BmR Home arrow BmR Reviews: arrow Motherboards arrow ASUS Rampage IV Formula X79 Motherboard

ASUS Rampage IV Formula X79 Motherboard E-mail
Reviews - Featured Reviews: Motherboards
Written by Hank Tolman   
Thursday, 15 March 2012
Table of Contents: Page Index
ASUS Rampage IV Formula X79 Motherboard
Closer Look: ASUS Rampage IV Formula
Rampage IV Formula Detailed Features
Motherboard Features and Specifications
Motherboard Testing Methodology
AIDA64 Extreme Edition Tests
PCMark Vantage Tests
CINEBENCH R11.5 Benchmarks
CPU-Dependent 3D Gaming
PassMark PerformanceTest
Media Encoding Benchmarks
SPECviewperf 11 Tests
SPECapc Lightwave
Blender and POV-Ray
Rampage IV Formula Overclocking
ROG X79 Express Motherboard Final Thoughts
ASUS Rampage IV Formula Conclusion
Page 7 of 17

PCMark Vantage Tests

PCMark Vantage is an objective hardware performance benchmark tool for PCs running 32- and 64-bit versions of Microsoft Windows Vista or Windows 7. It's well suited for benchmarking any type of Microsoft Windows Vista/7 PC: from multimedia home entertainment systems and laptops, to dedicated workstations and high-end gaming rigs. Benchmark Reviews has decided to use a few select tests from the suite to simulate real-world processor usage in this article. Our tests were conducted on 64-bit Windows 7, with results displayed in the chart below.

TV and Movies Suite

  • TV and Movies 1 (CPU=50%, RAM=2%, GPU=45%, HDD=3%)
    • Two simultaneous threads
    • Video transcoding: HD DVD to media server archive
    • Video playback: HD DVD w/ additional lower bitrate HD content from HDD, as downloaded from net
  • TV and Movies 2 (CPU=50%, RAM=2%, GPU=45%, HDD=3%)
    • Two simultaneous threads
    • Video transcoding: HD DVD to media server archive
    • Video playback, HD MPEG-2: 19.39 Mbps terrestrial HDTV playback
  • TV and Movies 3 (HDD=100%)
    • HDD Media Center
  • TV and Movies 4 (CPU=50%, RAM=2%, GPU=45%, HDD=3%)
    • Video transcoding: media server archive to portable device
    • Video playback, HD MPEG-2: 48 Mbps Blu-ray playback

Gaming Suite*

  • Gaming 1 (CPU=30%, GPU=70%)
    • GPU game test
  • Gaming 2 (HDD=100%)
    • HDD: game HDD
  • Gaming 3 (CPU=75%, RAM=5%, HDD=20%)
    • Two simultaneous threads
    • CPU game test
    • Data decompression: level loading
  • Gaming 4 (CPU=42%, RAM=1%, GPU=24%, HDD=33%)
    • Three simultaneous threads
    • GPU game test
    • CPU game test
    • HDD: game HDD

Music Suite

  • Music 1 (CPU=50%, RAM=3%, GPU=13%, HDD=34%)
    • Three simultaneous threads
    • Web page rendering - w/music shop content
    • Audio transcoding: WAV -> WMA lossless
    • HDD: Adding music to Windows Media Player
  • Music 2 (CPU=100%)
    • Audio transcoding: WAV -> WMA lossless
  • Music 3 (CPU=100%)
    • Audio transcoding: MP3 -> WMA
  • Music 4 (CPU=50%, HDD=50%)
    • Two simultaneous threads
    • Audio transcoding: WMA -> WMA
    • HDD: Adding music to Windows Media Player

* EDITOR'S NOTE: Hopefully our readers will carefully consider how relevant PCMark Vantage is as a "real-world" benchmark, since many of the tests rely on unrelated hardware components. For example, per the FutureMark PCMark Vantage White Paper document, Gaming test #2 weighs the storage device for 100% of the test score. In fact, according to PCMark Vantage the video card only impacts 23% of the total gaming score, but the CPU represents 37% of the final score. As our tests in this article (and many others) have already proven, gaming performance has a lot more to do with the GPU than the CPU, and especially more than the hard drive or SSD (which is worth 38% of the final gaming performance score).

ASUS_Rampage_IV_PCMark.png

The TV and Movies suite concentrates on video playback and transcoding, but only uses two threads at a maximum, so most of the cores in these high-end processors are sitting idle.

The Gaming benchmark relies on the hard disk and video card for over 50% of its score (see the Editor's Note above), and we're using the same video card for all platforms, so the results for all these motherboards are directly comparable.



 

Comments 

 
# RE: ASUS Rampage-IV Formula Motherboard BF3 Edition — Athlonite 2012-03-16 03:27
pfft $610.10NZD forget it thats only 40 bucks less than what I quoted a guy for an mobo case and PSU cpu and ram for an AM3+ system
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# Enthusiast — Wayne 2012-03-16 03:40
What part of enthusiast didn't you get? If you have the money and you like intel. I don't go crying about AMD whenever they review it. It just a preference.
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# RE: Enthusiast — whynotv2 2012-03-16 04:12
I agree with Wayne completely...it's an enthusiast board. And Athlonite, that AM3+ system that would cost you 40 more would get destroyed by this system. I'm an AMD supporter and all but one computer in my house is built around an AMD processor (my netbook being the exception), but I can admit that i7 system will run circles around a $650NZD AM3+ system.
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# RE: ASUS Rampage-IV Formula Motherboard BF3 Edition — Athlonite 2012-03-16 03:34
Add $1,399.00NZD to that mobo for the Intel core i7 3960X and you soon find that intel are just way to expensive even without a case or GPU or ram it's already 3x times the price of an AM3+ system
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# Why — Mergatroid 2012-03-17 21:03
Why add $1399 when it already kicks the AM3+? Wasn't there an article here a few months ago showing a Bulldozer getting outperformed in most tests by an i5?
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# RE: ASUS Rampage-IV Formula Motherboard BF3 Edition — Athlonite 2012-03-16 03:40
Also you used the same HD6850 GPU through all of the systems so why no BF3 benchmark scores after all it came with the mobo
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# No BF3 benchmark — Hank 2012-03-16 11:09
Because this is a motherboard review, not a GPU review.
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# So? — Mergatroid 2012-03-21 15:27
Your answer doesn't make sense. When I purchased two 6970 cards I was using a Core 2 Quad and everything was awesome. Then came long BF3, and guess what was causing a bottleneck? Yup, my main board/cpu.

Because he's using the same video card in each board, if he had of also used the same RAM and CPU it would have been easy to see if there was any difference in BF3 caused by the main board. It would also have been interesting. At the very least, it could be reported that no difference was found in the game using different mobos.

However, I can excuse not doing it because it would have been a lot of extra work. Sure would have been interesting though.
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# RE: So? — Olin Coles 2012-03-21 15:41
I agree with Hank, this is a motherboard review and benchmarking a (mostly) GPU-bound game isn't as effective as CPU-bound tests. Street Fighter IV would be an exception, however, since it's VERY CPU-bound.
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# Just one more piece of info — Mergatroid 2012-03-21 16:04
I was trying to point out that BF3 was bottlenecked by the older/slower CPU I was using compared to the i5 2500k I use now, and that BF3 can be used as an indicator of CPU capability, all else being equal. However, that doesn't necessarily indicate there would be any difference between motherboards (all else being equal), but now we don't know for sure because it wasn't tested (but I doubt it).

What if it was tested and there was a difference? Wouldn't you like to know that? How would that not be classified as testing the motherboard if they all used the same gpu? (Again, I don't think there would be a significant difference between motherboards). Even knowing there was no difference would have been reassuring, if only a little. But it would have been a little extra work for something we're already 99% sure of.
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# RE: ASUS Rampage-IV Formula Motherboard BF3 Edition — whynotv2 2012-03-16 04:13
I'd like to see the "Expensive enthusiast product" added to the Cons section as is usually done to higher end components. Nice review :)
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# RE: ASUS Rampage-IV Formula Motherboard BF3 Edition — David Ramsey 2012-03-16 08:27
You ran the memory voltage at 1.8 volts? You mad bastard...
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: ASUS Rampage-IV Formula Motherboard BF3 Edition — Hank 2012-03-16 11:11
Well, I was trying to get 2400MHz. It didn't work.
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# RE: RE: RE: ASUS Rampage-IV Formula Motherboard BF3 Edition — James Reece 2012-03-17 22:20
With what set of sticks? 1.8 can start frying things. Get a 2400 set of sticks, rather than OC, well we don't know, you don't specify the sticks you used, would suggest GSkill Ripjaws Z in a 2400 set, they are set to XMP 1.3 same as the mobo. And this config can run 2133 sticks fairly easily at 2400 if you have any cluse at all as to what you are doing - and it doesn't take 1.8
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# Why bother — Mergatroid 2012-03-18 00:00
Why bother with anything (sticks?) over 1600 anyway? The performance gain is negligible. Not worth the extra cost.
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# G.Skill Ripjaws X Series — hank 2012-03-20 22:17
They were G.Skill Ripjaws X Series at 1866. I figured they could get to 2400, but they couldn't. I just like to push the envelope a little. What's the point of calling myself an enthusiast if I don't get a little crazy sometimes?!

-Hank
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# Can't figure — James Reece 2012-03-16 17:29
Don't even begin to understand the testing methodology i.e. X58/12GB 1600 then to a P67, w/only 8GB 1600, then to a 990FX with only 4GB 2133, crippled down 1866 (yeah the DullDozer stinks at 2133 (if you can even get it to run), but to cripple the sticks down to 9-9-9-24??? These sticks are native 7-10-7-26, @1866 they should be run about CL6, then throw 16GB at the X79....no offense but RAM does affect overall performance and different amounts across the board, different freqs, and using crippled timings makes no sense. All the mobos could have handled 8 or 16GB of 1600 rather than this, just throwing junk together. Very poor selections
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# Matching configurations — hank 2012-03-20 22:21
The point of testing the motherboard is to test the motherboard, not the RAM. We try to get the RAM speed and latency to match as much as possible so it doesn't affect the testing. The reason for the different amounts is to maintain 4GB on each channel. X58 has triple-channel, thus 12GB, the P67 and 990FX both have dual-channel, so 8GB there (There were 2 x 4GB sticks for the 990FX, it was a typo), and 16GB on the quad-channel X79. That's the reasoning.
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# RE: Matching configurations — James Reece 2012-03-21 17:55
Your explanation makes some sense, but not much. The same set you used on the X79 could have been used on all the mobos, and I'm sorry but sticking still crippling native CL7/2133 down to to 1866 at CL9. You use the same GPU on all why not the same DRAM. Also, since this is about the X79 mobo, why not test with DRAM native to the mobo like the XMP 1.3 Ripjaws Z instead of XMP 1.2 Ripjaws X
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# more the 16GB cost more then just the memory — LeadSled 2012-03-21 01:30
First 4.7Ghz is slow I am running a Rampage Extreme @ 5.2Ghz at 1.48 volts with 3930K.If your would like to use more then 16GB of memory you will need a greater version of Windows 7 then Home Premium since it only supports 16GB so add another $100 for Untimate and if I want more then 16GB to run higher then 5.2Ghz I will need Extreme cooling such as a phase change unit at least on the Rampage you do.There are limits just read the manual. I still cannot get break into the 6 second braket 7.12 is my best in SuperPi 1.5. Memory may do it but not many boards will run with the 166 BCLK although even 125 doesnt do much more then 100 and its more stable then 166 by far. I would spend the extra $50 for the Extreme you get more then $50 worth of extras. They are fun mobo's there are lots to learn if you want GHZ and who doesnt. Ram drives are not worth it unless you want to brag about benchmarks
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# Enthusiasts with Home? — Mergatroid 2012-03-21 15:47
Windows 64 Pro supports 192Gb. It's not much more than the Home Premium version, and it's worth getting because of other features aside from how much memory it supports.

Who spends thousands of dollars on computer hardware and then chinces on the operating system over a few dollars?

Nice o/c by the way.
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# I failed to OC by emulating your settings - Please may I ask for your help? — Myles Thomas 2013-03-02 05:30
Hi there, I wonder if you could help me? I used your exact settings for my system: 3820 (h100 water cooled), Rampage IV extreme, 16gb 2133mhz ram, GTX 680 4gb sli. Unfortunately, all I got when I saved and restarted was a blank screen, and gently humming fans. I had to manually hard reset the system. Can you give me any advice? I'm a beginner to OCing, the only stable OC I've had is the "Normal" 4.3ghz OC profile pre-provided. Any help be REALLY greatly appreciated, I just want to OC for a performance boost to games like Crysis 3, but I find the guides to be a huge headache, and none of the settings provided by sucessful overclockers of my same rig seem to work for me.

Thank you for your time,

Myles Thomas
Reply | Report Comment
 
 
# first time doing anything like this — Alex 2013-05-04 05:42
so, i followed this guide but after a fair bit of research i dropped back a few thing like core volts and stuff just from what i've read. and i had a couple of little hickups (ram at 1333 or 1666 can't remember) but just using what i think is common sense i was still able to get 4.625 easily, that's running at 1.375v. so i would just like to say THANKYOUSOF******MUC H! i love you man. #valid.canardpc.com/cache/banner/2793351.png
Reply | Report Comment
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

Search Benchmark Reviews

BmR Newsletter



QNAP Network Attached Storage Servers

Follow Benchmark Reviews on FacebookReceive Tweets from Benchmark Reviews on Twitter