Test Settings And Benchmarks
|Test System Configuration|
|CPU||AMD FX-8350 (Vishera): 4.0 GHz, 8 MB Shared L3 Cache, Socket AM3+|
|CPU Cooler||Sunbeamtech Core-Contact Freezer w/Zalman ZM-STG1 Paste|
|RAM||G.Skill F3-17600CL9D-8GBXLD (8 GB) at DDR3-1600 C9 DefaultsG.Skill F3-2666C11Q-16GTXD (16 GB) at XMP-2666 C11 Timings|
|Graphics||AMD Radeon HD 7970 3 GB: 925 MHz GPU, GDDR5-5500|
|Hard Drive||Samsung 470 Series MZ5PA256HMDR, 256 GB SSD|
|Sound||Integrated HD Audio|
|Network||Integrated Gigabit Networking|
|Power||Seasonic X760 SS-760KM: ATX12V v2.3, EPS12V, 80 PLUS Gold|
|OS||Microsoft Windows 8 Professional RTM x64|
|Graphics||AMD Catalyst 13.1|
AMD's overclocking-friendly FX-8350 gets carried over from our recent CrossFire article.
DDR3-1600 CAS 9 is the reference point for benchmarks, but something faster is needed to test DRAM overclocking capability. Unfortunately, none of our current batch of high-speed memory has DDR3-1600 CAS 9 SPD defaults. G.Skill’s DDR3-2666 is substituted for overclocking evaluation.
This is an AMD platform test, and AMD also produces some of today’s top graphics processors. Thus, I upgrade from our standard GeForce GTX 580 to a more modern Radeon HD 7970.
The Arctic Cooling Accelero Xtreme 7970 is carried over from Don Woligroski’s review, because he never got around to reinstalling the original reference cooler. Thanks for the card Don!
|3D Gaming Benchmarks|
|Battlefield 3||Campaign Mode, "Going Hunting" 90-Second Fraps Test Set 1: Medium Quality Defaults (No AA, 4x AF) Test Set 2: Ultra Quality Defaults (4x AA, 16x AF)|
|F1 2012||Version 1.2, Direct X 11, Built-in Benchmark Test Set 1: High Quality, No AA Test Set 2: Ultra Quality, 8x MSAA|
|The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim||Update 1.5.26, Celedon Aethirborn Level 6, 25 Seconds Fraps Test Set 1: DX11, High Details No AA, 8x AF, FXAA enabled Test Set 2: DX11, Ultra Details, 8x AA, 16x AF, FXAA enabled|
|Far Cry 3||V. 1.04, DirectX 11, 50-Second Fraps "Amanaki Outpost" Test Set 1: High Quality, No AA, Standard ATC., SSAO Test Set 2: Ultra Quality, 4x MSAA, Enhanced ATC, HDAO|
|Adobe Creative Suite|
|Adobe After Effects CS6||Version 184.108.40.2068 x64: Create Video which includes 3 Streams, 210 Frames, Render Multiple Frames Simultaneosly|
|Adobe Photoshop CS6||Version 13 x64: Filter 15.7 MB TIF Image: Radial Blur, Shape Blur, Median, Polar Coordinates|
|Adobe Premeire Pro CS6||Version 220.127.116.11, 6.61 GB MXF Project to H.264 to H.264 Blu-ray, Output 1920x1080, Maximum Quality|
|iTunes||Version 10.4.1.10 x64: Audio CD (Terminator II SE), 53 minutes, default AAC format|
|LAME MP3||Version 3.98.3: Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min, convert WAV to MP3 audio format, Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)|
|HandBrake CLI||Version: 0.98: Video from Canon Eos 7D (1920x1080, 25 FPS) 1 Minutes 22 Seconds Audio: PCM-S16, 48,000 Hz, Two-Channel, to Video: AVC1 Audio: AAC (High Profile)|
|TotalCode Studio 2.5||Version: 18.104.22.16877: MPEG-2 to H.264, MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec, 28 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG-2), Audio: MPEG-2 (44.1 kHz, Two-Channel, 16-Bit, 224 Kb/s), Codec: H.264 Pro, Mode: PAL 50i (25 FPS), Profile: H.264 BD HDMV|
|ABBYY FineReader||Version 10.0.102.95: Read PDF save to Doc, Source: Political Economy (J. Broadhurst 1842) 111 Pages|
|Adobe Acrobat X||Version 10.0.0.396: Print PDF from 115 Page PowerPoint, 128-bit RC4 Encryption|
|Autodesk 3ds Max 2012||Version 14.0 x64: Space Flyby Mentalray, 248 Frames, 1440x1080|
|Blender||Version: 2.64a, Cycles Engine, Syntax blender -b thg.blend -f 1, 1920x1080, 8x Anti-Aliasing, Render THG.blend frame 1|
|Visual Studio 2010||Version 10.0, Compile Google Chrome, Scripted|
|WinZip||Version 17.0 Pro: THG-Workload (1.3 GB) to ZIP, command line switches "-a -ez -p -r"|
|WinRAR||Version 4.2: THG-Workload (1.3 GB) to RAR, command line switches "winrar a -r -m3"|
|7-Zip||Version 9.28: THG-Workload (1.3 GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=5"|
|Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings|
|3DMark 11||Version: 22.214.171.124, Benchmark Only|
|PCMark 7||Version: 1.0.4 x64, System, Productivity, Hard Disk Drive benchmarks|
|SiSoftware Sandra 2011||Version Version 2013.01.19.11, CPU Test = CPU Arithmetic / Cryptography, Memory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark|
Current page: Test Settings And BenchmarksPrev Page 990FXA-UD3 Firmware Next Page Results: Synthetic Benchmarks
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Glad to see AMD getting some love.Reply
"if we diminished most of those power differences by not installing Asus' power management software at default settings, the company would have likely matched the performance of Gigabyte and ASRock."Reply
Don't speculate! Do the tests and add it to the article so we can see what the software packages are actually accomplishing! That's why I read your site, yeah? For hard info that I can't get myself.
designasaurus"if we diminished most of those power differences by not installing Asus' power management software at default settings, the company would have likely matched the performance of Gigabyte and ASRock."Don't speculate! Do the tests and add it to the article so we can see what the software packages are actually accomplishing! That's why I read your site, yeah? For hard info that I can't get myself.I totally agree with this statement. The test should have been done and added into the article because this would of been a good representative of the value of the software. I would like to know for a fact if the software was a hindrance to the electrical efficiency of the Asus and Gigabye boards.Reply
bgunnerI totally agree with this statement. The test should have been done and added into the article because this would of been a good representative of the value of the software. I would like to know for a fact if the software was a hindrance to the electrical efficiency of the Asus and Gigabye boards.At least the power was measured and mentioned, even if it didn't get into the chart.Reply
AMD's 890FX was an excellent low-cost server platform, in its day. Great I/O, tons of PCIe lanes, 6-channel SATA3, and ECC support. All with boards and CPUs in the desktop price range that were close to being performance competitive with Intel (when they were introduced, at least).Reply
Now, AMD is just slipping too far behind. Not just on the CPU front, but like how about some PCIe 3?
I'm waiting for 64-bit ARMs to hit the desktop. That's probably the next truly interesting thing on the horizon.
Aren't the 990FX chipsets kind old?Reply
10596062 said:Aren't the 990FX chipsets kind old?
Yes, but not a lot of new things need to be offered anyways. PCIe 3.0 is just a gimmick and doesn't really give much more performance over PCIe2
falchardAren't the 990FX chipsets kind old?990FX is AMD's current "high-end" chipset for enthusiast-level desktops. AMD occasionally releases new chips (look last fall) and motherboard companies keep updating their selection of products.Reply
Old chipset, recent boards, any questions?
"Three AMD 990FX-Based Motherboards For Enthusiasts"Reply
I don't think enthusiasts would want to buy a slow CPU from AMD.
What did I miss? The ASRock has better features, including 3-way SLI, more USB3.0, an abundance of accessories, uses less power (the only positive efficiency), has higher performance, lower VRM temps; but BOTH of the other two got awards? I noted the comment about fluctuating prices, but on features alone ASRock looks like the winner. Surely it wasn't the slightly lower OC...Reply