Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.
Benchmark Results
Our standard benchmarks and power tests are performed using the CPU’s stock frequencies (including any default boost/turbo) with all power-saving features at default. We set optimized defaults in the BIOS, then set the memory by enabling the XMP profile. If there are boosts enabled by the BIOS by default, it runs like that. The Windows power scheme is set to Balanced (default) for this baseline testing, so the PC idles appropriately.
Synthetic Benchmarks and Real World Applications
Synthetics offer a valuable method for evaluating a board's performance, as identical settings are expected to yield similar results. Turbo boost wattage and advanced memory timings are areas where motherboard manufacturers can still optimize for stability or performance, though, and these settings can impact specific testing scenarios. We’ve also combined our previous ‘timed’ benchmark applications into this section.
Performance on the Tomahawk Wifi II was average among the tested boards. Nothing really stood out either way in this set of benchmarks.
3D Games and 3DMark
Starting with the launch of the Arrow Lake refresh chips, we’ve updated our game tests. We’re keeping the F1 racing game but have upgraded to F1 25. We’ll continue with the ever-popular and aesthetically pleasing Cyberpunk 2077. We run both games at 1920x1080 resolution using the Ultra preset (details listed in the table above). Both games are set to use DLSS.
The goal with these settings is to determine if there are differences in performance at the most commonly used (and CPU/system-bound) resolution with settings most people use or strive for (Ultra). We expect the difference between boards in these tests to be minor, with most falling within the margin of error. We’ve also added a minimum FPS metric, which can affect your gameplay and immersion.
As has been the case with previous motherboards and CPUs, the 3DMark tests don’t show much separation from worst to first, and we see that again across our varied datasets. 3DMark scores were fine, and gaming results were also comparable, although F1 25 was a bit slower and matched the previous-gen 285K for some reason. Still, it’s a performant board, just like the others. Whether you’re using the machine for office productivity, rendering, encoding, or gaming, the results are on par with others.
Overclocking
Over the past few CPU generations, overclocking headroom has been shrinking on both sides of the fence, while out-of-the-box performance has increased. For overclockers, this means there’s less fun to have. For the average consumer, you’re getting the most out of the processor without manual tweaking. Today’s motherboards are more robust than ever, and an overwhelming majority support power-hungry flagship-class processors, so we know the hardware can handle them.
There are multiple ways to extract even more performance from these processors: manually adjust the settings or use some of the fancy AI overclocking board partners have been touting. Results will vary and depend on the CPU's cooling and quality. In other words, your mileage may vary. Considering the above, we’re not overclocking the CPU for these review articles. However, we will try out our different memory kits to ensure they meet the specifications.
Memory testing went without issue. The board was stable with the DDR5-7600 kit, and we went all the way up to our (new) fastest kit, Kingston Fury Beast 48GB DDR5-8800, without issue during our 30-minute stress test.
Power Consumption / VRM Temperatures
We used AIDA64’s System Stability Test with Stress CPU, FPU, cache, and Memory enabled for power testing, using the processor's peak power consumption value. The wattage reading is obtained from the wall via a Kill-A-Watt meter, capturing the entire PC (excluding the monitor). The only variable that changes is the motherboard; all other parts remain the same. We have moved to using only the stock power use/VRM temperature charts, as this section aims to ensure the power delivery can handle flagship-class processors.
Stress testing with our flagship-class 270K Plus and the Team Group DDR5-7600 kit at stock yielded a peak of 345W at the wall, which aligns with other boards. The Tomahawk II used 61W at idle. There’s nothing noteworthy, otherwise.
VRM temperatures ran warm, but are not a concern on this board. Throughout the 30-minute test, the system (excluding the monitor) averaged 233W, and our sensors on the back of the board, directly under the MOSFETs, recorded temperatures peaking at 58 degrees Celsius, while Hwinfo and the internal sensor showed temperatures peaking a couple of degrees lower at 56 degrees Celsius. That value is well within specification for the MOSFETs doing all the work below. We’re confident that the power delivery can handle anything you throw at it. Chances are, the CPU temperature will limit you before the board does, but always maintain good airflow to keep temperatures down.
Bottom Line
The Z890 Tomahawk II is an interesting new iteration compared to the original. For all intents and purposes, it’s the same board with native Core Ultra 200S Plus support. However, the II moves away from the Killer-based 320MHz Wi-Fi 7 to the slower (less expensive?) Intel/Mediatek Wi-Fi 7 solution and moves to a single TB4/40 Gbps Type-C port. The Wi-Fi speed is something most can overlook, as few have a Wi-Fi 7 ecosystem in the first place. And, again, for the overwhelming majority, it’s fast enough and supports plenty of concurrent connections. I still would like to see the second Thunderbolt port, though. Most users don’t have two devices that can each utilize 40 Gbps bandwidth, either. So while this likely doesn’t affect many, it’s still a small step back from the original – only a problem if you’re one of the few who need it.
Currently (at the time we published the article) priced at $229.99 (was just on sale for $199.99, so keep an eye out!) on Newegg, it’s on shelves alongside the Asus Prime Z890-P ($229.99 and recently reviewed), Gigabyte’s Z890 Gaming X Wifi7 ($219.00), and the ASRock Z890 Lighting Wifi at $211.99. If we look at the specs of competitors at a similar price point, we see that the Tomahawk II is similarly equipped, if not better. It’s the only one with 5 GbE, and all of these have one Thunderbolt 4/40 Gbps port. The Wi-Fi, you ask? These boards have a mix of Wi-Fi 6E and the even faster Wi-Fi 7.
So while we’re disappointed the Z890 Tomahawk II took a step back in some areas (one of the only reasons it didn’t make our best motherboards list), it isn't effectively any different than the more expensive competition. At the current sub-$230 price point, it doesn’t stand out from most others, and the original is still available for $229.99. If you need faster Wi-Fi 7 and an additional Thunderbolt/40 Gbps port, stick with the original Tomahawk. If you don’t need those features, the Tomahawk II is the preferred option if you can find it cheaper than the original Z890 Tomahawk.
MORE: Best Motherboards
MORE: How To Choose A Motherboard
MORE: Best Motherboard Deals
MORE: Best Motherboard Combo Deals
MORE: All Motherboard Content
