| ASUS P9X79 Deluxe Motherboard |  |
| Reviews - Featured Reviews: Motherboards | |
| Written by Olin Coles & David Ramsey | |
| Monday, 14 November 2011 | |
|
Page 11 of 17
CPU-Dependent 3D GamingStreet Fighter IV uses a new, built-from-scratch graphics engine that enables CAPCOM to tune the visuals and performance to fit the needs of the game, as well as run well on lower-end hardware. Although the engine is based on DX9 capabilities, it does add soft shadows, High Dynamic Range lighting, depth of field effects, and motion blur to enhance the game experience. The game is multi-threaded, with rendering, audio, and file I/O all running in different threads. The development team has also worked to maintain a relatively constant CPU load in all parts of the game so that on-screen performance does not change dramatically in different game scenarios.
I ran the Street Fighter IV benchmark at its lowest resolution (640x480) with all graphical features turned down to the minimum possible settings. This makes the video card much less of a factor in the results, biasing towards processor performance. Intel CPUs dominate here, and the near-equality of the 2600K and Sandy Bridge Extreme scores probably means that the game benchmark simply isn't using all of the threads available on the latter.
|
|
Comments
Hardware is moving forward and the SSD will be like the change from DVD to Blue-ray. Come on benchmark, you need to show Sata 3 transfer speed and the switch from PCI-E 2.0 to 3.0, how can you leave out the two main factors of motherboards ? ATTO, Furmark, really need to be shown. The difference on Sata 3 with HDD and SSD, and PCI-E 3.0 with say two video cards against these cards on PCI-e 2.0. Motherboard testing without this kind of testing leaves questions that need answers.
I can't believe ASUS put the FAILED Marvell 9128 on the new x79, they keep up this kind of work and they will be laughed out of the MOBO market.
Additionally, we have about one hundred SATA 6Gb/s tests here:
benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=3&Itemid=60
Wouldn't you use a SSD PCI-E ?
not lately from what i have seen - build quality deteriorating from what most people see in fact.Interesting to finish with an assertion about rma's - where does that figure come from?
Just another opinion on potential?
Then my PSU caused a short and burnt the EATX 24pin block, I ran two 6 hr burn in tests on all hardware on the mobo, all test completed fine with no hardware problems. I wanted to have Asus check it and got an RMA. The board was 7 months old.
I received an e-mail, the problem is not under warranty and the board is unrepairable, please send 175.00 for a replacement. Gave the board to a friend and its working fine.
Asus- rotten dirty thieves, last system I will ever build for anyone with Asus. I'll have them spend an extra 200.00 for a ASRock before buying an Asus. I have been buying Gigabytes, only been a few months, but so far the boards are awesome. The only thing is slow booting due to pool data, so you have to install their software to over ride it. Excellent overclock, no problems with XMP with G-skill, Patriot, Corsair. Gigabyte also seems to keep their drivers up to date better then Asus. With building systems I wish I knew as much as Olin and David, but I get by.
Seems most hardware, caps, are all close in quality. I'm just hurt that Asus shunned me, buying tons of their products, Boards, LCD, Coolers, Roms, then to be told to buy another board. They recall cars, they should recall their boards with the 9128. I generally don't fan to one company like most, I don't love Intel or AMD and try and knock the other. Everything can fail. Just disappointing how Asus treated me as a customer. Your site has been a great help and I think you people have done a good job at informing the public.
I would be interested in finding out what issues you have with the 9128? As it is a controller not only we have used but also competitors. This was the first qualified SATA6G controller to come to market in addition the custom firmware support on this controller is what allows us to offer SSD caching on our X79 vs not having it at all. The validation not only performed by us but those of our partners ( like system integrators has validated the solution as being one that is functional and reliable while offering additional functionality ). For a platfrom like X58 this was additionally the only way to intially provide support for SATA6G capacble SSDs when they launched ( like the C300 ). In regards to it not being a true SATA6G controller this is incorrect as it fully supports the specification yes there is a PCI-E link limitation but this does not mean it will not offer single SSD performance for a SATA6G SSD compared to SATA3G SATA port that is part of the PCH. If you have other feedback as always we are interested in hearing it.
Regards,
JJ
gtx 580 video card and vertex 3 240 gb but the system runs slower then my previus pc is that normal ?????????????
No need for water-cooling.