Key-E slot at the top shares the PCIe x1 slot above the second PCIe x16 connector, which seems a little strange since the slot below that connector is more likely to be blocked by a graphics card’s cooler. The other two M.2 slots are exclusively for PCIe NVMe drives, yet can steal two lanes each from SATA ports thanks to the flexible HSIO design of Intel’s Z370 PCH.

The switch above the second x1 connector allows its lane to feed either it or the Key-E slot. Four additional switches carry two lanes each to automatically configure the two metal-reinforced x16-length slots as x16/x0 or x8/x8 via automatic card detection.

Rather than stuff the HD-Audio front panel connector in the bottom rear corner, EVGA put the Z370 FTW’s slot-boosting auxiliary power header there. That in turn pushes the front panel audio connector forward along the bottom edge, where it’s within easier reach of the associated cable. Farther forward are an S/PDIF internal output, two 4-pin fan headers, a USB 2.0 header, a USB 3.0 header, and the front-panel power/reset/activity LED group. Anyone fearing that a graphics card in the lower x16-length slot might prevent the use of that USB 3.0 header needs to reconsider card placement, as it’s only wired to four lanes through the PCH.

The front edge features six SATA 6Gb/s ports, another USB 3.0 header, a dual-firmware selection switch, the 24-pin main power connector, a POST code display, reset and power buttons, and another four-pin fan header. Three additional four-pin fan headers along the top edge complete the periphery.

The Z370 FTW includes a flexible SLI bridge, two SATA cables, two thermal pads, an I/O shield, driver disc, manual, and case badge.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

BIOS & Overclocking

Registered users are welcome to download EVGA’s overclocking utility, but it’s not included on the disc. Intel has one too, called Extreme Tuning Utility but abbreviated XTU. We began our overclocks in firmware.

Simple menus allow users to quickly get comfortable with the Z370 FTW’s GUI, but they also have some limitations. One of these limitations is its use of Intel’s stock power limits when configured with a “stock” multiplier, including the selection of a 47x fixed ratio for all core loads, which is the default Turbo Boost max for our CPU with single core loads. Breaking out of the power envelope forced us to choose 48x instead, which should have been fine for a processor that typically reaches 4848 MHz max under 12-thread AVX loads.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a voltage configuration to reach 4848 MHz, due in part to this processor’s thermal constraints. It typically pushes around 96° core temperature at 1.30V core with our unusually high validation load, and a little more voltage pushes it past its throttle temperature. EVGA does not offer “levels” of “Vdroop” control, but instead threw around 80mV at our fully-laden core when set to “Vdroop Disabled,” and allowed core voltage to sag by nearly as much when set to “Vdroop enabled.” Setting 1.30V with “Vdroop Enabled” allowed the voltage to sink so low under stress that I couldn’t overclock whatsoever. Setting 1.235V with “Vdroop Disabled” allowed it to run at 1.305 to 1.315V at full load. With thermal limits still in play and the 47x multiplier hampered by the default power-limit throttling, the only fixed-frequency overclock I could get used a 48x multiplier at 99MHz.

The screen shots represent a slight slight-of-hand, as enabling XMP would reset the BCLK to 100 MHz. I was able to choose a higher mulitiplier however, and setting XMP plus a memory frequency of 4000 pushed our modules to DDR4-4000 at default XMP timings.

Users of M.2-based NVMe drives must enable the corresponding slot manually through the Advanced > Onboard Device Configuration submenu.

We don’t see any voltage-mode options for the PWM fan headers, nor do we see custom fan slopes. The factory slope kept our fans quiet under most loads, “Max” gave us a 100% duty cycle for thermal and overclocking evaluations, and the other options are fixed duty cycle between “Off” and “Max” in 1% intervals.

The Z370 FTW also allows users to save custom firmware settings as user profiles through both onboard ROM and USB flash drives.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

Our three previous ATX form-factor Z370 boards set the baseline for comparing EVGA’s Z370 FTW.

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Back during the X299 launch, I upgraded my test bed to handle the tremendous heat produced by the Core i9-7900X. Our award-winning Fractal Design S24 liquid cooler system sample serves the same purpose for the newer, lower heat Core i7-8700K. Cooler Master’s HAF-XB provides an optimal layout to blow the Celsius S24’s fans sufficiently over each motherboard’s voltage regulator.

Comparison Products

EVGA Z370 FTW

ASRock Z370 Taichi

Gigabyte Z370 Aorus Gaming 7

Settings that are more granular typically allow overclockers to more-easily reach their target, but EVGA’s listed 1mV setting steps are deceiving in that we can’t really tell where we’ll end up without excessive testing. For example, DRAM voltage measured at the slot shot straight from 1.340V to 1.365V after changing its setting from 1.320V to 1.325V. CPU core voltage appeared to change in 8mV intervals, though the increments shown in firmware were still just 1mV.

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4k Random Read, 4k Random Write128k Sequential Read, 128k Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests and Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19 GB 4k mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6 GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark driven routine
Game Tests and Settings
Ashes of Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920x1090, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, RainMedium Preset, No AFxUltra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, VeryHigh Quality, VeryHigh Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Conclusion

We always enable every power-saving feature of our CPU for both the benchmark comparison and the combined power/thermal test, yet not every manufacturer has the same idea about what the CPU’s power limit should be. After finding the Z370 FTW pulling only 129W from the wall with 12 threads of Prime95 running (small FFTS), a check with Intel’s XTU monitoring revealed that the cores were hovering between 4.0 GHz and 4.1 GHz while being power throttled. A check through every firmware setting revealed no means with which to change the power throttle point, and increasing the short and long power maximums under Intel XTU had no effect.

The default Cache IccMax was found to be holding it back. Increasing that to its XTU limit, we finally reached 4.30 GHz all-cores-loaded with no current limit throttling.

The impact on benchmarks had been nil, since none of our regular benchmarks hold a sustained maximum AVX load. Power draw shot up to 148W, despite the erroneous 51W shown in Intel XTU.

Synthetic Benchmark Results

Synthetic benchmarks are great for identifying problems, but we don’t see any across the four Z370 boards.

The Z370 FTW falls consistently near the top of synthetic tests despite its low current limit default. We attribute this to good memory timings at DDR4-2133 defaults, as revealed in its Sandra Memory Bandwidth scores.

3D Games

The Z370 FTW wins at our lower Ashes setting, edging out the second-place contender by a mere 1 FPS. It’s consistently in second place against an ever-changing first-place holder in other games.

The official benchmark scores have all features enabled, including the Nahimic audio solution of the Z370 Godlike Gaming. A look back at that board’s review shows higher frame rates with the software disabled. As in most other benchmarks, the Z370 FTW takes second place.

Timed Applications

The Z370 FTW falls to third place in a few of our timed tests, but first and second place move around so much that it’s hard to define a clear leader.

Power, Heat & Efficiency

Even with the power limit uncapped to the best of our abilities, the Z370 FTW still draws significantly less than its competitors. Remembering that this is a 95W CPU, it appears that those competitors are the ones doing something “wrong.” Wrong is a moving target in a test where Intel’s default TDP is unrealistic, particularly for an enthusiast market where board manufacturers are often encouraged to ignore that spec.

Lower power means less heat, but that mostly applies to the CPU. EVGA also cools its voltage regulator far better than most competitors, even surpassing the barely-warm Z370 Godlike Gaming.

You’re probably thinking that these boards can’t all have above-average performance, but that average also includes two previously-tested Mini ITX boards that were slightly handicapped in at least one test by their two-DIMM limit. Our four DIMMs are single rank, and this CPU works best with at least four ranks populated . . .

. . . but we probably shouldn’t let memory discussions distract us from the larger story in the above chart: EVGA’s low power consumption and second place overall performance give it a commanding lead in efficiency!

Overclocking

Unfortunately, the Z370 FTW didn’t win any prizes in overclocking. While the hardware appeared adequately stout, its range of settings weren’t as well-aligned to the thermal limits of this CPU sample. Offset voltage and variable ratios (more frequency when fewer cores are deployed) would produce better real-world results for most users.

Though far from a stellar data rate, the DRAM overclock was likewise limited by our use of 1.340V (detected at the slot). Any VDIMM increase caused it to jump to 1.365V detected, violating our test policy. DDR4-4000 at 1.340V is actually a very good result.

The best part is that the Z370 FTW’s DDR4-4000 setting produced more bandwidth than any other motherboard, surging ahead of the second place Z370 Aorus Gaming 7’s DDR4-4040.

Final Thoughts

EVGA’s Z370 FTW is the cheapest ATX board we’ve tested in this review series, so it’s going to have the highest performance-per-dollar. That really only matters if you don’t want any of the added features provided on competing samples.

Putting aside the features that people considering this board certainly don’t want (Boo RGB?), the second cheapest board in the chart also has dual Gigabit Ethernet, onboard Wi-Fi, front-panel USB 3.1 Gen 2 support via a second controller, DTS connect to allow live audio surround content through the digital optical output, a third M.2 interface for NVMe drives, and even a bulkier installation kit. And before anyone asks again “why do I need Wi-Fi on a desktop.” remember that a few of us use our PC’s as a hotspot, and others may not necessarily have their PCs close enough to an Ethernet jack.

Conversely, I’d completely understand those who say “Boo $20 more.” Those features might not be worth $20 to you. I’m also not ready to dismiss the Z370 FTW’s low voltage regulator temperatures out-of-hand, since I understand that many users aren’t butting up against my thermal limits, and many more will instead be using offset voltage and flexible multipliers to achieve a more efficient O/C.

Hence I award the Z370 FTW our seal of approval. To anyone who comes to the comment section saying they wish they’d spent the extra $20 to get more features, I state preemptively that they should have read the review.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Gigabyte Z370N WiFi Motherboard Review

Thomas Soderstrom — Wed, 13 Dec 2017 14:00:01 +0000

Features & Specifications

If our X99 and X299 Mini-ITX motherboard reviews revealed anything, it’s that we, the enthusiast PC community, should have pushed manufacturers a little harder to develop motherboards for AMD’s proposed DTX form factor. Case makers were onboard, as the DTX proposal brought us the double-slot cube cases that could hold a Mini-ITX motherboard and double-slot graphics card. But DTX also extended board depth by 74mm, providing more space for DIMM slots and big voltage regulators without forcing cases to be either taller or wider. Yet the boards never came, and case makers repurposed the leftover space at the front of their cases for 3.5” drive bays. Because Micro-ATX is only semi-compact, Mini-ITX remains the only truly compact solution for performance enthusiasts.

Fewer CPU cores and memory channels have always made Intel’s mainstream platform a better fit for Mini-ITX’s diminutive 170mm depth, yet increased core count and onboard M.2 storage again cause us to question: Does Mini-ITX still provide enough component space for the compact builds of performance enthusiasts? Gigabyte sent its Z370N WiFi to help us find out.

Specifications

The biggest losses created by the Mini-ITX form factor appear to be the compact 4+2 phase voltage regulator and rear-placed M.2. Although the latter is merely a loss of convenience, the former could potentially hamper its ability to overclock our mighty Core i7-8700K CPU.

The I/O panel also looks a little sparse, but many of the missing connectors have already fallen out of favor with most buyers. The world market is quickly abandoning digital optical cables in favor of HDMI audio, so maybe the extra connector isn’t needed? And hardly anyone configures a 7.1 speaker system using analog jacks, so maybe three of those is OK? Perhaps we don’t really need 7.1-channel surround gaming anymore?

On one hand we find that the Type-C port connects only at 5 Gb/s through the chipset’s USB 3.0 controller, on the other we find that one of the two HDMI ports uses a MegaChips MCDP2800 to boost its 4K output capability to 60Hz. We also find Intel controllers for the two Gigabit Ethernet connections and 867 Mb/s Wi-Fi. Combining this broad range of pros and cons within a mainstream $160 price, it appears that Gigabyte had all-hands-on-deck for this launch.

You probably wanted to see the rear M.2 connector, which supports both 60mm and 80mm card length. We also see a few power regulation components, the i219V Gigabit Ethernet PHY, and an ITE Super I/O controller. Perhaps Gigabyte could have added a PS/2 port to the I/O panel, just to satisfy those who prefer old keyboards.

The top-side M.2 slot includes a heat spreader, and supports 42mm in addition to 60mm and 80mm drives. Behind it rests headers for a Digital LED strip, FP-Audio, and S/PDIF-Out. In front of it are headers for front-panel USB 2.0 and 3.0, an RGB-LED strip, and CLR_CMOS jumper. The Z370 PCH surprisingly resides underneath the M.2 heat spreader and slot, which could make this the most important on-board M.2 heatsink we’ve seen.

Three 4-pin fan headers are positioned along the Z370N WiFi’s top edge, and the front-panel LED/switch connector is found next to a beep-code speaker header near the center of the front edge. Only four SATA headers are available, but that number meets or exceeds the number of drive bays available in many compact cases.

The Z370N WiFi installation kit includes a magnetic stand-up Wi-Fi antenna, an I/O shield, two SATA cables (one with a right-angled end), and a case badge. Buyers also get a full user manual, quick installation guide, and a driver/application disc.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

Gigabyte App Center remains the sole launching point for most of Gigabyte’s applications, including software and driver updates, as described in our Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 review. The Z370N WiFi does not include the Creative audio suite of its high-end sibling, however.

Gigabyte’s OC mode sets 4.90 GHz at 1.40V, causing our system to crash. Either our CPU isn’t that good, or our stress test has a greater load than Gigabyte’s team anticipated. Auto Tuning also picks 4.90 GHz, but following that setting with a quick run of Prime95 small-FFTs tripped its over-current protection circuit.

Manual settings worked as expected, allowing our CPU to easily go up to its anticipated 4.80 GHz at 1.30V, but thermal throttling under Prime95 eventually forced us to choose lower settings.

Firmware

Gigabyte’s MIT remains the launch point for sub-menus where actual settings are found. We found, for example, that getting the system to stay at, or slightly above 100 MHz required a BCLK setting between 100.1 and 100.2 MHz. Our reading was around 99.6 MHz for the 100 MHz default setting.

After tinkering with 4.80 GHz and finding no combination of settings that didn’t cause thermal throttling, we settled for 4.70 GHz at a slightly lower voltage level.

The Z370N WiFi includes “Manual” configuration for combined timings, and “Advanced Manual” mode for per-channel timing adjustments. The timings you see are not necessarily the ones you’ll get, though. We found that the basic DDR4-2133 defaults labeled as 15-15-15-36 under current settings were actually running at 15-19-19-39. XMP got us to the expected DDR4-3866, but the motherboard responded to overclocks beyond XMP by increasing latency settings.

The Z370N WiFi reached its 4.70 GHz stable overclock at 1.245V CPU core and “High” Loadline Calibration settings. Further overclocking caused the voltage regulator MOS to initiate CPU thermal throttling, even after we added another fan. The lower voltage saved us approximately 40W at max load, so maybe the 4.7 GHz setting is better for extended use. Meanwhile, the 1.340V DRAM voltage setting pushed the DIMM slots to 1.355V.

All three fan headers can be manually switched between PWM and voltage mode for RPM regulation, and all three can be set to custom fan slopes. Automatic slopes are also programmed, as is automatic PWM/Voltage mode detection.

The RGB Fusion submenu is found under the Z370N WiFi’s Peripherals submenu. It’s simpler than on most Gigabyte boards, since it only controls the RGB header.

Like most Gigabyte motherboards, the Z370N WiFi includes Gigabyte’s Q-Flash firmware updating application.

Custom firmware settings can be saved as one of eight user profiles, or exported/imported to/from a drive.

Anyone who finds all those settings overwhelming can enter “Easy Mode” by pressing the F2 function key of the keyboard. From there, controls are limited to XMP/SPD memory settings, boot sequence, fan profile, and the performance modes shown in the Easytune software description near the top of this page.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

The first Mini-ITX motherboard in our Z370 review series, Gigabyte’s Z370N WiFi is forced to compete against its larger counterparts in both performance and overclocking. Fortunately, the smaller board also has a lower price that could give it a value lead.

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Back during the X299 launch, we upgraded our test bed to handle the tremendous heat produced by the Core i9-7900X. Our award-winning Fractal Design S24 liquid cooler system sample serves the same purpose for the newer, lower heat Core i7-8700K. Cooler Master’s HAF-XB provides an optimal layout to blow the Celsius S24’s fans sufficiently over each motherboard’s voltage regulator.

Comparison Products

Gigabyte Z370N WiFi

ASRock Z370 Taichi

Gigabyte Z370 Aorus Gaming 7

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4k Random Read, 4k Random Write128k Sequential Read, 128k Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests and Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19 GB 4k mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6 GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark driven routine
Game Tests and Settings
Ashes of Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920x1090, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, RainMedium Preset, No AFxUltra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, VeryHigh Quality, VeryHigh Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

We recently said “We're not beta testers and we don't do retakes,” yet here we are doing retake of sorts, in the form of a diagnostics test to determine just why the Z370N WiFi wasn't performing to par. First, we found that the default SPD timings of our memory (DDR4-2133 CAS 15) were being ignored for more-relaxed 15-19-19-39 timings.

Because we have never manually optimized timings for any of Gigabyte’s competitors, doing so for today’s test would invalidate our methods. But we had to find out if the slower timings were the actual cause of performance misses, or face a flurry of questions from the manufacturer. Thus, the board was retested after manually setting every timing to those falsely presented as “current values” in firmware. And once we had both sets of data, well, we couldn’t withhold that information from you. Thus, the Z370N WiFi is listed twice, once at the top of our charts where it belongs, and again at the bottom of our charts where the manual configuration can be compared.

Synthetic Benchmarks

Remember how we always say that synthetics are a great way to look for problems, such as unsanctioned overclocks or broken configurations? Well, the Z370 WiFi showed a little of that in our easiest 3DMark load, and manually setting the memory to its default SPD timings pushed the score up a little.

The Z370N WiFi took a big hit in Sandra Cryptography, and Sandra Memory Bandwidth shows us why. Adjusting the memory to its default timings allowed the board to get half its lost bandwidth back, and the rest? This is a two-slot board, and our four modules are single-ranked: Intel’s mainstream processors are optimized for four ranks.

The motherboard’s default timings worked surprisingly well in the GPU-optimized Compubench, so we’re hoping to see some interesting results in games!

3D Games

We’ve never known Ashes to be fussy about memory, but the Z370N WiFi fell far behind at motherboard default timings. Tightening those to the defaults programmed into the DIMMs returns most of the missing FPS.

Even Metro was impacted by the board’s use of CAS 15-19-19-39 on CAS 15-15-15-36 modules. Talos results were solid, and that’s a sore point for the MSI board with its Talos-compatible Nahimic Audio Solution enabled. A look back at that board’s review reveals higher frame rates with the software disabled.

Timed Applications

Remembering that lower is better when it comes to application completion time, the Z370N WiFi only looks good when its timings are manually configured to SPD defaults.

Power, Heat, & Efficiency

Differences in memory timings didn’t have a noticeable impact on our Power Consumption test. The Z370N WiFi runs hot and hungry under 12 threads of Prime95 small-FFTs.

The Z370N WiFi’s lower-than SPD memory timings pushed it around 6% below the average of most boards, but fixing those timings gets nearly 5% of the loss back. The remaining 1% can likely be attributed to the other boards being tested with four DIMMs, so we’re giving that portion a pass.

Overclocking

The biggest problem in overclocking the Z370 WiFi appeared to be its small heat sink, which allowed the voltage regulator to initiate thermal throttling at full loads above 1.25V CPU core. Then again, a bunch of our readers would probably prefer the lower core voltage for its lower impact on CPU longevity (and lower power use).

One reason we ran Gigabyte’s latest Z370N WiFi firmware was that it promised improved XMP performance. And maybe this is an improvement. After all, the CPU’s memory controller does have a preference for four ranks, and our modules are only single-rank.

Value Conclusion

The Z370N WiFi isn’t just the smallest Z370 board we’ve tested, it’s also the cheapest. This lower price is clearly the biggest factor in our Performance-Per-Dollar chart, in spite of the hefty performance loss of its poorly-configured memory timings. Optimizing the timings to SPD defaults cured that.

The hard part would be not to give an award to the board that clearly exceeded its competitors in our value charts. We could do a quick features-per-price analysis to come up with a reasonable rationale concerning things like its lack of USB 3.1 Gen2, but it’s really the overclocking problem and memory timings issue that puts us off. This is a Z370 board, and that’s supposed to be an overclocking-driven market. Some people don’t overclock, but for them the upcoming H370 may be a better fit. If Gigabyte can up its firmware game, we’d be far more willing to award a slightly cheaper, H370 version of the Z370 WiFi.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

MSI Debuts Overclockable 'Infinite X' Desktop

Derek Forrest — Thu, 16 Nov 2017 21:40:00 +0000

MSI debuted a new version of its Infinite series desktop PC featuring the latest Intel flagship 8^th generation (Coffee Lake) processor.

MSI’s Infinite X is a carbon copy of the original Infinite A in appearance, with an optional tempered glass side panel and an RGB front panel. A dual chamber chassis and Silent Storm Cooling 3 also make their return. However, unlike the Infinite A, the Infinite X sports a Z-series chipset motherboard, and the CPU can be overclocked. Previously, the Infinite A featured only locked (non -K) processors without overclocking capabilities, and the new Infinite X gives consumers looking for every drop of performance something to get excited about.

The Infinite X features an Intel Core i7-8700K processor on a Z370 motherboard and can be equipped with up to 64GB (4 x 16GB) DDR4-2400 memory and an MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti graphics card. For storage, the chassis supports up to two 3.5” HDDs and two 2.5” SSD/HDDs. The motherboard also sports two M.2 slots supporting PCIe 3.0 x4 and SATA SSDs, in addition to Intel Optane memory. A 550W 80 Plus Bronze certified power supply falls 50W shy of Nvidia’s recommended PSU for its GTX 1080 Ti, but this isn't an uncommon practice with OEMs (putting in slightly less powerful PSUs than what is recommended) and it shouldn't cause any major performance issues. Also, equipping the Infinite X with anything lower than a GTX 1080 Ti (such as a GTX 1080) won't have any issues with the 550W of juice available.

The new MSI Infinite X desktop PC is available now from various online retailers, starting at $1,699.99.

	MSI Infinite X Desktop PC
Processor	Intel Core i7-8700K
Memory	Up to 64GB (4 x 16GB) DDR4-2400
Graphics	Up to MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB GDDR5X
Storage	- 3.5” HDD x2- 2.5” SSD/HDD x2- M.2 x2
Ports	- USB 3.1 Gen 1 Type-C- USB 3.1 Gen 1 Type-A x5- USB 2.0 x2- PS/2
Display Output	- HDMI 2.0- DisplayPort 1.3
Networking	- Realtek 8111H Gigabit Ethernet- Intel Wireless AC 3168 w/Bluetooth 4.2
PSU	550W 80 Plus Bronze Certified
Dimensions	17.71 x 8.26 x 19.21”
Starting MSRP	$1,699.99

Overclocking Returns To Origin PC EON, ND, NS Laptops With Intel Core i7-8700K

Derek Forrest — Wed, 15 Nov 2017 14:00:00 +0000

Origin PC announced that its EON, ND, and NS gaming laptops would now be equipped with new Intel 8^th generation (Coffee Lake) Core i7 processors. In addition, these new versions sport a returning feature in the form of CPU overclocking.

The EON, ND, and NS laptops are all Clevo-designed shells, with Origin PC rebranding them and equipping the CPU, memory, and storage. Fitting these heavy-duty laptops with desktop processors has been commonplace since the debut of Intel’s Skylake architecture, with many custom shops offering these rebranded laptops with their respective personal touches.

Origin PC’s Skylake-equipped versions of these laptops were initially overclockable, a feature that Origin PC didn’t offer with the Kaby Lake iterations. However, the new versions feature Intel’s 8^th generation K-series processors, and Origin PC is again offering professional overclocking services with these devices. The company explained that improved thermal pads and heatsinks are the key to the return of the overclocking service.

The EON15-X, EON17-X, EON17-SLX, NS-15, NS-17, and ND-17 can all be equipped with up to an Intel Core i7-8700K processor and 64GB of DDR4-3000 memory. The EON15-X and NS-15, EON17-X and NS17, and EON17-SLX and ND-17 pair up with each other and split off from there with graphics, display, and storage options.

The EON15-X and NS-15 can be equipped with up to an Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 8GB GDDR5 graphics card and features a 15.6” 1920 x 1080 matte display with G-Sync onboard. The EON17-X and NS-17 step it up a notch with up to a GeForce GTX 1080 8GB GDDR5X graphics card and two different display options–a 17.3” 1920 x 1080 120Hz panel or a 17.3” 3840 x 2160 matte display, both of which feature G-Sync. The EON17-SLX and ND-17 can house up to two GeForce GTX 1080s in SLI and features the same display options as its single-GPU 17-inch counterparts (the EON17-X and NS-17).

For storage, the EON15-X, NS-15, EON17-X, and NS-17 can all be fitted with up to two 1TB PCIe NVMe M.2 SSDs in RAID 0 (striped) or 1 (mirrored). The beefier EON17-SLX and ND-17 can be equipped with up to three 1TB PCIe NVMe M.2 SSDs in RAID 0 or 1.

USB connectivity also sets each pair of models apart, with the EON15-X and NS-15 featuring two USB 3.1 Gen 2 Type-C ports, three USB 3.0 ports, and a USB 2.0 port. The EON17-X and NS-17 feature two USB 3.1 Gen 2 Type-C ports and four USB 3.0 ports. The EON17-SLX and ND-17 has two USB 3.1 Gen 2 Type-C ports and five USB 3.0 ports.

The Origin PC EON15-X, NS-15, EON17-X, NS-17, EON17-SLX, and ND-17 are available now from the company’s website, starting at $1,896, $1,937, $1,935, $1,967, $2,155, and $2,194, respectively.

Origin PC Laptop	EON15-X / NS-15	EON17-X / NS-17	EON17-SLX / ND-17
Processor	Up to Intel Core i7-8700K
Memory	Up to 64GB (4 x 16GB) DDR4-3000
Graphics	Up to Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 8GB GDDR5	Up to Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 8GB GDDR5X	Up to Dual Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 8GB GDDR5X
Display Options	15.6” 1920 x 1080 IPS Matte w/G-Sync	- 17.3” 1920 x 1080 120Hz w/G-Sync- 17.3” 3840 x 2160 Matte w/G-Sync	- 17.3” 1920 x 1080 120Hz w/G-Sync- 17.3” 3840 x 2160 Matte w/G-Sync
Storage	- Up to Dual 1TB PCIe NVMe M.2 SSD (RAID 0/1)- 2.5” SSD/HDD x2	- Up to Dual 1TB PCIe NVMe M.2 SSD (RAID 0/1)- 2.5” SSD/HDD x2	- Up to 3x 1TB PCIe NVMe M.2 SSD (RAID 0/1)- 2.5” SSD/HDD x2
USB Connectivity	- USB 3.1 Gen 2 Type-C x2- USB 3.0 x3- USB 2.0	- USB 3.1 Gen 2 Type-C x2- USB 3.0 x4	- USB 3.1 Gen 2 Type-C x2- USB 3.0 x5
Power Adapter	330W	330W	- 330W (Single GPU)- 330Wx2 (SLI Models)
Starting MSRP	- $1,896 (EON15-X)- $1,937 (NS-15)	- $1,935 (EON17-X)- $1,967 (NS-17)	- $2,155 (EON17-SLX)- $2,194 (ND-17)

ASRock Z370 Taichi ‘Coffee Lake’ Motherboard Review

Thomas Soderstrom — Sun, 05 Nov 2017 13:00:00 +0000

Features & Layout

High-end Z-series motherboards typically cost $220-280 and now represent the meaty middle of the enthusiast market. Like the Z270 model that came before it, ASRock’s Z370 Taichi targets the $220 demarcation between mainstream-enthusiast and high-end markets. And like the Z270 model that came before it, ASRock's Z370 Taichi provides a feature set that’s far closer to high-end than mainstream to woo buyers.

The new board replaces its predecessor’s PCH-based x16-length slot with an x1 slot that’s still able to hold longer cards but is less likely to be confused for a high-bandwidth slot, replaces its predecessor’s internally-mounted USB 3.1 port for a now-standard front-panel header, and trades in the black-and-white color scheme for black and grey. (That made building out the features table below as simple as copying the previous version and editing a few cells.)

Specifications

Similarities in features and price between the Z370 Taichi and its predecessor could ease any value assessments, but such assumptions ignore certain aspects of Coffee Lake CPU testing, such as the higher energy requirement of its increased core count. Focusing instead on its counterparts, we find the I/O panel comes up one USB port short of the already-sparse Z370 Aorus Gaming 7, instead dedicating that HSIO resource to its replaceable Wi-Fi controller. I lay the blame of missing USB 2.0 ports at the feet of whiners: These are basically “freebies” from an HSIO resource standpoint, and remain useful for keyboards and mice. I would have taken two, had they been offered.

The Z370 Taichi also adds an I/O panel CLR_CMOS button, which can be a blessing to overclockers who want to make minor changes with their cases closed, or a curse to those whose systems are physically accessible by third parties. Some people just can’t resist pushing buttons. At least this one is small enough that most casual observers won’t notice it.

It’s important to remember that, like the Z270, the Z370 supports a maximum of 30 HSIO pathways, which are divided up as PCIe, SATA, and USB 3.0. All three of the Z370 Taichi’s PCIe x16 slots get their pathways directly from the CPU, so those don’t count. Instead, we’re looking at three M.2 slots (12 pathways), six of the eight SATA ports plus a two-port PCIe-based controller (7 pathways), four I/O panel USB 3.0 ports and a USB 3.0 hub for front-panel headers (5 pathways), two dual-lane USB 3.1 Gen 2 controllers (4 pathways), a two-lane Key-E interface for the Wi-Fi module (2 pathways), a PCIe-based second network controller, and three PCIe x1 slots. Yes, that adds up to 34, and the math explains why four of the SATA ports are redirected to PCIe for M.2. The competing Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 shares two fewer SATA ports only because it instead takes those lanes away from its third x16-length PCIe slot.

The three CPU-fed PCIe slots automatically switch from x16-x0-x0 to x8-x8-x0 and x8-x4-x4 modes when cards are added to the second and third x16-length slots. That configuration allows up to three-way CrossFireX. Configuring two-way SLI requires that the third x16-length slot not be populated, since Nvidia software excludes four-lane slots.

The Z370 Taichi presents few if any layout challenges, as there are two slots of space between the first and second x16-length slot, and the SATA and USB 3.0 headers in front of those all face forward. The front-panel audio header is shoved a little farther into the bottom back corner than we’d like, but if your cable doesn’t reach you should probably scream at the case company. ASRock’s unusual solution to the fitment problem of 110mm M.2 cards was to face two of the slots towards each other, so that builders can use the opposing slot’s 60mm post as the chosen slot’s 110mm post. Using a 110mm M.2 card in one slot limits the opposing slot to 42mm cards, but those of us using 60mm and 80mm M.2 cards can’t be bothered over these details.

A second group of solder points in front of the FP-Audio header hint at a higher model motherboard using the same PCB to provide alternative (right-angle) connector placement. Moving forward from that point, we find a pair of CLR_CMOS pins with no jumper, a TPM module header, a 5-pin header for Thunderbolt add-in cards, three front-panel USB 2.0 headers, a four-pin fan header with 1.5A capability for high-draw water pumps, an RGB LED header, a pair of jumper pins for forcing the system to boot from the second firmware ROM, a legacy beep-code speaker and AT-style power LED header, and an AC-97 style power/reset/power-led/hdd-led front-panel header that’s been adopted by nearly everyone. A second 1.5A fan power header is found next to the EPS12V connector, and three 1A fan headers are dispersed about the board’s surface.

A switch near the upper-front corner instructs firmware to enable XMP mode. The same setting can be made within the firmware GUI.

The Z370 Taichi includes a driver disc, documentation, four SATA cables (two with a right-angle end), two Wi-Fi antennas, an HB SLI bridge, and an I/O shield.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

ASRock App Shop continues to offer users access to the firm’s latest utilities, BIOS, and driver updates, as well as a bunch of freeware. The "Settings" tab includes a tickbox to disable auto-launch at boot.

XFast LAN is an ASRock-decorated version of cFos network prioritization utility.

ASRock’s RGB LED is a highly simplified utility for controlling its very simple lighting. It’s 100% functional and quick.

Restart to UEFI has a function to do just what the name suggests.

An update of the classic ASRock A-Tuning program offers Z370 Taichi users the ability to adjust clock rates within Windows, though the “Optimized CPU OC” and “Advanced Turbo” settings still require a reboot. This makes some sense, since “Optimized CPU OC” settings are retrieved from a UEFI list. Also, one of those settings must be enabled before the Auto Tuning button will be activated.

The “Turbo 4.5 GHz” setting uses stock CPU voltage, and the 4.6/4.7/4.8/5.0 GHz settings increase CPU core voltage to 1.32/1.36/1.39/1.50V, respectively. These settings also increase the negative offset for AVX loads from 2x to 7x, which effectively prevents the CPU from exceeded 4.30 GHz in apps like Prime95. All Turbo ratios also use a 37x cache ratio, and all use the firmware’s Level 2 CPU Loadline Calibration setting, which compensates for voltage drops under heavy load.

The two “Gear” ratios add DDR4-2400 data rate to the board’s Turbo 4.6 GHz and Turbo 4.8 GHz settings. I clicked “Auto Tuning” after enabling Gear 2, and was rewarded with a reduction in frequency to 4.50 GHz unloaded, 4.0 GHz fully loaded, with voltage dropping from 1.344V at light loads to 1.232V under heavy loads. Perhaps it should be called the “jinx” button?

Manual controls are available from within Windows for the entire range of UEFI clock and voltage settings. CPU ratio, BCLK, and core voltage worked perfectly in our test.

The “System Info" tab shows realistic values for all motherboard settings, including the fact that it defaulted our DRAM to around 1.36V at its SPD values of DDR4-2133. More on that when we get to firmware!

The Fan Tuning program from firmware is also repeated within A-Tuning software. Users can select their own settings or let the system do a load test to determine how fast the CPU fan should spin to minimize noise without overheating.

Firmware

Z370 Taichi firmware P1.10 opens to ASRock’s EZ Mode interface, where users can enable its lowest factory-defined “overclock” (4.50 GHz on all cores, 4.30 GHz with AVX loads), instruct the board to use the memory’s XMP profile rather than SPD values, change boot priority and fan modes, and open a couple advanced menus.

Striking the F6 function key from the keyboard brings users to Advanced Mode, where the real tuning can happen. We see the full list of “Optimized CPU OC Setting” options available here, along with sub-menus for manual controls, on-board ROM storage for custom firmware setting profiles, and a function to transfer those profiles to or from a USB flash drive.

Note: ASRock has since addressed the issues mentioned here regarding voltage stability and overclocking. Please refer to the "Post Game Show" at the end of this review for details. Using the latest public "final" firmware, we were able to reach a 4742 MHz clock at full AVX load using the Z370 Taichi’s default BCLK (100.85 MHz), a 47x multiplier, and 1.30V core voltage. Manually entering 101 MHz BCLK to reach 4747 MHz caused Prime95 errors on threads 7 and 8, corresponding to the CPU’s fourth core.

A full range of DRAM settings are also available, including primary through tertiary timings. Data rates up to DDR4-4800 were selectable.

Undaunted by the board’s inability to push the CPU’s expected 4.80 GHz+ stable CPU clock under AVX load, we tried our hand at memory overclocking. Our memory’s DDR4-3866 memory profile functioned perfectly, but we saw severe performance drops when overclocking from there, making pointless any further stability tests.

Voltage limits are different between Stable Mode and OC Mode, but even the lower mode allows CPU core settings up to 3.0V and DRAM up to 1.80V. On the other hand, even the board’s Level 1 Load-Line calibration wasn’t strong enough to keep our 6-core CPU stable beyond 4742 MHz. And the DRAM setting of 1.330V was measured as producing 1.354V at the DIMM slot.

The Advanced menu of Advanced mode is where you find a place to change the default UEFI GUI to Advanced Mode.

The Z370 Taichi’s “Tool” menu offers an RGB control page identical to that of ASRock’s software application, an outgoing email system for sending support requests, a tool for transferring RAID drivers from the driver CD to a USB flash drive, a tool to flash firmware from a file on a USB flash drive, a tool to transfer the latest firmware from ASRock servers to a USB flash drive, and a tool to copy the firmware you just flashed to the backup firmware IC.

The Hardware Monitor menu includes an app for programing custom fan profiles based on thermal parameters and a sub-menu for choosing your own fan settings. Only the two high-current (1.5A) fan headers can be manually switched between PWM and voltage-based fan control: The other headers are PWM-only.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

This is the third motherboard in our Z370 review series, and we’re including the data for two of the Core i7-8700K’s predecessors while comparing the Z370 Taichi to the Gigabyte Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 and MSI Z370 Godlike Gaming. Those predecessors are the four-core Core i7-7700K that the six-core Core i7-8700K replaces, and the six-core Core i7-7800X that features additional PCIe lanes and DDR4 channels at a similar price.

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Comparison Products

ASRock Z370 Taichi

Gigabyte Z370 Aorus Gaming 7

MSI Z370 Godlike Gaming

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4k Random Read, 4k Random Write128k Sequential Read, 128k Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests and Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19 GB 4k mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6 GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark driven routine
Game Tests and Settings
Ashes of Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920x1090, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, RainMedium Preset, No AFxUltra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, VeryHigh Quality, VeryHigh Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

Now that we have two boards to compare to today’s sample, we’re ready to start looking at averages and de-emphasize the older platforms that will be dropped from the charts of our next Z370 review.

Synthetic Benchmarks

Synthetic benchmarks continue to be a great way to look for performance problems when evaluating hardware, including snuck-in overclocks and undiagnosed configuration errors. All three Z370 boards would perform identically in a perfect world, but we know that each board has its own BCLK violation (ranging from 100 to 100.85 MHz) as well as its own advanced memory timings.

I’m ready to declare all three Z370 boards ‘close enough’ across our synthetics to make this a ‘fair enough’ comparison, yet I won’t forget that the Z370 Taichi’s default BCLK is slightly higher than MSI’s, which is slightly higher than Gigabyte’s, as shown through miniscule differences in Sandra Arithmetic. Interestingly, the Z370 Taichi also has the lowest Sandra Memory Bandwidth reading.

3D Games

The Z370 Taichi fell slightly behind at our lower Ashes test setting, and surged slightly ahead at its higher setting. Though the most common reason for this variation would be differences in drivers and driver control applications, we leave o-nboard device driver decisions to manufacturer selection.

The Z370 Godlike Gaming’s Nahimic audio solution is Talos-compatible, but the software also has an FPS toll when enabled. A look back at that board’s review reveals higher frame rates with the software disabled.

Timed Applications

Lower times mean better performance in timed applications, and the Z370 Taichi has as many minor recoveries as minor stumbles. It’s on-par overall with its closest competitors.

Power, Heat, & Efficiency

The Z370 Taichi has a heat problem at CPU defaults, and that’s another factor that could limit overclocking. The additional heat corresponds to higher full-load current draw in the power chart, making this the first Coffee Lake board to enter Skylake-X territory.

The Z370 Taichi’s average performance level falls between that of the Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 and Z370 Godlike Gaming, but high current draw makes us wish they’d have refined the board a little more before casting it into this cold cruel world.

Overclocking

The Z370 Taichi actually has several overclocking problems, and though none of these are large, all have a slight impact on its competitiveness. We even had the system crash after pushing its BCLK past 211 MHz after setting a mere 400 MHz FCLK baseline.

Memory performance is the point of memory overclocking, and the Z370 Taichi offers a good representation of this RAM’s capabilities at its rated DDR4-3866 when in dual channel mode (with four DIMMs enabling the CPU’s preferred four-bank configuration). Unfortunately, it falls behind the superb overclocks of competing samples.

Final Analysis

The Z370 Taichi is the cheapest Z370 board we’ve tested yet, so its performance-per-dollar appears superb. And if we were to attempt to offset that cost based on features, it would still look good, as it comes with a Wi-Fi controller that the second-cheapest Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 lacks.

Of course the Aorus Gaming 7 has other features, such as its extraordinary RGB configuration. And the Wi-Fi controller of the Z370 Taichi is a low-cost 433 Mb/s version left over from yesteryear. Yet even if we consider these equivalent in worth, the Aorus Gaming 7 costs $30 more. So, this should be a great value win for the Z370 Taichi.

But the value discussion needs to jump a few hurdles before it can cross that finish line. Heat problems are the first mark against the Taichi, followed by excessive power consumption and overclocking weaknesses. This combination of factors almost makes it look like the power section was lifted from the Z270 Taichi, which was optimized for four-core rather than six-core CPUs. And while some of these issues might be minimized in future firmware revisions, we’re not ready to label this one “fully acceptable” to qualify for our Approved award. And if it can’t get over that hurdle, the value-oriented “Recommended” award would require a vaulting pole. We didn’t find one in the installation kit.

Firmware Updates: The Post Game Show

Tom's hardware has both site-wide and category specific rules that help us to produce quality content across a wide product range. The site-wide rule is that we address defects with the manufacturer, and try to keep readers informed of the changes if any of those products have already entered the market. But firmware problems? We're not developers. Additionally, because a continuous series of firmware coverage would prevent us from publishing new reviews, we tell motherboard firms that they need to get it right the first time. Thus, the two rules for motherboard reviews are that we use "final" firmware whenever it's available, and we don't do retests.

Occasionally a firm will send a board in advance while finalizing a firmware update and ask us to delay the review--since shipping takes time, this too is acceptable. ASRock didn't do that. Instead, it found and fixed a firmware flaw after asking us to rush a review. In the interest of providing our readers with complete coverage, I'm violating those two motherboard review rules in the spirit of the site-wide rule regarding defects.

Beta firmware L1.16 addresses voltage "droop compensation," which is a setting ASRock calls CPU Load-Line Calibration. Where P1.10 firmware had allowed a Core Voltage setting of 1.30V to drop to around 1.25V under load using Level 1 compensation, version L1.16 allows it to climb slightly above 1.30V at the same settings. We used 1.295V to keep temperatures under control, and successfully overclocked the CPU to 4842 MHz at "auto" base clock, which in this case was 100.88 MHz. Pushing to 101 MHz caused the CPU to drop one thread under Prime95 small-FFTs, which is an AVX-heavy load, leaving the official stability limit at 4842 rather than 4848 MHz.

The BCLK was also a little more forgiving, allowing the board to reach 222 MHz rather than its previous 211 MHz. Few overclockers will likely care once it exceeds 200 MHz.

We said we're not beta testers? We still had to confirm consistent performance under the beta firmware. The numbers shifted around a little, but not enough to change the board's standing in any significant way. One peculiarity was that the retested Z370 Taichi increased its score at our lower F1 2015 setting, but dropped it a little at our higher F1 2015 setting.

All of this retesting points towards one conclusion: Had ASRock fixed its firmware before our review, the Z370 Taichi would have won an award. But I'm not going to violate yet another rule by applying that award retroactively, as doing this wouldn't be fair to competitors with likewise improved firmware. We're not beta testers and we don't do retakes. I'll just keep telling myself that until it's true again.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X CPU Review

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:00:00 +0000

Eight Cores For The High-End Desktop

AMD launched its Threadripper CPUs for high-end desktops. But, at the last minute, it also turned heads with a cheaper Ryzen Threadripper 1900X, an 8C/16T model that drops into X399-based motherboards. The company claims its 1900X is an ideal entry point for folks who might want one of the other Threadripper chips at some point down the line.

By now, we're all familiar with the key tenets of AMD's value proposition: you get more cores for less money, more affordable motherboards, and all of its architecture's features. Ryzen Threadripper 1900X carries that philosophy forward, though it sports the same number of cores as its nearest Intel competition (at a similar MSRP, no less), resides on a very pricey motherboard, and it costs more than the "mainstream" Ryzen 7 1800X, also an eight-core contender.

Specifications

The 1900X features a base frequency of 3.8 GHz, the highest base clock rate in AMD's Threadripper family. And it boosts up to 4.2 GHz if your cooler is beefy enough. Two dual-channel memory controllers combine to facilitate plenty of aggregate bandwidth, not to mention support for up to 512GB of DDR4. That's one significant advantage over the 1800X's dual-channel controller. The 1900X also supports ECC UDIMMS. And then there's the extra connectivity: Ryzen Threadripper 1900X exposes up to 64 lanes of PCIe 3.0 and more USB ports than Ryzen 7 1800X, which is limited to 16 PCIe lanes.

Why care about all of that extra I/O? It could be useful for power users with multiple GPUs, video capture cards, or voluminous NVMe-based storage arrays. In yet another example of AMD's broader feature set, the company offers bootable NVMe RAID 0, 1, and 10 for up to 10 attached SSDs, while Intel charges an additional fee for a vROC (Virtual RAID-on-CPU) dongle to unlock its full feature set.

There are vast architectural differences between the 1900X and Ryzen 7 1800X, as well. In a nutshell, the larger Threadripper models distribute active cores across two dies and all four of the quad-core CCXes. But in a bid to mitigate a layer of latency, AMD confines the 1900X's active cores to a single CCX inside each die.

Each CCX features 8MB of shared L3 cache, so disabling two CCXes also removes much of that last-level storage space. This cuts the 1900X's total to 16MB of L3, while the larger Threadripper models have up to 32MB. Fortunately, no changes are made to the entry-level chip's memory or I/O controllers.

	Threadripper 1950X	Threadripper 1920X	Core i7-7820X	Threadripper 1900X	Ryzen 7 1800X
Price	$999	$799	$599	$549	$499
Interface/Chipset	TR4/X399	TR4/X399	LGA 2066/X299	TR4/X399	AM4/X370
Cores/Threads	16/32	12/24	8/16	8/16	8/16
TDP	180W	180W	140W	180W	95W
Base Frequency (GHz)	3.4	3.5	3.6	3.8	3.6
Boost Frequency (GHz)	4.0 (4.2 XFR)	4.0 (4.2 XFR)	4.3 / 4.5 (TB 3.0)	4.0 (4.2 XFR)	4.0 (4.1 XFR)
Cache (L2+L3)	40MB	38MB	19MB	20MB	20MB
Memory Support	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2666
Memory Controller	Quad Channel	Quad Channel	Quad Channel	Quad Channel	Dual Channel
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	64	64	28	64	16

Interestingly, AMD still recommends using its Game Mode for the eight-core 1900X. This configuration attempts to confine data processing to the local die and its attached memory controller (NUMA). It also deactivates one die via software to eliminate die-to-die latency. That means AMD's Game Mode switches this potentially mighty CPU into a 4C/8T solution, similar to AMD's Ryzen 5 1500X and 1400.

Despite its cuts, AMD leaves the 1900X's TDP at 180W, similar to the 12-core 1920X and 16-core 1950X. That number is notably higher than Ryzen 7 1800X's 95W TDP and the Core i7-7820X's 140W rating. Like the other Threadripper models, you need to supply your own cooler; AMD doesn't bundle one. At least the company's decision to use Indium solder between its dies and heat spreader goes a long way when we get to overclocking.

Complicating the 1900X's value story is the price of X399 motherboards, which cost significantly more than X370-based platforms. So, if you're strictly a gamer, stay with AMD's Socket AM4-based chips before sinking big-time bucks into Ryzen Threadripper 1900X.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Overclocking, Infinity Fabric & Test Setup

The Architectural Bits

The Ryzen 7 series features a single-die design, whereas AMD's Threadripper models employ a quad-die package with just two of its dies active. That means the 8C/16T 1900X effectively wields a dual-die arrangement with four active cores in each die.

Our first slide below shows the alignment of AMD's 16C/32T Ryzen Threadripper 1950X. Each die contains a pair of four-core CPU complexes (CCXes) that incur increased latency when they communicate with the neighboring CCX (denoted as CCX0 and CCX1). Another layer of latency comes into play when they communicate with the CCXes resident on the second die (marked as Die1). Simplified, the greater distance between dies means that die-to-die latency is much higher than the latency between two CCXes resident on the same piece of silicon.

The larger Threadripper models distribute active cores across both CCXes inside each die. The second slide shows how AMD disables one core per CCX (blocked out in blue) to create the smaller 12C/24T 1920X model.

AMD takes an entirely different tack with its 1900X, as seen on the third slide. In a bid to eliminate one layer of latency, AMD confines the 1900X's active cores to a single CCX inside each die. The adjustment makes sense; spreading the cores evenly across all four CCXes increases the chance of incurring latent communication with neighboring CCXes.

Disabling two entire CCXes also has other implications, though. Inactive cores, provided they are near active cores, can absorb excess heat, potentially improving overclockability. Case in point: it's common to achieve lower overclocks on the 16C 1950X than the 12C 1920X. Consequently, the 1900X's clustered cores should reduce latency, eliminating the CCX-to-CCX delay entirely and only leaving us with die-to-die latency. But they could also potentially hamper overclocking.

The Infinity Fabric Breakdown

A few quick tests with SiSoftware's Sandra Multi-Core Efficiency test illustrate the consequence of AMD's design decisions. Flipping the 1900X into Creator Mode, with all eight cores active, results in three distinct layers of latency. In contrast, the 1950X in Creator Mode has four layers.

Switching the 1900X into Game Mode disables one entire die, leaving us with a 4C/8T processor that has only two layers of latency. Again, the 1950X in Game Mode has a third layer that affects performance. But the 1900X in Game Mode also achieves the lowest fabric bandwidth in our line-up of AMD models.

Finally, the two disabled dies remove a total of 16MB of L3 cache from the 1900X. That means it offers half of the multi-threaded cache bandwidth of the 1950X in Game and Creator Mode. Incidentally, the 1900X demonstrates less multi-threaded throughput than Ryzen 7 1800X in Game Mode. But the 1800X also proffers eight cores with simultaneous multi-threading, while the 1900X in Game Mode drops to a 4C/8T processor with only 8MB of L3 cache. Many games are sensitive to memory and cache performance, so it will be interesting to see how that plays out in our game testing.

Overclocking

Overclocking the 1900X was an exercise in simplicity. We merely adjusted the data rate to DDR4-3200 and set timings at 14-14-14-34. We increased Vcore to 1.39V, well below AMD's recommended maximum of 1.45V, and adjusted the SoC voltage to 1.1V. This proved stable up to 4 GHz during extended stress tests. However, even in the face of unsafe voltages, we were unable to attain a stable 4.1 GHz overclock to match our efforts with the 12-core Threadripper 1920X. Dialing back the memory frequency didn't help, either. Considering that AMD supposedly selects the top 5% of its dies for Threadripper CPUs, you might assume that the clustered active core arrangement comes into play. We only see a 100 MHz reduction, so it's more likely that our retail sample is simply on the lower end of the bell curve.

It's notable that a 4 GHz overclock might actually hamper the 1900X's performance in lightly threaded workloads, since we lose the benefit of a quad-core 4.2 GHz XFR boost.

Test Systems

Test System & Configuration

Hardware

AMD Socket SP3 (TR4)AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X, 1920X, 1900XAsus X399 ROG Zenith Extreme4x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sIntel LGA 2066Intel Core i7-7820XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sAMD Socket AM4 AMD Ryzen 7 1800XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 3200 MT/sIntel LGA 1151 Intel Core i7-7700K MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 MT/sAll EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703Corsair H115i

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

Test Notes

The Threadripper processors feature a unique architecture that underperforms AMD's other Ryzen chips in some games. To offset the 1900X's compromises, AMD facilitates its novel Game Mode, which switches the processor into NUMA mode and disables one die. We covered the feature in-depth in our AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X Game Mode, Benchmarked article.

AMD aims Threadripper at content creators, heavy multitaskers, and gamers who stream simultaneously. It also says the processors are ideal for gaming at high resolutions. Threadripper CPUs and the GPUs they're likely paired with aren't intended for playing around at low resolutions, particularly in older, lightly-threaded titles. Still, we test at 1920x1080 to emphasize the difference between competing processors, rather than show you results bound by our graphics card.

Intel Core i7-7820X Skylake-X

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X

Intel Core i7-8700K

VRMark & 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure game performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

As expected in VRMark, Threadripper 1900X offers its best performance in Game Mode, even beating the tuned Creator Mode configuration. VRMark tends to favor high clock rates, so the Ryzen 7 1800X suffers at stock settings due to its lower frequency. However, it nearly catches the 1900X after tuning.

The 1900X in Creator Mode takes a healthy lead over its competition during the DX12 tests, even beating out Intel's tuned Core i7-7820X. It suffers in Game Mode, though. That isn't surprising; we disable half of the chip's compute resources in a test that scales well with core count, after all.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity is the poster child for threaded game engines. And while the Core i7-7820X at 4.6 GHz leads, the Ryzen 7 1800X at 4 GHz challenges Intel's Skylake-X solution. The 1900X trails mightily in Game Mode, but fares better in Creator Mode with eight threads available.

Even in heavily threaded games, mainstream processors like Ryzen 7 1800X offer the best value.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI, Battlefield 1 & Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

The Civilization VI AI test measures CPU performance in a turn-based strategy game. Intel's Core i7-7820X takes the lead after tuning, while the overclocked Threadripper 1920X leads AMD's line-up. Ryzen Threadripper 1900X provides better performance in Game Mode, but we only get a slight speed-up after overclocking.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

As we found during our Game Mode testing, the Threadripper models perform best in this benchmark with Game Mode activated. A tuned Threadripper 1900X takes the lead during our test, even besting Intel's Coffee Lake-based Core i7-8700K.

The Ryzen 7 1800X also proves to be adept, equating to good value for mainstream gamers thanks to a less expensive buy-in. Ryzen 7 1700 offers similar performance after overclocking, but includes a nice discount.

Battlefield 1 (DX11)

As usual, we bump up against a graphics bottleneck at the top end of our Battlefield 1 results. An overclocked Ryzen 7 1800X offers the best performance from AMD's portfolio, although the Threadripper 1900X is right behind in Creator Mode. The 1900X loses quite a bit of steam when we toggle Game Mode on; even our overclocking efforts aren't enough to overtake the Ryzen 7 1800X.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

At stock settings with Game Mode enabled, Ryzen Threadripper 1900X outperforms AMD's stock Ryzen 7 1800X. The overclocked 1800X nudges past 1900X at the same 4 GHz, while Threadripper 1920X offers the best performance from the Ryzen portfolio.

While Threadripper 1900X beats Core i7-7820X at its stock settings, tuning improves the Intel model's performance significantly, and it ends up ahead.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Grand Theft Auto V, Hitman & Shadow of Mordor

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto finds the 1900X and 1800X offering similar performance levels in both stock and overclocked configurations. Running the 1900X in Creator Mode provides better performance than a stock Ryzen 7 1800X.

Meanwhile, the overclocked 1920X beats Intel's stock Core i7-7820X, though tuning propels Intel into a commanding lead.

A stock Coffee Lake-based Core i7-8700K nearly catches the tuned -7820X, so you can imagine it would take the lead after some overclocking of its own.

Hitman (2016)

The 1900X doesn't respond well to our Hitman benchmark, demonstrating lower average and minimum frame rates compared to the mainstream Ryzen 7 1800X. The gap is much more pronounced between AMD's and Intel's chips, though we imagine this would shrink at higher resolutions.

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor

Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and 1900X top the chart in this largely graphics-bound test.

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor does tend to favor the highest clock rates, making AMD's slight win over the overclocked Core i7 more impressive.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Project CARS, Far Cry Primal & Rise of the Tomb Raider

Project CARS

Intel's Core i7-8700K offers the best performance during our benchmark, while the 1900X lands in the middle of this chart with Game Mode active. Creator Mode makes more threads available to the Madness game engine, though Slightly Mad Studios can't seem to extract maximum performance from AMD's distributed MCM architecture.

Far Cry Primal

Far Cry Primal's Dunia 2 engine refuses to run in Creator Mode on the 32-thread Threadripper 1950X processor. We don't have the same issue with AMD's Ryzen Threadripper 1900X and 1920X, though.

The 1900X gains nothing from Creator Mode. Meanwhile, the Threadripper 1900X's Game Mode fares quite a bit better, gaining even more after overclocking.

A stock Core i7-7820X lags the tuned Threadrippers in Game Mode, but really stretches its legs after we crank it up to 4.6 GHz.

Rise of the Tomb Raider

Rise of the Tomb Raider has long been a thorn in the Ryzen architecture's side. But recent software patches helped rectify AMD's deficits encountered at launch.

The Intel processors still lead during our benchmark, but an overclocked Ryzen 7 1800X ekes out a slight lead over AMD's Threadripper models.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Office & Productivity

Test Notes

We toggled Ryzen Threadripper 1900X into Creator Mode for our application testing. This setting exposes the full might of AMD's 8C/16T design, even if some lightly threaded applications fare better under various combinations of the NUMA/UMA and Legacy mode toggles.

Adobe Creative Cloud

Most of the Adobe Creative Cloud test suite favors Intel's processors.

Ryzen Threadripper 1900X serves up competitive performance and benefits from tuning, but the 1920X's overclocked frequency advantage facilitates a slight win in most tests.

After Affects responds well to increased core counts, so the 1900X competes readily. Ryzen 7 1800X isn't as fast in this test, languishing far below the eight-core 1900X. It seems as if the difference comes from Threadripper's quad-channel memory configuration, as repeating the test in dual-channel mode incurs a ~6-second penalty, putting 1900X at the same level as Ryzen 7 1800X. We also observed similar trends with the Photoshop Heavy and InDesign tests.

Web Browser

The web browsing tests align largely based on per-core performance, so frequency and IPC throughput reign supreme. These lightly-threaded metrics highlight the only drawback to overclocking the 1900X.

That is to say our 1900X's 4 GHz ceiling is the same as its maximum quad-core Precision Boost frequency, so overclocking will speed up workloads that use more than four cores. However, if your cooler is beefy enough, a stock Threadripper 1900X hits a 4.2 GHz Extended Frequency Range peak across four cores. So, in some lightly-threaded tasks, you'll see a stock 1900X outperform the overclocked configuration.

Case in point: a stock 1900X outperforms the tuned configuration in our Kraken JavaScript and MotionMark benchmarks, though the deltas are small. A tuned Ryzen 7 1800X also offers better performance than the 1900X. The Intel processors use their frequency and IPC throughput advantage to top the charts.

Cryptography is important for securing online transactions and many other applications. The Threadripper processors enjoy a big lead over competing Intel models in single-core SHA2-256 hashing performance. They are also competitive in the single-core AES-256 tests. But we can clearly see the benefits of the -7820X's AVX2 performance compared to the Core i7-8700K.

Multi-core AES-256 tests align based largely on core count and frequency, but we can spot the advantages of quad-channel memory. The overclocked 1900X doesn't gain much improvement in the SHA2-256 test.

Productivity

We're incorporating portions of the PCMark 10 suite into our test regimen. The application start-up metric measures load-time snappiness for several types of applications, such as word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers, in both warm- and cold-start conditions.

Intel's Core i7-7820X beats the overclocked Threadripper models by a slight margin, but tuning widens the gap considerably. Interestingly, a stock Core i7-8700K almost matches the best effort of our overclocked -7820K. Coffee Lake truly is an impressive performer here.

Video conferencing measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for video playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection during the workload to model real-world performance. The test consists of both native and OpenCL acceleration, so we see small performance improvements with OpenCL. The Threadripper 1900X and 1920X fall into the middle of the test results, while the tuned Ryzen 7 1800X provides more performance with native processing.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries that use the ImageMagick library. We can see the big gains with OpenCL acceleration, and the processors with the highest clock rates generally offer the best results. That means Intel's tuned -7820X and AMD's overclocked 1920X provide similar performance. The 1900X benefits from tuning, but Ryzen 7 1800X at 4 GHz is even faster. Native processing leverages Theadripper 1920X's extra threads to great effect.

We tested the 1900X with both dual- and quad-channel memory to ferret out improvements borne of extra bandwidth. The 1900X with quad-channel memory provided ~6% more performance than the dual-channel setup during the writing test (LibreOffice Writer), helping propel the overclocked 1900X to a lead over the tuned 1800X.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering, Encoding, Compression & AVX

Rendering

As expected, the tuned Threadripper 1900X provides similar performance as an overclocked 1800X in our multi-core Cinebench test, though it ekes out a win at stock settings thanks to its higher frequency. Threadripper 1920X's extra cores/threads allow it to take a commanding lead over the rest of the group.

Cinebench's single-core benchmark places Ryzen Threadripper 1900X in the middle of the group. And again, we see the 1900X's stock configuration use its higher XFR boost to beat out the overclocked version. Intel's processors continue to offer higher clock rates and IPC throughput though, so they take the top spots in our chart.

Corona utilizes all available cores and threads, so we see similar performance from the 1900X and Ryzen 7 1800X, though the latter takes a slight lead after tuning.

The single-core POV-Ray testing repeats what we saw under Cinebench: the stock 1900X edges our our overclocked configuration again. Meanwhile, the multi-core POV-Ray and Blender tests benefit from the 1900X's higher frequencies in stock trim. Threadripper 1900X doesn't benefit much from its quad-channel memory during those tests, as evidenced by its similar performance to the Ryzen 7 1800X when they are both locked to the same frequency. PCMark 10's rendering and visualization test tells much the same story.

The 1900X offers solid performance in our OpenCL-accelerated LuxMark test, though. We don't have OpenCL-based results from the Core i7-7820X, but that's not a mistake. We spent considerable time trying to get this test to run correctly on any Skylake-X processor, to no avail. Intel later confirmed our suspicions that OpenCL isn't correctly taking advantage of AVX-512 instructions, so we'll have to wait for a fix before we can generate results. The company has plans to support AVX-512 in a future release of the Intel OpenCL SDK.

Encoding & Compression

LAME finds the 1900X offering similar performance as Ryzen 7 1800X once again, though the eight-core Threadripper is a bit faster in our x264 HandBrake test.

We re-ran that benchmark on the 1900X using dual- and quad-channel memory configurations and recorded a 20% performance advantage with quad-channel. The tuned 1900X only offers a 3% performance lead over our overclocked 1800X, suggesting that some of its advantage may be lost to poor application scaling or code that isn't optimized for the unique Threadripper architecture.

We see a larger delta between the Intel and AMD processors during the HandBrake x265 test than the x264 test, but that is likely due to the former's heavy use of AVX instructions. Again, the tuned 1900X's 10% performance improvement with x265 and quad-channel memory doesn't equate to a large win over a tuned Ryzen 7 1800X. We also provide results from Y-Cruncher, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes Pi using AVX instructions. We tested with version 0.7.3.9474, which includes Ryzen optimizations.

Compression workloads benefit greatly from multi-core architectures, provided the storage subsystem can feed the processor fast enough to utilize its full capabilities. The stock 1900X offers similar performance as an overclocked 1800X during the multi-core compression workload, which is a byproduct of its quad-channel memory advantage. A tuned Core i7-7820X takes the overall lead, but the overclocked 1920X challenges.

The decompression benchmark benefits from integer performance, and the 1920X's ability to work on 24 threads concurrently provides a tremendous advantage over the rest of the pack. AMD's 1920X available resources allow it to post an almost-50% lead in overclocked trim.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Final Analysis

Remember a few short months ago when Intel introduced its Kaby Lake-X Core i7-7740X, which sold for an affordable $350, giving the impression of high-end value, but then required a super-expensive X299-based motherboard? Ryzen Threadripper 1900X sort of feels like that to us. But whereas the -7740X totally neutered Intel's platform with just 16 PCIe lanes and a pair of disabled memory channels, at least Threadripper 1900X comes armed with all of its architecture's functionality intact. Sixty-four lanes of PCIe 3.0 and four channels of DDR4 memory with ECC support may make the difference to power users with lots of add-in devices or bandwidth-sensitive workloads. But 1900X just isn't much more compelling than Ryzen 7 1800X, which also supports ECC memory on some motherboards and comes with a more affordable platform.

We plotted the 1900X's gaming performance with both average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99^th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we convert into an FPS measurement. Our suite includes six games released in 2016 and five older titles that launched in 2014/2015. When we reviewed the higher-end Threadripper models, we hypothesized their extra cores could enable more performance in the future, so we included a chart with newer games. But that's not as big a selling point for 1900X, since its core count matches the 1800X.

If you're a gamer above all else, and semi-professional workloads aren't on your radar, AMD's Socket AM4-based Ryzen 5 and 7 CPUs are a better fit for you than Ryzen Threadripper. You'll see similar frame rates from a $220 Ryzen 5 1600 overclocked moderately. Of course, Intel would counter back that its Coffee Lake-based Core i5s between $200 and $300 are better still. The point is you have multiple options that are great for gaming before ever needing to consider a $500 Threadripper 1900X and a way-expensive motherboard.

The real competition happens in our application workloads. Ryzen Threadripper 1900X can't quite match the $600 Core i7-7820X in most workloads, so professionals on the hunt for overall performance may favor Intel's Skylake-X chip. The Ryzen 7 1800X often serves up similar performance as Threadripper 1900X, and it costs $100 less. Then there's the Core i7-8700K, which also sells for $400, trades blows with AMD's top Ryzen 7 chip, but currently suffers from a bad case of paperlaunchitis.

Consider also that exploiting the 1900X's four memory channels means buying a quad-channel kit of DDR4. And then there are the platforms: right now, the absolute cheapest TR4-equipped motherboard sells for $340. Most models come close to $400.

Of course, AMD says its Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is the lowest-cost way to get into its X399 platform...and it is. However, we can’t ascribe much enthusiast value to this niche option. There are faster choices if you prioritize performance and cheaper alternatives if you're trying to save money. Thus, we aren't particularly attracted to Threadripper 1900X. Please, AMD, don't be upset if we send flowers to this chip's better-looking sibling, Ryzen 7 1800X.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Intel Core i5-8600K Review: Coffee Lake's Jolting Value

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:00:01 +0000

Meet Intel's First Six-Core Core i5

For years, Intel dominated the high-end CPU market. As a result, enthusiasts had to pay a premium for its best processors. But AMD's four-, six-, and eight-core Ryzen models forced Intel to reconsider its value story. Our recent Core i7-8700K review showed that the company is serious about defending its turf. The six-core Coffee Lake-based flagship maintained the architecture's strength in lightly-threaded tasks, while extra Hyper-Threaded cores improved its performance in the heavy workloads AMD is doing so well in.

A $390 price tag is painfully expensive for most power users, though. That's why Tom's Hardware historically recommended Intel's unlocked Core i5 models to gamers. So how does the new Core i5-8600K fare against Core i7-8700K and, perhaps more important, AMD's Ryzen 7 and 5 CPUs?

Intel Core i5-8600K

Like the Core i7-8700K, Core i5-8600K sports six physical cores based on Intel's Skylake architecture. Hyper-Threading is disabled, similar to previous-generation Core i5 models. However, we still expect significant speed-ups across our benchmark suite thanks to higher clock rates and core count. Core i5-8600K features a similar graphics engine as its predecessor (never mind the UHD Graphics 630 branding), though it does benefit from a 50 MHz boost to 1150 MHz.

At the heart of Coffee Lake is Intel's 14nm++ manufacturing process. Delaying 10nm transistors forced the company to further refine its 14nm node. Attractive power optimizations, such as 52%-lower leakage than the original 14nm process, play a key role in enabling higher core counts within the same TDP envelope. Improved manufacturing yields higher performance as well; despite Core i5-8600K's more complex die, its 4.3 GHz peak Turbo Boost frequency is still higher than Core i5-7600K's 4.2 GHz ceiling.

	14nm Broadwell (2014)	14nm Skylake (2015)	14nm+ Kaby Lake (2017)	14nm++ Coffee Lake (2017)
Maximum Turbo Frequency (GHz - Core i7 family)	3.8	4.3	4.5	4.7
Estimated Maximum Overclock Frequency (GHz - Conventional Cooling)	4.1	4.6	5.0	5.2

Of course, incrementally-higher peak clock rates are great. But adding 50% more cores promises to have a much more significant impact on the threaded benchmarks in our suite. Those workloads are the ones that AMD currently dominates. Intel did have to sacrifice base frequency in order to wedge six cores into a 95W TDP, though. Whereas the -7600K guaranteed 3.8 GHz across four cores, Core i5-8600K's base rate is 3.6 GHz. Consider this, though. With Turbo Boost enabled and four cores active, the -7600K hits 4 GHz. Core i5-8600K can take four cores up to 4.2 GHz, while its six-core bin maxes out at 4.1 GHz.

Active Cores	1	2	4	6
Intel Core i5-8600K	4.3 GHz	4.2 GHz	4.2 GHz	4.1 GHz
Intel Core i5-7600K	4.2 GHz	4.1 GHz	4.0 GHz	-

We also get a few extra cache slices as a byproduct of the additional cores, so the -8600K features 9MB of L3, compared to -7600K's 6MB. Memory improvements play a role in Coffee Lake's higher performance, too. The -8600K supports up to DDR4-2666, moving up to 42.7 GB/s across two 64-bit channels, versus DDR4-2400's 38.4 GB/s.

As we discussed in Core i7-8700K Review: Coffee Lake Brews A Great Gaming CPU, Intel improved the trace layout on Z370 motherboards to support the increased memory transfer rate. It also revised the power alignment inside the LGA 1151 interface to better accommodate the new six-core CPUs. This means you can't drop Coffee Lake-based processors into Z270 or Z170 motherboards. The requirement is a technical one, though that obviously doesn't make enthusiasts who recently purchased Z270 platforms feel any better.

Core i5-8600K's unlocked multiplier fits well with the Z-series boards, which are needed in order to manipulate its ratio. Intel also added a few new overclocking knobs and dials, such as per-core overclocking support, live memory timing adjustments, and memory multipliers up to 8400 MT/s. Like all of Intel's K-series processors, you're on the hook for a thermal solution; Core i5-8600K doesn't come with an air- or closed-loop liquid cooler.

Beyond the price of a heat sink or all-in-one, you're also looking at a steep premium over Core i5-7600K. Street pricing on the -8600K is currently $280, while the -7600K sells for $240. AMD's Ryzen 5 1600X is also available at $240, and the recently price-reduced Ryzen 7 1700 sits right around $300. Going the Ryzen route gives you the option of a lower-cost B350-based motherboard. And as if AMD's story needed strengthening, a bundled Wraith Spire cooler all but guarantees you could have an 8C/16T platform for less money than Intel's 6C/6T alternative. As always, we'll have to rely on the benchmarks to guide our recommendations.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Benchmark Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

How We Test

The MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC

MSI continues its Z-series Gaming Pro motherboards, giving the latest implementation similar features as previous models. Pricing should also end up similar. The exact board details and specifications can be found on the manufacturer's website.

A Note On Multi-Core Enhancement (MCE)

MSI motherboards feature a default Enhanced Turbo feature that allows the processor to run at its maximum Turbo Boost bin on all cores, at all times. This setting modifies the CPU's clock rate and voltage to deliver higher performance, which is basically factory-sanctioned overclocking. Again, MSI turns this on by default in its BIOS, similar to most of its competition. Performance, power consumption, and heat are all affected, naturally. We manually disable this feature for our stock CPU testing to best reflect Intel's specifications.

Comparison Products

Ryzen 7 1700

AMD Ryzen 5 1600X

Intel Core i7-8700K

Test Systems

We introduced our new test system and methodology in How We Test Graphics Cards. If you'd like more detail about our general approach, check that piece out.

In this case, only the hardware configuration with CPU, RAM, mainboard, as well as the new cooling system are different, so the summary in table form gives a quick overview of the systems used:

Test System & Configuration
Hardware	Germany Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i5-8600K, i7-8700KMSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2666AMD Socket AM4 WorkstationAMD Ryzen 7 1700, Ryzen 5 1600XMSI X370 Tomahawk4x 8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)Intel Core i5-7600KMSI Z270 Gaming 72x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2400 and 3200All SystemsGeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Gaming)Nvidia Quadro P6000 (Workstation)1x 1TB Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, System)2x 960GB Toshiba OCZ TR150 (Storage, Images)be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11, 850W Power SupplyWindows 10 Pro (Creators Update)U.S.Intel LGA 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i5-8600K, i7-8700KMSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 AMD Socket AM4 AMD Ryzen 7 1700, Ryzen 5 1600XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270) Intel Core i5-7600K MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703
Cooling	GermanyAlphacool Eiszeit 2000 ChillerAlphacool Eisblock XPXThermal Grizzly Kryonaut (For Cooler Switch)
Monitor	Eizo EV3237-BK
PC Case	Lian Li PC-T70 with Extension Kit and Mods Configurations: Open Benchtable, Closed Case
Power Consumption Measurement	Contact-free DC Measurement at PCIe Slot (Using a Riser Card) Contact-free DC Measurement at External Auxiliary Power Supply Cable Direct Voltage Measurement at Power Supply 2x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500MHz Digital Multi-Channel Oscilloscope with Storage Function4x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 Current Probe (1mA - 30A, 100kHz, DC) 4x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10:1 Probes, 500MHz) 1x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 Digital Multimeter with Storage Function
Thermal Measurement	1x Optris PI640 80Hz Infrared Camera + PI Connect Real-Time Infrared Monitoring and Recording
Acoustic Measurement	NTI Audio M2211 (with Calibration File, Low Cut at 50Hz) Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for Microphones)Creative X7, Smaart v.7 Custom-Made Proprietary Measurement Chamber, 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2m (L x D x H) Perpendicular to Center of Noise Source(s), Measurement Distance of 50cm Noise Level in dB(A) (Slow), Real-time Frequency Analyzer (RTA) Graphical Frequency Spectrum of Noise

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

VRMark & 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure game performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

The stock Core i5 models score well in VRMark, with Coffee Lake enjoying a quantifiable advantage over its predecessor. Both CPUs trail the beefy Core i7-8700K, though. Tuning naturally improves performance, with Core i5-8600K taking a lead after overclocking.

AMD's Ryzen processors operate at lower base frequencies and aren't as fast per clock cycle, so they occupy the bottom of our chart at stock settings. Specifically, Ryzen 7 1700 employs the lowest base clock rates in our test pool and starts in last place. Clearly, though, overclocking helps it quite a bit.

The DX11 and DX12 tests want as many threads as they can get, pushing the previous-generation Core i5 to the bottom of both charts. Intel's six-core -8600K does benefit from its higher core count. But it cannot catch the Ryzen CPUs during the DX11 benchmark. It fares better under DX12, and tuning even boosts it past the competitive Ryzen 5 1600X.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation also scales well with thread count. Although many enthusiasts associate this game with AMD (Mantle, anyone?), remember that it didn't run well on Ryzen processors at first. A series of patches subsequently rectified the most glaring issues on Ryzen platforms.

The Ryzen 7 1700 carves out a win against the -8600K at stock frequencies. Tuning the Coffee Lake-based Core i5 yields a 14.5% speed-up, which is solid scaling considering the 19.5% clock rate increase (from 4.1 GHz). That technically pushes it up over Ryzen 7 1700, though they're tied for all practical purposes.

Comparing Core i5-8600K to the previous-gen -7600K illustrates the significance of more cores in a game optimized for parallelization.

Ryzen 5 1600X also gains quite a bit of performance from overclocking, proving its relevance to this comparison. Remember that we're looking at a much cheaper processor/motherboard combo, after all.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI, Battlefield 1 & Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

Core i5-8600K claims a lead over the rest of our stock-clocked field, and tuning yields solid performance gains.

AMD's Ryzen 7 1700 lags the field considerably at its default settings, largely due to its 3 GHz base and 3.7 GHz Precision Boost frequencies. This is a tale of two faces, though. AMD slows down the 1700's base clock rate considerably compared to other Ryzen 7 models. However, overclocking pushes the chip to 1800X-class performance. This makes Ryzen 7 1700 a potentially great value for tuners.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

The Core i5-8600K is also nimble during our Civilization VI graphics test, taking the top spot. The -7600K suffers in stock form due to its four cores. But, like the Ryzen 7 1700, it responds well to overclocking.

Battlefield 1 (DX11)

We're graphics-bound at the top end of this chart, where Core i5-8600K makes its appearance. Meanwhile, the Core i5-7600K starts lower on our hierarchy and has to be overclocked in order to catch up.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

The Warhammer 40,000: DoW III benchmark scales wonderfully with increased execution resources, but speedy clock rates also provide a big benefit. Intel's Core i5-8600K takes an easy lead over less expensive chips in both stock and overclocked configurations.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Grand Theft Auto V, Hitman & Shadow of Mordor

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V is one of several benchmarks in which a stock Core i5-8600K outperforms the pricier Core i7-8700K. To be fair, we did record a few odd performance results from the -8700K. But after benchmarking two different samples and confirming our findings with motherboard vendors, we're confident that they're correct.

Some games respond better to physical cores than logical ones, leading to Core i5s beating i7s in situations where Hyper-Threading is a liability. But the previous-generation Core i5-7600K trails the i7-7700K by a substantial margin, so Hyper-Threading doesn't seem to be the answer in this case. Other outlets corroborate our results, so perhaps an issue with early firmware/microcode is to blame.

In any case, the Core i5-8600K offers chart-topping performance, and we can see the clear advantage of its extra cores and cache compared to Core i5-7600K.

This title also illustrates the big gains available if you're willing to overclock AMD's Ryzen 7 1700 (though it still falls far behind a stock Core i5-8600K).

Hitman (2016)

The Core i5-8600K proves to be an exceptionally good value (assuming that our Core i7-8700K samples are actually working correctly); it beats the flagship Coffee Lake model at stock clock rates.

Even overclocking isn't enough to push the Core i5-7600K up to the same level as Intel's stock -8600K.

AMD's Ryzen processors trail the Coffee Lake CPUs. Ryzen 7 1700 at 3.9 GHz does notably compete against Core i5-7600K overclocked to 5 GHz, at least.

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor

Unexpectedly, the Core i5-7600K lands ahead of Core i5-8600K in our default and overclocked comparisons.

We did characterize stock performance during this test, and observed both CPUs falling short of their peak Turbo Boost frequencies. This gives the -7600K an advantage due to its higher base clock rate. Kaby Lake also enjoys a slight advantage due to the more aggressive overclock available for a quad-core processor (compared to Coffee Lake's six cores).

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Project CARS, Far Cry Primal & Rise of the Tomb

Project CARS

The Core i5-8600K handily dispatches its predecessor in Project CARS, while Core i7-8700K performs as-expected at stock settings.

Our overclocked Ryzen processors struggle to keep up with Core i5-7600K during the test, which is surprising since they offer a higher core/thread count in a game purportedly optimized for parallelization. We'll be curious to compare Project CARS 2.

Far Cry Primal

Far Cry Primal's Dunia Engine 2 responds well to high clock rates and IPC throughput, but it also seems to like it when we turn off simultaneous multi-threading. That means Core i5s enjoy an advantage over Core i7 and Ryzen processors. Core i5-7600K trails the -8600K by a large margin. However, it does beat an overclocked Ryzen 7 1700.

Rise of the Tomb Raider

The -8600K's extra cores don't give us much over the -7600K in Rise of the Tomb Raider; the two processors tie each other at stock and overclocked frequencies.

Once again, there's a night-and-day difference between a stock Ryzen 7 1700 and the same CPU overclocked.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

DTP, Office, Multimedia & Compression

We ran the older Core i5-7600K through our application test suite at 4.9 GHz, while the U.S. lab was able to maintain 5 GHz for the game testing. This boils down to a difference in sample quality between our offices, reminding us that maximum overclock frequencies aren't guaranteed.

DTP and Presentation

Adobe’s Creative Cloud gives us a look at real-world single- and multi-threaded performance. As such, it beats synthetic benchmarks as a productivity test. After Effects CC is the classic example of a workload that prizes parallelism, so core count trumps clock frequencies.

Overclocking helps propel Core i5-8600K out in front of the stock Core i7-8700K, though.

Meanwhile, in Adobe's InDesign CC, both Coffee Lake-based CPUs fall behind a stock Core i5-7600K. Presumably, this is another instance where higher clock rates in lightly-threaded tasks reign.

Encoding and Multimedia

The stock Core i5-8600K dominates every other CPU except for Intel's Core i7-8700K at default settings during SPECwpc's default HandBrake test.

Overclocking naturally changes the landscape quite a bit, helping a couple of Ryzen CPUs compete more aggressively. Then again, at 4.9 GHz, the -8600K lands in first place ahead of those tuned Ryzens.

The more taxing high-quality benchmark asks more from the field, allowing AMD's overclocked Ryzen 7 1700 to slide in ahead of Core i5-8600K at 4.9 GHz.

Core i7-8700K doesn't need overclocking to achieve compelling performance. It's flying high on Hyper-Threading. Just imagine that processor running at the same 4.9 GHz we used in our review.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Workstation 2D & 3D Performance

2D Workstation Performance

Our GDI/GDI+ tests are used to test two different output methods that can be found in older applications and printing tasks. Today, they, or at least a modified version of them, are commonly used to display the graphical user interface (GUI). They are also great benchmarks for direct device write throughput and memory performance when handling gigantic device-independent bitmap (DIB) files.

Synthetic 2D Benchmarks

We take a look at direct device write throughput first. The graphics driver uses the CPU heavily for this task, but doesn’t employ many threads.

The Intel processors are the fastest in this test, particularly after tuning.

We up the ante by introducing memory to the mix. This is done with the help of the only remaining 2D hardware function: generating the graphics output in memory and then copying it to the output device all at once. The benchmark’s the same as before. We just plot a bitmap in memory, as opposed to sending the information directly to the monitor. The bitmap’s copied to it only once it’s complete. This pushes the CPUs, since they’re no longer platform-bound. The results prove interesting: frequency rules, but AMD can keep up.

AutoCAD 2016 (2D)

Even though AutoCAD does use DirectX, ultimately it just duplicates every single draw function in software. The results are exactly as expected, and IPC throughput is emphasized due to AutoCAD’s limited scaling with additional cores.

3D Performance

Most professional development applications have been optimized and compiled with Intel CPUs in mind. This is reflected in their performance numbers. Still, we include them in order to motivate developers to focus their efforts on AMD’s Ryzen processors as well. This would give users more than one choice. The same goes for an emphasis on multi-core processors, at least where that’s feasible and makes sense.

AutoCAD 2016 (3D)

Clock rate trumps core count. Intel’s Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake land fairly close to each other, with clock rate determining the winner. AutoCAD’s performance turns out to be close to that of older games, since it uses DirectX and isn’t really optimized to take advantage of multiple cores.

Cinebench R15 OpenGL

Frequency is (almost) everything in the Cinebench R15 OpenGL benchmark, as the Core i5-8600K achieves near-parity with Intel's quad-core -7600K at its stock settings.

Given that Ryzen 7 1700 is slower than Ryzen 5 1600X operating 100 MHz higher, we can safely conclude that Cinebench doesn't scale well across multiple cores during the OpenGL benchmark.

SolidWorks 2015

Creo 3.0

Creo 3.0 paints a similar picture; a high core count just doesn’t provide any benefits when it comes to drafting using real-time 3D graphics output.

Blender and 3ds Max (Real-Time 3D Preview)

The Blender and 3ds Max real-time 3D previews yield similar results: frequency is everything. Of course, final rendering is a different story, and we'll get to that shortly.

The 3ds Max results aren’t based on time to completion. Rather, this benchmark generates a composite index based on CPU performance during a set time period. The Core i5-8600K leverages its two extra cores to carve out a lead over Core i5-7600K in stock and overclocked trim.

Catia V6 R2012

This is one of the graphics benchmarks that has been optimized time and again (it’s part of the free SPECviewperf 12 suite). However, it still provides a fairly good measure of CPU performance, with an emphasis on clock rate.

As expected, Hyper-Threading does little for the Core i7, while overclocking nudges Core i5-8600K into a narrow lead.

Maya 2013

At the risk of beating a dead horse, our chart paints a picture we've seen several times already. The real-time 3D output numbers don’t tell a complete story, though. As we're about to see, core count reigns supreme when it comes to final rendering.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

CPU Computing & Rendering Performance

CPU Performance: Workstation

Many modern suites include modules that are based exclusively on computing and simulations. This means we need to go beyond just 3D workstation performance to form our opinion of these high-end CPUs. However, software packages like SolidWorks don’t scale perfectly based on core/thread count. Consequently, even quad-core processors keep up if they run at high-enough frequencies and support SMT. We'll illustrate this by comparing Core i5-7600K to the newer -8600K, which benefits from more cores and cache.

Frequency is all that counts in Creo 3.0. Intel's Core i5-8600K can't do anything with its two extra cores; the -7600K is right behind on our chart. Cranking the clock rate up to 4.9 GHz, on the other hand...

Clock rate and core count both matter in 3ds Max 2015, allowing Intel’s Core i5-8600K to pull ahead of the -7600K by a larger margin.

The CPU composite score includes rendering, which is broken out into its own section below. There, AMD's Ryzen 7 does well, becoming the value champion to beat.

CPU Performance: Photorealistic Rendering

Final rendering doesn’t require a CPU that's good at everything. Rather, this task wants efficiency and fast parallel computation.

In pure rendering, Core i5-8600K is at the top of its class. However, you can see how AMD's Ryzen 7 1700 benefits a ton when its eight cores are overclocked. Thread count takes precedence over frequency, but performance does scale beautifully with the latter.

Core i7-8700K bests Ryzen 7 1700 at stock clock rates. Overclocking shoots AMD's affordable 8C/16T solution up to the front of our chart, though.

Intel's new Core i5 suffers somewhat due to its lack of Hyper-Threading. However, a 4.9 GHz clock rate certainly helps the six-core CPU compensate.

Last, but not least, we take a look at Blender. The usual workload (with a sample size of 200 pixels) confirms what we saw in the preceding benchmarks: Core i5-8600K trails the notably less expensive Ryzen 5 1600X.

The results obtained from SPECwpc’s Blender loop look similar, even though this benchmark presents a somewhat different task consisting of more than just rendering.

With the workload's rendering portion easing up, a stock Core i7-8700K suddenly becomes more competitive.

This trend intensifies as our benchmark begins incorporating tasks other than photorealistic rendering. Core count isn't the sole determiner of performance; IPC throughput factors in as well. That's why you see older quad-core models with SMT rise through the ranks. The tuned Core i5-8600K even takes the top spot.

In this test, the new Core i7-8700K and overclocked Ryzen 7 1700 lead. Core count matters, of course, but operating frequency is also a critical variable.

Intel’s Core i5-8600K offers acceptable performance in semi-professional applications; it's not just a gaming CPU. It's lack of Hyper-Threading support does show in threaded workloads, though. This keeps the Core i5 from dating above its league. If the chip performed too well, it'd cannibalize sales of pricier Core i7 models.

Going up against AMD isn't easy, though. The Ryzen processors fare well in stock form, and then respond readily to our overclocking efforts.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Scientific & Engineering Computations, HPC Performance

For these tests, we’re using the SPECwpc benchmark suite for workstations with its wide variety of tasks. It measures a number of very different mathematical computations optimized for parallelization. They typically make heavy use of available memory bandwidth and cache, plus expose issues with latency.

Rodinia

The pre-Euler3D CFD test (Computational Fluid Dynamics benchmark) runs very well on AMD's CPUs, suggesting scaling based predominantly on core count. It is interesting, however, that the overclocked Intel CPUs don't seem to benefit as much from higher operating frequencies.

Convolution

In this benchmark, a mathematical operation is performed on two functions (convolution), which results in a third function. Performance scales according to core count. Clock rate has far less impact, which gives AMD the advantage.

CalculiX

This test is based on the finite element method for three-dimensional structural computations. Intel’s higher frequencies help Core i7-8700K secure the win. Meanwhile, a lack of Hyper-Threading punishes Core i5.

Poisson's Equation

Poisson's Equation is a second-order partial differential equation widely used in physics for boundary value problems.

Both of Intel's new six-core models serve up compelling performance, though overclocking doesn't yield explosive gains. What's more, the -8600K cannot catch Ryzen 7 1700. On paper, AMD's chip is more expensive. But when you factor in a cheaper motherboard and bundled cooler, it'd actually save you money.

Sequential Reweighted Message Passing (SRMP)

These are algorithms for discrete energy minimization. The workload benefits from core count, clock rate, and architectural improvements, it appears. For some reason, though, AMD's Ryzen 7 and 5 just don't show well, even though our logs show them to be fully utilized.

Kirchhoff Migration

The earth’s subsurface structure can be determined via seismic processing. One of the four basic steps in this process is the Kirchhoff Migration, which is used to generate an image based on the available data using mathematical operations.

This benchmark and its underlying computations turn out to be a great fit for AMD, particularly when the Ryzen 7 1700 is overclocked.

The Core i5-8600K struggles in many of these tests due to its lack of Hyper-Threading. If it had simultaneous multi-threading, however, it'd basically be as fast as Core i7-8700K. If you run a lot of professional software, take the step up and go for Core i7 or one of the higher-end Ryzen chips. Core i5-8600K is serviceable in workstation apps, but it's really meant for gaming and desktop productivity.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Overclocking, Power Consumption & Temperatures

Overclocking

Our overclocking efforts started at an easy 5 GHz. Pushing up to 5.2 GHz, Windows would boot and most games still ran. However, Cinebench crashed on us. Then LuxRender started having stability issues at 5.1 GHz. In the end, Creo 3.0, SolidWorks, and some of the HPC applications also cratered at 5 GHz. So, we dropped to a completely stable 4.9 GHz.

Surprisingly, the power consumption and performance curves are nearly superimposed, while the Core i7-8700K showed a flatter performance curve after 4.8 GHz. Without Hyper-Threading, the -8600K's memory bandwidth is obviously sufficient for perfect scaling (even if the absolute performance results are lower).

Power Consumption

At idle, the differences in power consumption are fairly marginal. All of the processors end up just about where we'd expect based on previous reviews. AMD's Ryzen processors draw significantly more power than the Intel competition because their idle clock rate is a bit too high.

Chalk up the differences within 1W to a margin of error, even though we're measuring over a 30-minute period. The overclocked Core i5-8600K sees sporadic and unavoidable load peaks that mess with its average.

The new Intel CPU’s average power consumption in applications that combine 2D and 3D loads (like AutoCAD) is in line with the performance we observed.

Gaming paints a more balanced, but very similar picture.

The finishing order changes dramatically once we fire up an AVX stress test with all cores running at their top Turbo Boost bins. During rendering, we were seeing the -8600K's stock power consumption at 78W, climbing to 103W under a 5 GHz overclock.

AVX without offset pushes the result as high as 163W. The Core i5-8600K at 4.9 GHz even throttles due to its package temperature. And that's in spite of our compressor cooler's efforts! Thermal paste under the IHS does us no favors.

Temperatures

Here’s the good news: unless you render or run Prime95 for hours on end, a good air cooler can theoretically handle 4.9 GHz in a well-ventilated case. Intel’s thermal interface material isn't desirable, but it shouldn't stop you from achieving a decent overclock.

The above graph shows that a closed-loop liquid cooler is able to keep an overclocked Core i5-8600K from throttling after 20 minutes of warming up. A good heat sink and fan combination should perform almost as well, again, given ample airflow.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Conclusion

Intel's Core processors were long overdue for an infusion of extra execution resources. Two more cores help the Core i5-8600K put serious distance between Kaby Lake in threaded workloads, while aggressive Turbo Boost binning ensures you don't lose performance at any given utilization level. In fact, the six-core -8600K generally offers higher clocks than the -7600K in real-world tasks, despite Intel's lower base frequency specification.

The Core i5-8600K benefits gaming performance in a quantifiable way. We use a geometric mean of 99th percentile frame times, a good indicator of smoothness, converted into an FPS measurement. Five of the games we test were released in 2016, and five are older (2014/2015). Extra cores could enable more performance as software evolves, so we also include a chart with newer games that thoroughly utilize available host processing resources. We also have price-to-performance charts that include extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add an extra $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370).

Officially, Core i5-8600K sells for $15 more than its Kaby Lake predecessor (though street pricing currently has it +$40). The -8600K does, however, deliver more performance in most games. It even matches the Core i7-7700K, typically. AMD's Ryzen 5 1600X offers solid performance for enthusiasts on a budget, but it tends to trail the stock Core i5. And that's after overclocking.

Ryzen 7 1700 might be a more compelling option thanks to its eight cores and 16 threads, particularly if you run a lot of rendering/encoding tasks. A price point around $300 comes awful close to Core i5-8600K's current $280. And when you factor in lower-cost AMD motherboards and a bundled Wraith Spire heat sink/fan, an unlocked Coffee Lake chip quickly becomes more expensive. After all, it doesn't include cooling at all, while overclocking necessitates a premium Z370-based platform.

Overall, Intel's Core i5-8600K offers balanced performance in a wide range of workloads. Right now, availability is an issue. Provided you can find one, though, the -8600K delivers an unmatched gaming experience at its price.

For a bit of perspective, Core i5-8600K often provides similar gaming frame rates as the previous-gen Core i7-7700K, and it's incredibly competitive in productivity workloads. However, you can buy it for $60 less. That's an incredible jump. We stop short of saying Core i5-8600K represents the best gaming value because we haven't reviewed the multiplier-locked models yet. But -8600K certainly provides the best gaming value of the processors we've tested so far. That means you can build a gaming PC with GeForce GTX 1080 Ti or Radeon RX Vega 64 and not worry about host processing bottlenecks.

The Core i5-8600K also wields more horsepower for heavy-lifting, improving the results you'll see in demanding productivity workloads. AMD does well in that category as well though, so keep your eyes out for deals!

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Gigabyte Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 ‘Coffee Lake’ Motherboard Review

Thomas Soderstrom — Fri, 13 Oct 2017 13:00:00 +0000

Features & Specifications

We're always evaluating a new product from two primary angles: whether it offers more features than its competitors for a similar price; or whether it offers similar features to its competitors at a lower price. Those familiar with Gigabyte’s Aorus Gaming motherboard series will instantly recognize the number "7" as representing a higher-end model, and it’s currently the highest model number in Gigabyte’s Z370 portfolio.

Gigabyte uses only odd numbers in its Aorus Gaming motherboard model names, and doing so leaves only the number "9" to fill the insanely-expensive premium class. For now, then, the question is whether the Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 is a near-premium part with a more reasonable price tag.

Specifications

The Z370 Aorus Gaming 7’s specification list looks more mainstream than its model number suggests, lacking many of the near-premium features found on previous-generation motherboards (in the $220-$280 price class). The voltage regulator has 10 phases, there are no auxiliary power inputs or LN2-mode switches for insane overclocking, hardware overclocking buttons are limited to a single O/C function, and there are no Wi-Fi or U.2 connectors. Also, did you notice that there are very few PCIe pathway conflicts? The Z370 Aorus Gaming 7’s best feature could just be that it’s designed to support most of its included features simultaneously.

A few Easter eggs fall outside the scope of our table, however, such as the ESS SABRE 9018 DAC with WIMA audio capacitors driving those five analog audio jacks, the Sound BlasterX 720° software designed to add features to the improved quality audio, and the Killer software suite that optimizes the E2500 Gigabit Ethernet controller that feeds its second Gigabit Ethernet connection, with each of these features worth at least a couple dollars. And then there are the not-so-obvious features that are in the specs list, such as the second ASM3142 PCIe 3.0 x2 controller that feeds a Gen2 USB 3.1 port designed for front-panel Type-C headers. Most previous-generation boards only had 10 Gb/s ports on the I/O panel. And the Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 still has two of those (a Type-C and a Type A).

Color me mildly disappointed that the I/O panel USB ports don’t follow industry standard color codes, but at least it’s easy to remember that the red port and the Type-C ports have 10 Gb/s interfaces, with remaining ports supporting 5 Gb/s maximum transfer rates. Gigabyte also includes a PS/2 keyboard/mouse port, DisplayPort 1.2 and HDMI 1.4 outputs for the CPU’s integrated graphics engine, and a digital optical audio output. The lack of any I/O panel CLR_CMOS buttons can be a blessing to anyone who’s afraid a passerby might deploy it, but reaching the internal button could be difficult once the build has been completed.

There are also voltage jumpers for the D-LED lighting connectors to address the availability of both 5V and 12V varieties. And there are two RBGW LED headers in addition to the duo of D-LEDs. These features, along with the two thermistor headers, are found on the board’s upper-front and bottom-rear corners.

The upper-front corner also has four handy buttons appropriately named power, reset, CRL_CMOS, and OC. The OC button, which lights when deployed, picked a 4.90 GHz overclock for our Core i7-8700K at 1.30V CPU core and appears to be OS-agnostic (even functioning in UEFI mode).

LED strips between the DIMM slots and surrounding the x16-length PCIe slots can be programmed nearly any way you prefer, complementing the lighted windows of the I/O panel, voltage regulator, and Z370 PCH covers.

An extra space between the two main x16-length slots allows extra cooling for the top graphics card, as well as allowing the use of cards with extra thick coolers. Those two slots switch from x16/x0 to x8/x8 mode automatically when the second slot is filled. The third x16 slot features four pathways from the PCH, and is thus forced to share bandwidth with all three M.2 slots as well as any other chipset-connected device. It also drops to x2 mode whenever a drive is placed in the third M.2 slot. For most of the enthusiast market, that third slot is likely to be the only truly annoying example of resource sharing.

Less obtrusive shares include the top M.2 slot stealing HSIO resources from two SATA ports. Gigabyte understands that most enthusiasts won’t use more than four SATA ports, and while a SATA-interfaced card in the second M.2 slot steals another SATA port, most enthusiasts have long abandoned SATA for M.2.

The Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 has but one USB 3.0 front-panel port, and it’s located well above the top PCIe slot to avoid any connector conflicts. Users who want more high-speed front-panel ports will likely want a case with a Type-C interface and appropriate cable to match the Z370 Aorus Gaming 7’s 10 Gb/s front-panel header. Anyone who wants more than three front-panel ports is welcome to use one of the board’s three USB 2.0 front-panel headers.

Eight 4-pin fan headers that are individually configurable between PWM and voltage regulation modes are strategically placed behind the audio ports (1), next to the EPS12V connector (1), forward of the CPU voltage regulator (2), next to the main power connector (1), and toward the front of the bottom edge (3). Combining the placement of the two-digit status code display at the bottom edge with the likelihood that enthusiasts won’t use that slot for a graphics card, the only remaining layout concern is that the front-panel audio header is a little too far back into the bottom-rear corner for the cables of certain poorly configured cases to reach. That concern is nearly trivial, since we’re constantly patrolling for poorly-configured cases.

The Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 includes documentation, a driver and application disc, a sheet of stickers, two Velcro cable ties, four SATA cables (two straight, two with a right-angled end), an HB style SLI bridge, an RGBW extension cable, two thermistor leads, an I/O shield, a G-Connector cable bundler for front-panel LED and switch connectors, and a case badge. An included M.2 heat spreader comes installed over an empty M.2 slot, as shown in motherboard images.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

As part of an audio upgrade that includes a high-end ESS DAC, the Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 includes Creative’s SoundBlasterX 720° suite. Various audio manipulations include increasing the noise of your opponent’s footsteps, and it even includes a radar app to visually indicate the direction of their approach.

Gigabyte App Center remains the tray-residing menu for its collection of applications.

Some of Gigabyte’s smaller apps include 3D OSD system status overlay feature, @BIOS firmware updating feature with “Face Wizard” custom splash screen tool, Smart Keyboard macro recorder, AutoGreen power saving mode utility, BIOS Setup utility with a few minor firmware settings, Color Temperature display output mixer, DAC-UP 2 voltage tuner for USB ports, Smart Backup system and file backup utility, Smart Timelock scheduler to control when third parties (such as children) can use the PC, USB blocker with password protection for USB ports, V-Tuner graphics card overclocking utility, Cloud Station online storage client, and Cloud Station Server for hosting files and controlling the PC remotely. Some remote functions are designed to use onboard Wi-Fi/Bluetooth controllers of other motherboard models.

Gigabyte RGB Fusion worked perfectly on the Z370 Aorus Gaming 7, providing full color and pattern control for the various lighting groups on board. It can even be programmed to respond to system events rather than follow a fixed routine, if desired.

Gigabyte’s Smart Heads-Up Display provides an overlay of prerecorded videos atop gameplay videos, which could come in handy for following tutorials or previously optimized paths through the game map.

Gigabyte System Information Viewer starts the first time in an automatic fan tuner that’s laggy to cancel out of and will continue to pop up until the you finally let it do its thing. Its “thing” is to modify three of its four fan profiles to match your cooling configuration. The fourth profile, “Full Speed,” needs no tuning.

Gigabyte SIV also lets you set your own fan profiles manually, enable and alter various system event alerts, and record system events. An icon in the upper corner flips the app from console mode to a hardware monitor that consumes the entire right edge of your screen.

In the image above, I split the hardware monitor screen shot so it wouldn’t be as tall as your screen, placing the two halves so that its entirety would fit inside your view window. Hardware Monitor is also available from Gigabyte’s Easy Tune software, but clicking its “back” icon will always take you to its System Information Viewer menu.

Remember the OC button? Gigabyte EasyTune also includes that function using its software interface. And while the OC button cancels out at reboot, the software’s OC mode can be set to enable following a restart. Users are also allowed to program their own overclocking profiles, save them, and choose whether or not these should be automatically applied.

We confirmed Easy Tune’s ability to alter CPU multiplier, base clock, and voltage on the fly, but any changes to the memory configuration cause the program to force a reboot. Unlike DDR data rates, the DDR timings menu bars are greyed-out (non-functional).

The Auto Tuning algorithm of Gigabyte Easy Tune also took us to 4.90 GHz, but detected that our core needed 1.36V to run this frequency. That’s important, as Prime 95 threads 7 and 8 crashed using the default OC profile’s 1.30V CPU core.

Firmware

The Z370 Aorus Gaming 7’s firmware opens by default to the M.I.T. menu of advanced mode, which is a launching point for overclocking sub-menus. Moving the mouse to the right side of the screen also shows current voltage and frequency settings.

Gigabyte_Z370-Aorus-Gaming-7_01.png

The Advanced Frequency Settings menu is primarily for CPU overclocking, though it includes a memory multiplier made redundant by the Advanced Memory Settings menu. We were able to push our Core i7-8700K to 4848 MHz using a 101 MHz BCLK at 1.30V CPU core, whereas the auto-tuned 4.90 GHz at 1.36V caused our system to thermal-throttle after a few minutes of full Prime95 load.

Factory-included overclocking programs for our Core i7-8700K (pasted from a second screen shot so you could see what was behind that menu) included 4.80 GHz at around 1.36V, 4.90 GHz at around 1.38V, and 5.00 GHz at 1.42V. Given our inability to keep our cores consistently below throttle temperature at settings above 1.30V, we had to pass.

The Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 pushed a pair of our DDR4-3866 modules to DDR4-4040, and kept all four modules stable at DDR4-4000. Its Advanced Memory Setting sub-menu dives into combined (Manual mode) and per-channel (Advanced Manual mode) primary, secondary, and tertiary timings.

The M.I.T. “Advanced Voltage Settings” sub-menu is yet another launch point for menus that control various CPU, DRAM, and on-board component voltage levels. Our CPU required a VCore Loadline Calibration setting called “Turbo” to maintain its 1.30V when stressed with 12 threads of AVX-enabled Prime95.

Gigabyte’s decision to use 10mV steps for DRAM regulation is slightly unfortunate, as the 1.350V setting was measured as 1.357V at the slot. Given that certain manufacturers have used enormous amounts of cheat-voltage (aka, unreported overvolting up to 30mV) in past samples, we had to set a hard-and-fast limit of 1.355V (measured) to keep the competition fair. And that meant setting the Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 to 1.340V.

I prefer to make my fan settings in firmware, and Gigabyte obliges with a Smart Fan 5 menu that lets me set both the control mode and my own fan profiles to each fan header.

Launched from its “Peripherals” firmware menu, the firmware version of RGB Fusion provides a reduced set of controls for its on-board lighting and LED headers.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

This is the second motherboard in our Z370 review series, and we’re including the data for two of the Core i7-8700K’s predecessors in addition to the previously-reviewed MSI Z370 Godlike Gaming. Those predecessors are the four-core Core i7-7700K that the six-core Core i7-8700K replaces, and the six-core Core i7-7800X that features additional PCIe lanes and DDR4 channels at a similar price.

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4k Random Read, 4k Random Write128k Sequential Read, 128k Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests and Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19 GB 4k mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6 GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark driven routine
Game Tests and Settings
Ashes of Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920x1090, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, RainMedium Preset, No AFxUltra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, VeryHigh Quality, VeryHigh Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

The MSI Z370 Godlike Gaming sets the initial comparison data set for Z370 platforms using the Core i7-8700K. Data from the 8700K’s predecessors is an average of all previous tests from this lab, which includes every Z270 and our initial batch of X299 motherboards (later X299s were tested exclusively using the higher-model 7900X).

Synthetic Benchmarks

Synthetic benchmarks are great diagnostic tools, and show a small lead for the competing MSI board, which is appropriate for its 0.5 MHz BCLK overclock. Since we’re always looking for apples-to-apples comparisons, we’re looking at a wash.

One tiny change in the results from our Z370 Godlike Gaming review is that Gigabyte’s aggregate memory bandwidth score drops from 25.6 GB/s to 25.3. That’s because of a previous transcription error of the actual 25.26 GB/s result, which was too small an error to warrant a review revision.

3D Games

The Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 has a couple gaming losses that exceed its competitor’s 0.5% overclock, yet even the largest differences are too small to notice in actual game play.

Differences in Talos are all about the game’s Nahimic Audio Solution compatibility, as the competing Z370 Godlike Gaming includes that software and its use imparts a framerate hit. A look back at that board’s review reveals higher frame rates with the software disabled.

Timed Applications

Lower is better in timed applications, and a few of the Z370 Aorus Gaming 7’s losses again exceed the 0.5% overclock of the competing Z370 Godlike Gaming. Combined performance differences remain within 2%, however.

Power, Heat, & Efficiency

The Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 has appeared adequate through all of the tests so far, but we did find a small problem upon further examination: Its default CPU core voltage is 1.200V, slightly exceeding default settings. The impact this has on power consumption and heat production is far more relevant to our analysis:

In spite of its reasonable performance, the Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 is less efficient (by more than 13%) than the fully-loaded Z370 Godlike Gaming. This probably won’t matter to overclockers who use fixed voltage anyway, but it would have been a huge problem in a non-performance-enthusiast application.

Overclocking

The Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 does a good job overclocking within the thermal limits of our CPU, matching the ultra-expensive Z370 Godlike Gaming.

The Z370 Aorus Gaming is even able to take a small lead in overclocked memory bandwidth, proving the worth of its O/C in at least one respect compared to its rival.

Value

Determining value this early in the review process is complicated by the lack of a definitive answer for the difference in pricing between Z370 boards and the Z270 ones they potentially replace. Right now that difference appears to range from $0 to $30. If that difference were $30 consistently, the Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 would be on the precipice of average value. And if we compare performance, it looks like a winner mostly because we haven’t tested any of the $0-price-premium Z370 motherboards yet.

Add in the price of the CPU, and the Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 even looks like an average (or on par) value compared to our entire Z270 class.

We have an award for products that meet or slightly exceed our expectations without being priced into negative value territory, yet the only way the Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 can get that is if we consider the worth of its lighting. Other features such as the premium audio DAC and software suite are easily offset by the added on-board components of certain competitors. While I’m loath to use lighting as a justification for an award, I’m sure readers who build show systems will be put off if I don’t. It’s my job to represent them too, and so the Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 gets our stamp of approval.

MORE: Best Motherboards

And No, Coffee Lake will not run in Z270 motherboards.

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Intel Coffee Lake Gaming Results: i7-8700K Cheat Sheet

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Fri, 06 Oct 2017 22:00:00 +0000

As usual, we have the deep-dive Coffee Lake coverage in our Core i7-8700K Review: Coffee Lake Brews A Great Gaming CPU review, but for those of you without the time to sift through all 13 pages, we've condensed all of our gaming results to give you a cheat sheet of sorts on Intel's new halo product.

Coffee Lake has arrived, and after nearly a decade of quad-core doldrums in Intel's mainstream desktop space, the company finally decided to bulk up its Core i7, i5, and i3 series. Intel added two more cores to each of the families and also increased the Turbo Boost frequencies to the highest an Intel chip has seen. Better yet, those increased resources come with a minimal price increase over the Kaby Lake models for the unlocked K-series chips, and the same price for the locked models. We can thank AMD for that.

We also have articles that compare Intel's full Coffee Lake lineup to Kaby Lake and a full breakdown of comparisons to AMD's beefy Ryzen stable.

So, if you whip out your wallet for Intel's six-core, 12-thread flagship and a new motherboard, what does that give you on the gaming front?

This. Our 99th percentile FPS chart provides a geometric mean of the results, converted into an FPS measurement, of all the games in our test suite. That single figure boils the story down pretty nicely, although we've also provided the performance results in each game so you can see how the Core i7-8700K fares in your favorite titles.

Despite a few missteps, the Core i7-8700K lives up to Intel’s claims. Although it doesn't beat the -7700K by a massive margin, the Coffee Lake flagship does deliver better performance in stock and overclocked form. AMD's Ryzen processors still offer competitive pricing and solid gaming performance, but Coffee Lake's gaming performance widens the gap considerably.

Intel's additional cores speed up performance in threaded tasks, which will also be a boon for the streaming crowd, but the faster Turbo Boost (up to 4.7 GHz) maintains the company's advantage in single threaded titles, albeit with a few cases of a slight step back from the Kaby Lake processors.

But bleeding edge performance is only part of the equation. We demand good value--a point AMD drove home with its speedy Ryzen lineup. Intel has obviously taken note, and the additional cores comes without radical price increases. Overall, the Core i7-8700K represents a solid value for those who demand the ultimate in performance, and the lesser Core i5 and i3 SKUs also look promising for the more pragmatic among us.

The Core i7-8700K is simple to overclock and won't require exotic cooling solutions unless you're chasing the bleeding edge, which makes it a fun chip for enthusiasts.

Altogether, the Core i7-8700K is the nimblest gaming chip we've tested, and it also offers surprising performance in our full suite of application tests. As we noted in the review:

Intel has its 10nm Cannon Lake processors coming in the second half of 2018, and AMD has a Ryzen refresh cycle coming next year. Knowing this, should you upgrade now or wait for the next wave of hardware? Due to the iterative nature of most updates, we rarely recommend jumping forward one, or even two generations. However, if you routinely find yourself running productivity workloads that might be served well by Core i7-8700K's extra cores, we could see replacing a quad-core chip with six cores. Gamers interested in maximum performance or streaming also stand to benefit, though in a world of single-GPU graphics configurations, you'd be hard-pressed to bottleneck an overclocked -7700K with even a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (particularly at the high resolutions it's meant to drive).

Intel Core i7-8700KView Deal

The Core i7-8700K took home our Editor's Choice award. So feel free to take a dip in Coffee Lake if you've got the dosh--we doubt you'll be disappointed. We're working on testing the i5 and i3 models now, so stay tuned.

MSI Z370 Godlike Gaming 'Coffee Lake' Motherboard Review

Thomas Soderstrom — Fri, 06 Oct 2017 13:00:00 +0000

Features & Specifications

Feature-packed motherboards often exceed the ATX specification out of necessity, and the Z370 Godlike Gaming follows that concept with a slew of slots and on-board controllers packed tightly on a 10.7”-deep board. Because it's over an inch beyond the 9.6” (or 9.625”) depth of standard ATX, MSI affixes the EATX label so common among boards around this size. Far short of the 13” full EATX specification, it also fits any ATX case that has the extra inch of clearance at the front edge, as well as XL-ATX cases. We’ve been adding motherboard depth to ATX case reviews for a few months, just to assist builders in assessing their complete options.

But what exactly does all that extra room get us?

Specifications

Based on its ability to support four-way CrossFireX with a graphics card in the bottom slot, XL-ATX may appear to be the best (safest) choice in cases. On the other hand, that fourth slot shares PCIe pathways with so many other devices that we’re reluctant to use it. Among the Z370 Godlike Gaming’s premiere features, Killer xTend requires all three network controllers.

That’s right, we said three Killer E2500 PCIe network controllers. Add to that the Killer Wi-Fi, and you’ll get the options to use the on-board components as a network switch and access point in addition to the regular Killer features of packet and bandwidth prioritization. The label “xTend” pays homage to the typical remote placement and cable connection of a gaming PC, as the additional access point could eliminate the need for a range extender.

Other I/O-panel features include the expected pair of USB 3.1 Gen2 Type A and Type-C ports, six USB 3.0 ports (aka USB 3.1 Gen1), a CLR_CMOS button, five 1/8” analog audio jacks, digital optical audio, and a ¼” jack driven by an ESS Sabre 9018 DAC through an ESS headphone amplifier.

The Z370 Godlike Gaming’s top-front corner features a button to force entry into the UEFI interface, a button to force a retry after a boot hang, a two digit status code display, a row of voltage detection points (for your voltmeter), power and reset buttons, a “Game Boost” knob with seven factory-defined overclock configurations, and a row of LEDs that show which device is being initialized during the boot process. That last feature allows users who don’t remember status codes to understand where the boot process “hung” without looking up those codes.

The bottom edge features a selector switch for the backup firmware ROM, and a set of switches to disable any of the three upper (CPU-based) PCIe x16-length slots, just in case your GPU overclock goes wrong. Keen eyes will also notice two of the 2-pin thermistor headers nearby (the other is next to the 24-pin power socket), along with two of the board’s 10 fan connectors, three USB 2.3 headers, one USB 3.0 header, and two RGB headers along that same bottom edge. One of the RGB headers is designed for 12V RGB strips, the other for 5V “Rainbow” strips.

The Z370 Godlike Gaming feeds the upper three x16-length slots from the CPU, automatically switching from x16-x0-x0 to x8-x0-x8 and x8-x4-x4 modes as those slots are populated. SLI excludes the use of four-lane slots, but the bandwidth benefit of direct PCIe 3.0 connections should make these adequate for three-way CrossFireX. Unfortunately, the USB 3.1 front-panel header for Type-C ports limits the length of the second card to 10.1”. And while you could move that card to the bottom slot, doing so would force it to share bandwidth with other chipset-connected devices (including storage and networking), give up the features described several paragraphs above, and likewise lose access to the second USB 3.0 front-panel header located on the bottom edge.

Shared pathways also force builders to choose between U.2 connector and a second M.2 slot. A slow-mode jumper is found behind the U.2 connector, which forces the CPU to clock down at boot to overcome “cold bug” boot failures when using extreme cooling (such as liquid nitrogen). A “flashback” button above the back edge of the U.2 connector forces firmware updates using an onboard ASIC, which gets around the problem of updating for newer processor compatibility without having an older one handy.

The Z370 Godlike Gaming installation kit includes a driver disc, six SATA cables (four short, two long, three with a single 90° end), an I/O shield with two additional decorative covers, a USB expander connection cable, three cable-mounted thermistors, an RGB lighting Y-cable, an HB-SLI bridge, two Wi-Fi antennas, an internal USB 2.0 hub (labeled Xpander) with adhesive-backed Velcro mounting tape, an RGB strip, MSI’s Xpander-Z M.2 adapter, a case badge, and a large pile of documentation including cable label stickers.

M.2 Xpander-Z image ID: 708492

The M.2 Xpander-Z supports two M.2 drives using eight PCIe lanes. For optimal performance (and to support both modules), we’d recommend using it only in the third x16-length slot, and only with a single graphics card.

The included RGB LED is a rainbow model from Phanteks. Both accessory I/O shield covers are magnetic, and the USB “Xpander” breaks out a single two-port header to four two-port headers.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Software & Firmware

Killer XTend adds a page to the familiar packet and bandwidth prioritization software that comes with Killer network gear. The name refers to its ability to extend your wireless network through your wired network, assuming your gaming system is distanced from your home’s primary wireless transceiver. We’re basically looking at an onboard Killer-enhanced router/access point, with traffic priority for the local PC among its benefits.

MSI App Manager provides a handy menu for most of MSI’s own applications, including Command Center, DPC Latency Tuner, Fast Boot, Gaming APP and Xboost for performance tuning, Mystic Light onboard lighting configuration, MSI’s RAMDisk utility, Smart Tool for adding drivers to a Windows 7 installation drive or ISO, and SuperCharger for USB, which unfortunately wasn’t compatible yet with this motherboard model.

The great news on MSI Command Center is that similar technologies have allowed it to work immediately, without requiring further post-launch updates. We had complete control of the CPU core multiplier, base clock, and core voltage from the time we installed it.

My initial intent to include completely new descriptions of the advanced menus of MSI Command Center gave way to the sheer number of unchanged screen shots, to the point where I decided that previous descriptions would be just as beneficial, while substantially reducing the load time of this page. Even the old Skylake model numbers remain on the Game Boost menu: Actual Game Boost frequencies for Coffee Lake are 1x-7x above the stock Intel Turbo Boost ratios in seven steps, each step likewise increasing CPU core voltage by ~50mV, culminating in a 5.4 GHz max O/C at a 1.50V max voltage when “dialed up to 11.” The actual Game Boost “levels” are numbered 1-2-4-6-8-10-11, where the 5.1 GHz “Level 6” gave us 5.0 GHz with a single-core fully-loaded, scaling down to 4.7 GHz as more cores were loaded. Progressively higher Game Boost levels caused progressively quicker thermal throttling.

MSI DPC Latency Tuner is a far more limited overclocking utility compared to Command Center.

MSI Gaming App also includes an overclocked mode, which is drawn from the “Level 1” settings of MSI Game Boost. Additional features include system status overlay for 3D apps, a digital screen control menu with “Eye Rest” mode to reduce blue light, a macro recorder with additional hot key options, a mouse configuration menu, and MSI VR Ready for quick shutdown of certain (unspecified) background processes.

MSI Dragon Eye allows overlaying online videos atop the play screens of certain games, which may be good for tutorials.

After using MSI Live Update to update all of the system’s drivers and applications, its menu serves as a reminder of the installations that failed (Intel SGX and MSI Super Charger), as well as the ones a user didn’t want to install.

MSI Mystic Light is still broken, although it now adds a feature to sync its lighting with that of other machines. I was able to make a few changes somewhat randomly before the program locked up completely. Its settings appear to be stored on a portion of system ROM that isn’t cleared when using the CLR_CMOS button, so the only way to restore default settings after a complete software failure was to uninstall and reinstall the program.

Each Z370 Godlike Gaming motherboard includes a full license for Nahimic 2 audio solution, which adds virtual 3D to stereo headphones, virtualizes 3D from non-encoded sources to multi-channel speaker systems, and adds visual source tracking to certain games.

MSI also includes a one-year subscription to XSplit Gamecaster, a three-month sub to TriDef VR, and a two-month license for WTFast VPN.

Firmware

We talked a bit about Game Boost on the previous page and above, and here’s the trick: It’s programed into the firmware. That means the knob works even without software, and the software settings simply call up the programming that’s associated with the knob. So, the knob is a human interface device for firmware.

The Z370 Godlike Gaming enters UEFI the first time to its EZ Mode interface, after which it remembers which mode was used at the previous interface exit. EZ Mode controls include storage controller settings and XMP-enable for performance memory.

We reached 4848 MHz at 48x 101 MHz on our Core i7-8700K using 1.30V, and DDR4-4040 at 15x 4/3x 101 MHz (x DDR, of course), with two modules installed. The maximum stable DRAM frequency dropped to DDR4-4000 with all four of our DDR4-3866 modules installed, and the closest DRAM setting to our desired 1.350V was 1.330V, which measured 1.346V at the DIMM slot. The next higher VDIMM setting—1.340V-set—produced 1.356V-measured, violating our 1.355V limit.

The Z370 Godlike Gaming includes a complete set of DRAM timing controls, but users should be aware that the board responds to overclocking past XMP-ratings by automatically loosening timings. We also found our memory stable at DDR4-4000 using its rated timings.

We were able to achieve a 1.30V core under load by using the Z370 Godlike Gaming’s 1.295V CPU core setting, in concert with its Mode 3 Loadline Calibration. A 72K temperature delta when running 12 threads of Prime95 prevented testing at higher voltage levels.

The Memory Z submenu goes several levels farther to display both SPD and XMP values.

The M-Flash option forces reboot to a special firmware updating mode.

MSI’s firmware ROM has enough space to store up to six custom configurations as overclocking profiles, and users are welcome to save and share their overclocking profiles by transferring them to and from a USB flash drive.

MSI’s hardware monitor menu has gotten extremely complex over the past few months, and still allows users to set their own fan maps if desired. All 10 fan headers can also be manually switched between PWM and voltage-based RPM control, or left to the motherboard’s automatic detection.

MSI Board Explorer shows our CPU, M.2, and memory, but doesn’t appear to notice whether the USB or SATA interfaces are connected.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

How We Test

Since this is the first Z370 motherboard in our review series, we’re including the data for one motherboard that hasn’t yet been reviewed, along with the data for two of the Core i7-8700K’s predecessors: The four-core Core i7-7700K that it replaces, and the six-core Core i7-7800X that features additional PCIe lanes and DDR4 channels at a similar price.

Sound	Integrated HD Audio
Network	Integrated Gigabit Networking
Graphics Driver	GeForce 382.53

Benchmark Settings

Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
PCMark 8	Version 2.7.613Home, Creative, Work, Storage, Applications (Adobe & Microsoft)
3DMark 13	Version 4.47.597.0Skydiver, Firestrike, Firestrike Extreme Default Presets
SiSoftware Sandra	Version 2016.03.22.21CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth
DiskSPD	4k Random Read, 4k Random Write128k Sequential Read, 128k Sequential Write
Cinebench R15	Build RC83328DEMOOpenGL Benchmark
CompuBench	Version 1.5.8Face Detection, Optical Flow, Ocean Surface, Ray Tracing
Application Tests and Settings
LAME MP3	Version 3.98.3Mixed 271MB WAV to mp3: Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLI	Version: 0.9.9Sintel Open Movie Project: 4.19 GB 4k mkv to x265 mp4
Blender	Version 2.68aBMW 27 CPU Render Benchmark, BMW 27 GPU Render Benchmark
7-Zip	Version 16.02THG-Workload (7.6 GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=9"
Adobe After Effects CC	Release 2015.3.0, Version 13.8.0.144PCMark driven routine
Adobe Photoshop CC	Release 2015.5.0. 20160603.r.88 x64PCMark driven routine (light and heavy)
Adobe InDesign CC	Release 2015.4, Build 11.4.0.90 x64PCMark driven routine
Adobe Illustrator	Release 2015.3.0, Version 20.0.0 (64-bit)PCMark driven routine
Game Tests and Settings
Ashes of Singularity	Version 1.31.21360High Preset - 1920x1080, Mid Shadow Quality, 1x MSAACrazy Preset - 1920x1090, High Shadow Quality, 2x MSAA
F1 2015	2015 Season, Abu Dhabi Track, RainMedium Preset, No AFxUltra High Preset, 16x AF
Metro Last Light Redux	Version 3.00 x64High Quality, 1920x1080, High Tesselation, 16x AFVery High Quality, 1920x1080, Very High Tesselation, 16x AF
The Talos Principle	Version 267252Medium Preset, High Quality, High Tesselation, 4x AFUltra Preset, VeryHigh Quality, VeryHigh Tesselation, 16x AF

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

We collected a second Core i7-8700K data set for today’s motherboard analysis, and the review of the contributing motherboard is forthcoming. Data from the 8700K’s predecessors is an average of all previous tests from this lab, which includes every Z270 and our initial batch of X299 motherboards (later X299s were tested exclusively using the higher-model 7900X).

Synthetic Benchmarks

Synthetic benchmarks are great tools for finding weaknesses in specific hardware or configuration errors, but in the era of X299 platforms they’ve also highlighted the manner in which most enthusiast-class motherboards ignore Intel’s specified TDP, even when all of the CPU’s power management technologies are enabled. CPUs that lack that tendancy typically perform very similarly across different motherboard models, unless one of the manufacturers has snuck in an overclock.

The Z370 Godlike Gaming appears to be clocked a little higher than the Z370 Aorus Gaming 7, and that’s indeed the case: MSI’s 100 MHz BCLK is actually 100.5 MHz, which doesn’t sound like much, but the test result differences aren’t that big either. Clock differences are far greater for the earlier Core i7-7800X, which shines only in applications that can leverage its quad-channel memory bandwidth.

3D Games

The Z370 Godlike Gaming approximately doubles the lead imparted by its small overclock across most games compared to the Z370 Aorus Gaming 7. Differences between the Z370 platform’s Core i7-8700K and the Z270 platform’s Core i7-7700K are less clear in F1 2015, though motherboard drivers are as old as the review of each motherboard.

Talos Principle is supported by Nahimic audio solution, and while the software adds some nice virtualized 3D and even a handy tool to show you the direction from which a noise emanated (such as an opponent’s footsteps), it taxes the game’s framerates. The faded portion of the Z370 Godlike Gaming’s chart bars show the FPS available after disabling the audio software.

Timed Applications

The Z370 Godlike Gaming’s slight overclock pushes it to the forefront of most timed applications, although the Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 beat it in After Effects. Then again, so did the Core i7-7700K.

Power, Heat, & Efficiency

The Z370 Godlike Gaming is a real miser compared to the Z370 Aorus Gaming 7. Z270 tests include “lightweight” boards in compact form factors and lower feature markets (remember, it's an average), and the Godlike Gaming’s additional controllers can each eat several watts.

The Z370 Godlike Gaming’s lower power consumption enabled lower heat and better efficiency compared to the Gigabyte board. Meanwhile, the poor efficiency of the Core i7-7800X shows why buyers should consider the upgrade only if they need the extra PCIe lanes or additional memory bandwidth.

Overclocking

We’re accustomed to additional cores limiting our overclocks, yet the six-core Core i7-8700K used in our Z370 tests clocks better than the quad-core Core i7-7700K. We don’t see a difference between motherboards either, and having approached our thermal limit, couldn’t have appropriately applied more voltage.

We started adding an overclocked memory bandwidth chart after realizing that some manufacturers were using extremely loose secondary and tertiary timings to top the O/C chart. We don’t see that problem in any of the current boards, although Gigabyte does a better job than MSI of retaining the performance advantage of its memory O/C.

Value Conclusion

The Z370 Godlike Gaming has so many added features that it targets a higher market than the Z370 Aorus Gaming. Were we to go feature-by-feature through the list of triple gigabit Ethernet networking, plus Wi-Fi, four-way CrossFireX, Nahimic Audio (for those who use it), a freebie Rainbow light strip, an included USB 2.0 hub, and even PCIe x8 to dual M.2 adapter card, we’d still have a hard time justifying its doubled price. That still leaves room for an Editor’s Choice award however, since those are based only on product superiority.

Unfortunately, a plethora of features must be disabled so that others may be enabled, due to the limitations of Intel’s Z170/Z270/Z370 chipset (the rumored “hidden lanes” of the Z170 were made active in the Z270, and the Z370 doesn’t even pretend to be a new development). Those who can’t understand the true constraints of the Z370’s 30 HSIO connections need only look at the chart MSI publishes in its Z370 Godlike Gaming manual:

Those aren’t switching hubs folks, they’re regular “or” type switches. In fact, the only two ways we could think of to enable all Z370 Godlike Gaming features simultaneously would have been to use a giant 64-lane (PEX 8764) multi-casting switch, or to split the CPU’s lanes into x8/x8 and use separate switching hubs for the card slots and M.2/U.2 slots. I’m not even sure the CPU would support booting M.2 through such a device. And that just means that if this editor had to choose an ultimate motherboard based on these integrated features, the chosen board would need a 44-lane CPU. Fortunately, this editor’s needs aren’t that grand!

If all you need is a 6-core CPU, and you’re willing to pay for an abundance of features that can’t all be used at once, we have great news: The Z370 Godlike Gaming’s feature set is far above the average of X299 motherboards, and the savings on CPU cost puts it within reach. The Z370-compatible Core i7-8700K is also clocked much higher, and even overclocks better than the X299-compabile Core i7-7800X. It’s a great board with features that exceed the limitations of incorporation.

MORE: Best Motherboards

MORE: All Motherboard Content

Core i7-8700K Review: Coffee Lake Brews A Great Gaming CPU

palcorn@outlook.com (Paul Alcorn) — Thu, 05 Oct 2017 13:01:00 +0000

Intel Brings More Cores

Intel’s Core 2 Quad processors debuted with four cores in 2006. Although six-core models landed four years later in the high-end desktop space, the company’s most accessible chips topped out in quad-core configurations for more than a decade. The Coffee Lake era begins with Intel upending its mainstream line-up by adding two more cores to Core i7, i5, and i3 families. Call this a much-needed improvement, cleverly timed to stave off AMD's core-laden Ryzen assault.

Of course, while Intel's accelerated Coffee Lake-S launch makes it look today's unveiling is a direct response to heated competition, in reality, the long incubation period for new processors means it’s more likely the result of 10nm manufacturing delays.

Just last year, Intel announced a new process-architecture-optimize cadence designed to deliver smaller transistors every third generation. That's a profound departure from the glory days of Intel’s tick-tock model. The latest 14nm++ process is the fourth outing of the 14nm node, which originally debuted with Broadwell back in 2014. So, it appears that PAO is already falling by the wayside. In the days of tick-tock, we'd also be talking about a new architecture right now. But Coffee Lake employs the same Skylake design as Kaby Lake before it. We also get the same fundamental integrated graphics engine found in the previous generation. To be sure, Coffee Lake is another iterative update.

But there’s nothing mundane about adding more cores. Intel claims Coffee Lake offers up to 25% more gaming performance and up to 45% more “mega-tasking” performance. Given similar price points versus Kaby Lake, we're almost certainly looking at a huge step forward in value.

This is obviously a busy year for Intel. But as if the company's product stack wasn't already confusing, its eighth-generation portfolio draws from three separate architectures, including 14nm+ Kaby Lake-R (refresh), 14nm++ Coffee Lake, and 10nm Cannon Lake, which should land next year.

Intel Core i7-8700K

Core i7-8700K serves as this generation's flagship, sporting six Hyper-Threaded cores. Already, that's a big increase from Kaby Lake's 4C/8T maximum. It features the company's highest clock rates, accelerating up to 4.7 GHz via Turbo Boost. The -8700K does sacrifice some base frequency in exchange for a higher core count, though. Its 3.7 GHz specification is 500 MHz lower than the -7700K, offsetting the increased power consumption and heat generated by a 6C/12T configuration.

The -8700K's Coffee Lake design utilizes a 14nm++ process, which Intel claims offers 26% more performance and 52% less leakage power than first-generation 14nm manufacturing. Those advances enable the higher Turbo Boost bins and reduce consumption enough to carve out room for extra cores. A more complex die does necessitate a TDP rating of up to 95W. But that's only 4% higher than Core i7-7700K. And as we've seen before, Turbo Boost allows the CPU to operate beyond its rated TDP as long as current, power, and temperature fall below specified limits. As you might imagine, then, the impact of two additional cores is felt under load.

The top 4.7 GHz Turbo Boost bin should help improve performance in lightly-threaded applications. But Core i7-8700K also includes aggressive multi-core bins to help chew through threaded workloads. Because these CPUs employ Intel's Skylake architecture, we aren't expecting any speed-ups attributable to IPC throughput. All gains come from core count and clock rate alone. Intel isn't officially disclosing a die size or transistor count, but early delidding efforts indicate a ~151mm² area. That's naturally larger than Kaby Lake's ~122mm², reflecting the additional execution and cache resources. Intel confirms that Coffee Lake continues to employ its ring bus, rather than Skylake-X's mesh topology.

Active Cores	1	2	4	6
Intel Core i7-8700K	4.7 GHz	4.6 GHz	4.4 GHz	4.3 GHz
Intel Core i7-7700K	4.5 GHz	4.4 GHz	4.4 GHz	-

Intel also adds 50% more cores to its Core i5 family, and doubles Core i3's core count. But it pulls Hyper-Threading support from Core i3 in the process. Nevertheless, we expect gamers to realize palpable gains moving from dual-core Hyper-Threaded platforms to inexpensive quad-core setups.

Core i5 and i7 also support speedier DDR4-2666 transfer rates, up from Kaby Lake's DDR4-2400 spec. Core i3 remains limited to DDR4-2400, though. This could just be Intel's attempt to segment its line-up, or perhaps the Core i3s are really just quad-core Kaby Lake designs transplanted onto a 14nm++ process.

	Intel Corei7-8700K	Intel Corei7-8700	Intel Core i5-8600K	Intel Core i5-8400	Intel Core i3-8350K	Intel Core i3-8100
Socket	LGA 1151	LGA 1151	LGA 1151	LGA 1151	LGA 1151	LGA 1151
Cores/Threads	6 / 12	6 / 12	6 / 6	6 / 6	4 / 4	4 / 4
Base Frequency	3.7 GHz	3.2 GHz	3.6 GHz	2.8 GHz	4.0 GHz	3.6 GHz
Boost Frequency	4.7 GHz	4.6 GHz	4.3 GHz	4.0 GHz	N/A	N/A
Memory Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2400	DDR4-2400
Memory Controller	Dual-Channel	Dual-Channel	Dual-Channel	Dual-Channel	Dual-Channel	Dual-Channel
Unlocked Multiplier	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	x16 Gen3	x16 Gen3	x16 Gen3	x16 Gen3	x16 Gen3	x16 Gen3
Integrated Graphics	Intel UHD Graphics 630 (up to 1200 MHz)	Intel UHD Graphics 630 (up to 1200 MHz)	Intel UHD Graphics 630 (up to 1150 MHz)	Intel UHD Graphics 630 (up to 1150 MHz)	Intel UHD Graphics 630 (up to 1150 MHz)	Intel UHD Graphics 630 (up to 1150 MHz)
Cache (L2+L3)	13.5MB	13.5MB	10.5MB	10.5MB	9MB	7MB
Architecture	Coffee Lake	Coffee Lake	Coffee Lake	Coffee Lake	Coffee Lake	Coffee Lake
Process	14nm++	14nm++	14nm++	14nm++	14nm++	14nm++
TDP	95W	65W	95W	65W	91W	65W
Price (per 1K Unit)	$359	$303	$257	$182	$168	$117

Unfortunately, Intel still doesn't enable Turbo Boost on its Core i3 CPUs. So, we could see a performance dip in lightly threaded workloads due to Coffee Lake's lower base frequencies. You do get 100% more cores in exchange, though. Physical cores are always preferable to logical ones, so the new implementation of Core i3 should come out ahead in most of our benchmarks.

As expected, most models continue to wield 2MB of L3 and 256KB of L2 cache per core. As a side effect of its higher core counts, then, Coffee Lake processors enjoy the benefits of more cache. Core i3-8100 is the lone exception with only 6MB of L3 cache.

PCIe connectivity remains unchanged; you get 16 lanes of third-gen PCIe from the CPU's controller. Intel reminds us, though, that it offers up to 40 lanes when we add the platform controller hub's 24.

You'll need a Z370-based motherboard for Coffee Lake processors. The 200-series chipsets are not compatible. And in a clear indication that Intel really hurried its launch schedule, less expensive B- or H-series chipsets won't be ready until next year. Paying a premium for Z-class core logic isn't much of a surprise for enthusiasts, who need the higher-end chipset to support unlocked multipliers. But it's a little bit overkill for everyone else.

Coffee Lake	Intel Corei7-8700K	Intel Corei7-8700	Intel Core i5-8600K	Intel Core i5-8400	Intel Core i3-8350K	Intel Core i3-8100
Cost Per Core/Thread	$59.83 / $29.92	$50.50 / $25.25	$42.83 / $42.83	$30.33 / $30.33	$42 / $42	$29.95 / $29.95
Kaby Lake	Intel Core i7-7700K	Intel Core i7-7700	Intel Core i5-7600K	Intel Core i5-7400	Intel i3-7350K	Intel i3-7100
Cost Per Core/Thread	$84.75 / $42.38	$75.75 / $37.88	$60.50 / $60.50	$45.50 / $45.50	$84 / $42	$58.50 / $29.95
Ryzen	Ryzen 71700X	Ryzen 71700	Ryzen 51600X	Ryzen 51500X	Ryzen 51400	Ryzen 31300X
Cost Per Core/Thread	$49.88 / $24.94	$41.13 / $20.56	$41.50 / $20.75	$47.50 / $23.75	$42.25 / $21.12	$32.50 / $32.50

We're using Intel's 1K unit pricing for comparisons to the Kaby Lake models and AMD's MSRP for price-equivalent Ryzen chips. We may see higher prices on Intel's CPUs at retail, while AMD models routinely sell below MSRP.

Intel adds a ~$20 premium to its K-series SKUs compared to their Kaby Lake equivalents. Overall, though, you pay less per core. Again, Intel removed Hyper-Threading from its Core i3s, so their price per thread remains unchanged. With the exception of Ryzen 3, AMD maintains a price advantage across its portfolio, due in part to SMT on the Ryzen 5 family. The benchmarks will give us a better idea of performance-per-dollar compared to Kaby Lake and Ryzen, though.

Overclocking headroom was one of Kaby Lake's biggest advantages due to Ryzen's limited scaling. Intel adds per-core overclocking support to this generation, but doesn't provide per-core voltage and P-state controls. It also enables live memory timing adjustments (without rebooting), along with memory multipliers up to 8400 MT/s, so you don't have to adjust the BCLK frequency to chase bleeding-edge transfer rates. Finally, enhanced GT and Ring PLL Trim controls add more granular control.

Intel makes some power optimizations to its interface that promise to extend the advantage while overclocking. However, the company continues to insist on using thermal paste between its die and IHS, rather than solder. Like all unlocked Intel models, the Core i7-8700K doesn't include a stock cooler.

Nevertheless, we have to give the big company credit for staying on its toes this year. It already introduced Kaby Lake, Skylake-X, and Kaby Lake-Refresh. Next year, we'll have new Pentium and Celeron line-ups headed our way. But for now, we're looking forward to testing what Intel claims is its best gaming chip yet.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD CPU Comparison Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

The Z370 Chipset & Graphics

The Z370 Chipset

Much to the dismay of enthusiasts everywhere, you can't buy a Coffee Lake-based CPU and drop it into the fancy Z270 motherboard you may have purchased a few months ago. Instead, you'll have to pony up for a 300-series motherboard. You also can't bring your Skylake or Kaby Lake processor over to a Z370-based platform, even though both sides employ LGA 1151 interfaces.

Intel makes more money selling CPUs than chipsets, so creating an upgrade path would have made sense. But the company tells us that it needed optimized memory trace routing to support DDR4-2666, and it also improved power delivery to support six-core models. It also beefed up package power delivery for overclocking.

According to Intel's specification sheet, the increased package power delivery consists of 18 pins repurposed to VCC (previously designated as reserve pins). There are also changes to the socket that reassign behaviors to some pins, such as swapping Normal Open (NO) and Normal Closed (NC) settings. Intel also improved power delivery to the graphics engine, and although the specific changes there remain undefined, that might improve HD Graphics overclocking.

The changes mean upgrading to Z370 is a technical necessity, rather than planned obsolescence. Regardless, though, AMD's planned support for Socket AM4 through 2020 makes Intel's Z370 chipset requirement appear all the more painful.

CPU-based I/O remains unchanged from Kaby Lake; you still get 16 lanes of PCIe 3.0. Again, though, the whole platform supports up to 40 lanes. The extra 24 originate from the PCH, stuck behind a four-lane DMI 3.0 connection that links the core logic and CPU. As you might imagine, this PCIe-like interconnect can become a bottleneck if enough devices (like M.2 SSDs) are working behind it.

The 22nm Z370 chipset is rated at 6W, and is mostly identical to Z270. It offers up to 10 USB 2.0, 14 USB 3.0, and six SATA 6Gb/s ports. Intel added support for Thunderbolt 3, but hasn't provided much detail on the implementation. Z370 also retains support for Intel Optane Memory. Even the ME version 11 is listed similarly on Intel's ARK, though we do know that Z370's Management Engine doesn't allow Kaby Lake processors to boot on the platform. Two memory channels support up to two DIMMs per channel and a maximum of 64GB. Intel does not support ECC on any of its models (compared to AMD, which does allow motherboard vendors to enable ECC support).

Intel offers a few unique benefits to enthusiasts, such as the XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility) and support for XMP 2.0. The Performance Tuning Protection Plan is also available, which covers damage from overclocking. The price for the warranty plan varies per SKU, and Intel hasn't provided a detailed breakdown for Coffee Lake yet. We aren't aware of any AMD-equivalent coverage.

Intel UHD Graphics 630

Intel will have an optimized graphics driver soon after launch, but we don't see any significant improvements (beyond HDCP 2.2 support for DP 1.2a) to the Gen 9 LP (Low Power) engine. We still get subslices with eight EUs each (totaling 24 EUs in a GT2 configuration), accelerated slightly by a 50 MHz maximum frequency increase across the board.

The biggest change comes from Intel's marketing department, which "upgraded" the High Definition (HD) Graphics 630 brand to Ultra High Definition (UHD) Graphics 630. Apparently, that means the company supports the same legacy VP8 and AVC codecs, HEVC 10-bit decode/encode, VP9 8/10-bit decode, VP9 8-bit encode (no support for VP9 10-bit encode), HDR, and Wide Color Gamut features. The processors now come in 6+2 (i5 and i7) and 4+2 (i3) configurations.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

How We Test

The MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC

Comparison Products

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X

AMD Ryzen 5 1600X

Intel Core i7-7800X

Test Systems

We introduced our new test system and methodology in How We Test Graphics Cards. If you'd like more detail about our general approach, check that piece out.

In this case, only the hardware configuration with CPU, RAM, mainboard, as well as the new cooling system are different, so the summary in table form gives a quick overview of the systems used:

Test System and Configuration
Hardware	Germany Intel Socket 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i7-8700KMSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC2x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2666Intel LGA 2066Intel Core i7-7800XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 4GB G.Skill RipJaws IV DDR4-2600AMD Socket AM4 WorkstationAMD Ryzen 7 1800X, Ryzen 5 1600XMSI X370 Tomahawk4x 8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270)Intel Core i7-7700K, Core i5-7600KMSI Z270 Gaming 72x 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 @ 2400 and 3200All SystemsGeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Gaming)Nvidia Quadro P6000 (Workstation)1x 1TB Toshiba OCZ RD400 (M.2, System)2x 960GB Toshiba OCZ TR150 (Storage, Images)be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11, 850W Power SupplyWindows 10 Pro (Creators Update)USIntel Socket 1151 (Z370):Intel Core i7-8700KMSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 Intel LGA 2066Intel Core i7-7800XMSI X299 Gaming Pro Carbon AC4x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 AMD Socket AM4 AMD Ryzen 7 1800X, Ryzen 5 1600XMSI X370 Xpower Gaming Titanium2x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2667 and 3200 Intel LGA 1151 (Z270) Intel Core i7-7700K, Core i5-7600K MSI Z270 Gaming M72x 8GB G.Skill RipJaws V DDR4-3200 @ 2666 and 3200 All EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FE 1TB Samsung PM863 SilverStone ST1500, 1500W Windows 10 Creators Update Version 1703
Cooling	GermanyAlphacool Eiszeit 2000 ChillerAlphacool Eisblock XPXThermal Grizzly Kryonaut (For Cooler Switch)
Monitor	Eizo EV3237-BK
PC Case	Lian Li PC-T70 with Extension Kit and Mods Configurations: Open Benchtable, Closed Case
Power Consumption Measurement	Contact-free DC Measurement at PCIe Slot (Using a Riser Card) Contact-free DC Measurement at External Auxiliary Power Supply Cable Direct Voltage Measurement at Power Supply 2x Rohde & Schwarz HMO 3054, 500MHz Digital Multi-Channel Oscilloscope with Storage Function4x Rohde & Schwarz HZO50 Current Probe (1mA - 30A, 100kHz, DC) 4x Rohde & Schwarz HZ355 (10:1 Probes, 500MHz) 1x Rohde & Schwarz HMC 8012 Digital Multimeter with Storage Function
Thermal Measurement	1x Optris PI640 80Hz Infrared Camera + PI Connect Real-Time Infrared Monitoring and Recording
Acoustic Measurement	NTI Audio M2211 (with Calibration File, Low Cut at 50Hz) Steinberg UR12 (with Phantom Power for Microphones)Creative X7, Smaart v.7 Custom-Made Proprietary Measurement Chamber, 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2m (L x D x H) Perpendicular to Center of Noise Source(s), Measurement Distance of 50cm Noise Level in dB(A) (Slow), Real-time Frequency Analyzer (RTA) Graphical Frequency Spectrum of Noise

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

VRMark, 3DMark & AotS: Escalation

Test Notes

We generated some odd performance results with Intel's Core i7-8700. Despite more conservative specifications and a lower price, it outperformed the flagship Core i7-8700K in some of our gaming benchmarks. We verified our numbers on motherboards from different vendors, and those vendors confirmed that they're seeing what we see.

Initially, our attention turned to Turbo Boost, based on observations from Core i9-7980XE and its unpredictable behavior. But after careful analysis with multiple utilities, we believe the Turbo Boost algorithms are working correctly for both processors.

After recording higher package and core power consumption on the 65W Core i7-8700 compared to Intel's 95W -8700K in certain situations, we also reached out to Intel for comment. Once we have some answers, you can be sure we'll post our findings.

VRMark & 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure game performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

VRMark plays well to Intel's frequency and IPC throughput advantages, and despite Core i7-8700K's lower base clock rate, its higher Turbo Boost frequency helps secure a victory over Core i7-7700K. Locking both processors to the same overclocked settings yields a practical tie.

Synthetics that favor more cores, such as the DX12 Time Spy and DX11 Fire Strike benchmarks, highlight the possibly explosive performance gains we could see from Intel's six-core Coffee Lake models in heavily-threaded games. The -8700K handily dispatches its predecessor. It even beats the high-end Core i7-7800X on an expensive X299 motherboard.

The eight-core Ryzen 7 1800X proves to be a formidable match. Still, we record a smaller delta between the tuned Coffee Lake and Ryzen processors than expected, given AMD's two-core advantage. It looks like Intel's higher clock rates and superior per-clock performance help in this case.

The impressive Ryzen 5 1600X easily beats Intel's Core i5-7600K, which languishes at the bottom of the chart due to its now-stingy quad-core design. The new Coffee Lake-based i5s, wielding 50% more cores, should make that price point more interesting.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity is a heavily-threaded title that favors the Core i7-8700K's extra cores compared to Core i7-7700K.

Intel's latest outstrips the competition at both stock and overclocked settings, beating Core i7-7700K by a considerable margin in both configurations. Unfortunately, performance in most games doesn't scale linearly, so the -8700K's 50%-higher core count only adds up to a 14% lead out of the box. Nevertheless, that jump is enough for Core i7-8700K to snatch the lead away from Ryzen 7 1800X.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI, Battlefield 1 & Dawn of War III

Civilization VI AI Test

Our Civilization VI AI test measures performance in a turn-based strategy game, and it tends to favor high frequencies and physical cores.

The -8700K's Turbo Boost frequencies yield surprisingly good results. At stock settings, the processor essentially ties Core i7-7700K, but leads a little more definitively after tuning.

Core i5-7600K fares respectably in Civilization VI at its stock settings. But after a 5 GHz overclock, it yields a 15.1-second result (not pictured) that even beats Intel's fastest CPUs.

Civilization VI Graphics Test

The Ryzen processors are much more competitive during Civilization VI's graphics test, but Intel's overclocking headroom proves insurmountable. Compared to Core i7-7700K, the -8700K offers 3.9% more performance in stock form, and a 3% advantage after tuning. Those slim leads mean there is still good value in a Kaby Lake-based platform, particularly in light of the higher price on Coffee Lake K-series SKUs.

Battlefield 1 (DX11)

A graphics bottleneck limits the frame rates of our Battlefield 1 benchmark, so with the exception of Ryzen 5 1600X and Core i5-7600K, the differences between models are slight.

Intel's Core i7 processors lead. More specifically, though, the -8700K does beat its predecessor.

It’s easy to see the workload's more threaded nature during its opening phase, where a quad-core Core i5-7600K trails the test pool.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Dawn of War III scales well on CPUs with more execution resources. Naturally, then, the Core i7-8700K dominates in stock and overclocked trim.

The Core i7-7800X posts another surprisingly low score. Considering the costs associated with Intel's premium X299 platform, Skylake-X generally doesn't make much sense for gaming.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Grand Theft Auto V, Hitman & Shadow of Mordor

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V continues to favor Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs. The Core i7-8700K offers 7.6% more performance than the -7700K at stock settings. This grows to a 11.5% lead after some tuning.

Kaby Lake- and Coffee Lake-based Core i7 processors set themselves apart from the pack during our benchmark, specifically offering a 16-25% performance advantage over the Ryzen models at stock settings.

Hitman (2016)

Core i7-7800X finally shows up in the top half of our chart thanks to its effective architecture and 6C/12T configuration. It's still no match for the -8700K, though, probably due to its more conservative 4 GHz Turbo Boost ceiling.

The new -8700K offers the best performance in stock form, demonstrating a 9 FPS advantage over its nearest competitor. Meanwhile, Core i7-7700K turns the tables with a slight lead after overclocking. Given their similar architectures and manually-defined frequencies, a little variance there is expected. Consider the chips to be tied after tuning.

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor

The Core i7-8700K surprisingly falls behind its predecessor at stock settings. We examined each chip's Turbo Boost behavior and discovered that the -8700K ran through at a higher frequency. But, like the -7700K, it doesn’t reach peak frequencies. Rather, it drops to lower clock rates throughout our run.

As mentioned at the outset of our performance testing, we saw higher benchmark numbers from the lower-end Core i7-8700 in several games. Coffee Lake and its Z370 platform are new, so perhaps firmware tuning will iron out some of these issues over time.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Project CARS, Far Cry Primal & Rise of the Tomb Raider

Project CARS

There's a solid scaling trend from Intel's disappointing Core i7-7800X up through its impressive -8700K.

Core i7-8700K does offer better performance than -7700K out of the box, but as you get more graphics-bound, the two increasingly converge. That means enthusiasts specifically focused on gaming will see little benefit from upgrading, particularly if they own lower-end graphics cards.

Far Cry Primal

Far Cry Primal is another title that doesn't respond as well to Core i7-8700K as we would expect. Again, lower performance than the -7700K at stock settings implies that we just aren't getting the full benefit of Coffee Lake yet. It does gain some ground when we lock both CPUs at 4.9 GHz, but -8700K fails to completely overtake Kaby Lake.

The Ryzen processors obviously trail Intel's offerings in this game and many others. But they're still solid value plays benefiting from lower prices and more affordable platforms. One of Ryzen's greatest advantages is higher performance in threaded workloads like rendering. Coffee Lake challenges this with more cores, so our content creation benchmarks could upset the narrative we've been telling since Ryzen's launch.

Rise of the Tomb Raider

Core i7-7700K and -8700K offer strong, but similar performance in Rise of the Tomb Raider. The Core i5-7600K bests them both at stock settings, though.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

DTP, Office, Multimedia & Compression Performance

Although we usually don’t run our application benchmarks on overclocked processors, we're including the two Coffee Lake CPUs at stock and overclocked frequencies this time, since we wanted to know how Intel's architecture scales in different scenarios.

To be fair, we also added a (reasonably) overclocked AMD Ryzen 7 1800X to our results. This makes for an interesting comparison. We also included Intel’s Core i7-7800X, which represents another 6C/12T contender from Intel using its X299 platform. Skylake-X didn't seem to add anything in our gaming benchmarks; can it beat Coffee Lake in productivity applications?

DTP & Presentation

Adobe’s Creative Cloud gives us a look at real-world single- and multi-core performance. As such, it beats synthetic benchmarks as a productivity test.

After Effects CC is a classic when it comes to parallelized tasks, with the number of cores easily being more important than frequency. Core i7-8700K dominates in this one, of course.

Otherwise, in lightly-threaded benchmarks, Coffee Lake only beats its competition thanks to its slightly higher clock rate.

Strangely, Intel’s Core i5-7600K reliably beats the stock Core i7 CPUs in Adobe’s InDesign CC. We have no idea why this might be the case.

Encoding & Multimedia

Intel’s new Core i7-8700K dominates our default HandBrake benchmarks. The Core i7-7800X can’t compete.

The finishing order shifts around a bit under our more demanding high-quality test. Due to its higher core count, AMD’s Ryzen 7 1800X finishes ahead of Core i7-8700K, which, in turn, beats the Skylake-X-based Core i7-7800X.

Compression & Decompression

Core i7-8700K’s six cores, coupled with high clock rates, allow Coffee Lake to leave its competition in the dust. Again, the Core i7-7800X doesn’t even come close.

Things don’t get any better for the competition once it's compared to Core i7-8700K in our decompression metric. Core i7-7800X fares especially badly, demonstrating that the X299 platform isn't universally better just because it's more expensive.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

2D & 3D Workstation Performance

2D Workstation Performance

Synthetic 2D Benchmarks

We take a look at direct device write throughput first. The graphics driver uses the CPU heavily for this task, but doesn’t employ many threads.

There hasn’t been true 2D hardware acceleration since the introduction of the unified shader architecture, after all. Microsoft's Windows driver model provides a huge obstacle for 2D hardware acceleration as well.

AutoCAD 2016 (2D)

3D Workstation Performance

AutoCAD 2016 (3D)

Cinebench R15 OpenGL

Frequency is (almost) everything in the Cinebench R15 OpenGL benchmark. However, Intel’s Core i7-7800X does better than usual.

Our overclocked Ryzen 7 1800X lands behind the stock configuration, regardless of how many times we re-run the benchmark, and we don't have a good explanation as to why.

SolidWorks 2015

SolidWorks 2015 also emphasizes clock rate. At the same frequency, Coffee Lake and its predecessor end up in the same place. This doesn’t come as a surprise though, since SolidWorks 2015 typically doesn’t use more than four cores. The exceptions are a few very specific tasks, which we’ll see tested when we get to the CPU composite score on the next page.

Creo 3.0

Creo 3.0 paints a similar picture; a high core count just doesn’t provide any benefits when it comes to drafting using real-time 3D graphics output.

Blender & 3ds Max (Real-time 3D Preview)

The Blender and 3ds Max real-time 3D previews yield similar results: frequency is everything. Of course, final rendering is a different story, and we'll get to that shortly.

The 3ds Max results aren’t based on time to completion. Rather, this benchmark generates a composite index based on CPU performance during a set time period.

Catia V6 R2012

Maya 2013

What we can say is that two additional cores don't hurt Intel's Coffee Lake-based flagship. That's good news for a six-core chip trying to prove itself against a smaller quad-core design. The test results should only get better from here.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

CPU Computing & Rendering Performance

CPU Workstation Performance

The 3D graphics performance we just measured isn’t all that matters to professional rendering software. Applications run many other tasks (like simulations, compute jobs, preview rendering) on the CPU simultaneously. The full picture’s only achievable by looking at both of them together.

Frequency is all that counts in Creo 3.0, so long as you have at least eight threads to throw at the application. As a result, Intel’s new Core i7-8700K doesn't really benefit from its two additional cores.

Clock rate and core count both matter in 3ds Max 2015, allowing Intel’s Core i7-8700K to pull ahead of the -7700K by a larger margin.

Separately, the Core i7-7800X is beaten soundly due to a combination of older architecture and lower clock rate.

The CPU composite score includes rendering, which is broken out into its own section below. There, AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X does really well. It even beats the overclocked Core i7-8700K in stock form.

CPU Performance: Photorealistic Rendering

Final rendering doesn’t require a CPU that's good at everything. Rather, this task wants efficiency and fast parallel computation.

We know big, expensive workstation-class CPUs like Ryzen Threadripper tear these benchmarks to bits. But in the -8700K's more desktop-friendly price range, it goes head-to-head with Ryzen 7 1800X in stock form. Core count matters more than frequency, as you can see comparing -8700K to -7700K.

The console version of LuxRender affirms what we saw in 3ds Max; Core i7-8700K does battle with AMD's Ryzen 7 1800X. Though it trails, remember that we're talking about six cores against eight.

Last, but not least, we take a look at Blender. The usual workload (with a sample size of 200 pixels) confirms what we saw in the preceding benchmarks. Intel’s Core i7-8700K and AMD’s Ryzen 7 1800X finish at the top of our chart. Ultimately, the winner is the CPU with more cores, though Coffee Lake keeps up by virtue of its effective architecture and high clock rate. Meanwhile, our Kaby Lake-based chips trail even the Ryzen 5 sample.

The results obtained from SPECwpc’s Blender loop look similar, even though this benchmark presents a somewhat different task consisting of more than just rendering.

With the workload's rendering portion easing up, a stock Core i7-8700K suddenly becomes more competitive.

Now Coffee Lake enjoys a definite lead. Core count is a factor, to be sure (Ryzen 7 and Skylake-X beat Kaby Lake), but clock rate is also important.

Intel’s Core i7-8700K offers acceptable performance in semi-professional applications; it's not just a gaming CPU. Depending on the application and how it utilizes host processing resources, you'll either get modest results or a stellar experience. There's no such thing as bad.

We didn't expect such strong numbers from Coffee Lake in these benchmarks, particularly compared to Core i7-7800X. It's hard to imagine why anyone would spend $380 on that CPU and a hefty premium on an X299 motherboard.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Scientific & Engineering Computations, & HPC Performance

For these tests, we’re using the SPECwpc benchmark suite for workstations with its wide variety of tasks. It tests a number of very different mathematical computations optimized for parallelization. They typically make heavy use of available memory bandwidth and cache, plus expose issues with latency.

Rodinia

The pre-Euler3D CFD test (Computational Fluid Dynamics benchmark) runs very well on AMD's CPUs, suggesting scaling based predominantly on core count. Intel's overclocked CPUs do pick up some performance compared to the stock configurations, but they can't keep up with Ryzen 7 1800X.

Convolution

In this benchmark, a mathematical operation is performed on two functions (convolution), which results in a third function. Performance scales according to core count. Clock rate has far less impact.

CalculiX

This test is based on the finite element method for three-dimensional structural computations. Intel’s higher frequencies help Core i7-8700K beat out Ryzen 7 1800X, though core count clearly matters as well.

Poisson's Equation

Poisson's Equation is a second-order partial differential equation widely used in physics for boundary value problems.

Intel’s new six-core processors fare well. Higher clock rates don't appear to help much, given our overclocked results.

Sequential Reweighted Message Passing (SRMP)

Kirchhoff Migration

This benchmark and its underlying computations turn out to be a great fit for AMD. Intel's Core i7-8700K only takes the top spot after aggressive overclocking, and that wouldn't be practical for everyday use. Ultimately, AMD’s Ryzen 7 1800X wins in stock trim.

In the end, Core i7-8700K performs well in almost every scenario, especially when the workload scales according to core count and clock rate. Higher frequencies help Intel fend off AMD's eight-core competition, though Coffee Lake represents a compromise in certain tasks.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Overclocking, Cooling & Temperature

Overclocking

First, we established the Core i7-8700K’s limits by cooling the chip's IHS to a constant 20°C, side-stepping potential thermal bottlenecks imposed by Intel's unfortunate use of thermal paste between the die and heat spreader. We made it all the way to 5.0 GHz without any problems. This didn't surprise us, given our experiences with Kaby Lake. At 5.1 GHz, we booted into Windows and ran a couple of games, but the processor called it quits when we tried to run Cinebench.

We’d like to point out the possibilities enabled by manual load-line calibration. Depending on the motherboard, different levels and presets are available, or the voltages can be manually adjusted for some experimentation. In this way, the core voltage can be reduced significantly without losing a whole lot of performance (so long as your chip plays along). For the motherboard we tested, the effective voltage was between 1.18V and a maximum of 1.28V when running Prime95 at stock frequencies. This lowered the package’s temperature by almost 8°C.

Unfortunately, many memory kits run into trouble if the load-line calibration is set too low; the result is general instability. CPU quality plays a key role as well. In our particular case, this affected our 5.0 GHz overclock, which didn’t hold up over time. All of the games and some of the workstation applications ran for hours without any problems, but Creo 3.0 and some of the HPC tests crashed after a few minutes.

The 5+ GHz overclocking stories are exciting, to be sure. But remember that most of them aren't validated for long-term reliability. We'd rather drop the clock rate by 100 MHz and not have to deal with intermittent crashes.

Looking at our power consumption and performance graph, we see a bend at ~4.8 GHz. Power use continues increasing with higher clock rates, but the Cinebench score levels off. A failure to continue scaling at 5.0 GHz is a good indicator that our CPU is throttling. It simply cannot dissipate heat quickly enough.

Power Consumption

The new Intel CPU’s average power consumption in applications that combine 2D and 3D loads (like AutoCAD) is in line with the performance we observed.

The processor ends up in almost the same place during our gaming loop.

The finishing order changes dramatically once we fire up an AVX stress test with all cores running at their top Turbo Boost bins. During rendering, we were seeing the -8700K's stock power consumption at 110W, climbing to 133W under a 5 GHz overclock.

AVX without offset pushes the result as high as 170W. The Core i7-8700K at 4.9 GHz even throttles due to its package temperature. And that's in spite of our compressor cooler's efforts! Thermal paste under the IHS does us no favors.

Temperatures

Here’s the good news: unless you render or run Prime95 for hours on end, a good air cooler can theoretically handle 4.8 GHz in a well-ventilated case. Intel’s thermal interface material isn't desirable, but it shouldn't stop you from achieving a decent overclock.

The above graph shows that a closed-loop liquid cooler is able to keep an overclocked Core i7-8700K from throttling after 20 minutes of warming up. A good heat sink and fan combination should perform almost as well, again, given ample airflow.

Under our stress test, the overclocked processor gets uncomfortably hot, even under our compressor cooler.

While we're only measuring an average of 170W, thermal throttling keeps the 180W+ peaks from becoming our average power consumption result. At that point, even the most powerful coolers have to throw in the towel.

To be sure, it's surprising just how much power such a tiny processor can consume once it’s pushed to its limits. Nevertheless, Intel’s Core i7-8700K is relatively easy to cool, even on air. You'll just want to stay away from taxing rendering sessions and AVX-optimized workloads. At that point, you're best off with an all-in-one closed-loop liquid cooler.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: All CPUs Content

Conclusion

AMD’s competitive architecture, disruptive pricing, and class-leading core counts continues to turn heads. Intel responded to the Threadripper family by introducing Skylake-X-based CPUs for less money per core than we've ever seen before. Up until now, though, it showed no interest in affecting that metric with its mainstream desktop chips. This changes with Coffee Lake, which employs the same underlying architecture as Kaby Lake, but adds execution cores and cache. Improved Turbo Boost bins also help maintain performance in lightly-threaded tasks.

Intel says that its Core i7-8700K is the company's best gaming processor ever. So, we use a geometric mean of 99th percentile frame times, a good indicator of smoothness, converted into an FPS measurement, to gauge the veracity of this bold claim across our suite. Five of the games we test were released in 2016, and five are older (2014/2015). Extra cores could enable more performance as software evolves, so we also include a chart with newer games that thoroughly utilize available host processing resources. We also have price-to-performance charts that get split up to include both the price of the processor and extra platform costs. For the models that don't come with a bundled cooler, we add an extra $25 for a basic heat sink. We also add $20 if overclocking requires a more expensive motherboard (as is the case for Z370).

Despite a few missteps, Core i7-8700K lives up to Intel’s claims. While it doesn't beat the -7700K by a massive margin, the Coffee Lake flagship does deliver better performance in stock and overclocked form. Of course, adding a Z370 motherboard and competent cooler knocks you over the $400 mark, so be ready to pay for that privilege.

Value-seekers have to be asking if Core i7-8700K's price tag is even worth paying, then. After all, you can get Ryzen 7 1800X-class performance out of an overclocked Ryzen 7 1700 for $300 or less. But based on our matrix, Coffee Lake gives you the best performance (furthest to the right) without getting too crazy on price. We're naturally wondering how Core i5-8600K will fare. For now, though, Core i7-8700K is the gaming CPU to own.

Whereas Kaby Lake tends to fall behind Ryzen once we jump out of the games and start looking at rendering/encoding workloads, Coffee Lake's extra cores, higher clock rates, and overclocking headroom help close that gap. Applications previously notorious for going AMD's way are now more hotly contested.

Unfortunately, you will have to buy a new Z370-based motherboard to support Core i7-8700K. Coffee Lake necessarily breaks compatibility with the not-altogether-old Z270 chipset for higher memory data rates and improved power to the CPU's package. And of course, the Z-series platform controller hub is a requisite if you want access to unlocked ratio multipliers. Lower-end B- and H-series chipsets are coming, but not until next year.

We're also disappointed that Core i7-8700K still utilizes thermal paste between its die and heat spreader. Whereas this was a significant issue during our Skylake-X evaluation, though, it's not as problematic on a 95W CPU. You can easily stave off throttling with a heat sink and fan, or dial in a respectable overclock under a closed-loop liquid cooler.

It's an exciting year to be an enthusiast. Intel obviously planned to beef up its line-up years back, but we can thank AMD for the accelerated timeline and competitive pricing. Competition truly is a wonderful thing.

MORE: Best CPUs