What's new
  • Please do not post any links until you have 3 posts as they will automatically be rejected to prevent SPAM. Many words are also blocked due to being used in SPAM Messages. Thanks!

ASUS PRIME X399-A Motherboard Review

MAC

Associate Review Editor
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
Montreal
Feature Testing: AURA SYNC

Feature Testing: AURA SYNC



If you're not a fan of RGB LED lighting, the PRIME X399-A might just be the motherboard for you. The AURA RGB LED feature on this motherboard is essentially limited to few RGB LEDs placed under the chipset cooler. However, if you want to expand that there are two RGB headers on which you can plug 5050 RGB LED strips up 12V/2A (24W).

These RGB LEDs can be controlled using the AURA utility only, but you can enable or disable the feature from within the UEFI BIOS. The lights can be adjusted to a number of different colours and customized to create cool lighting effects. The presets can cause the LEDs to change shades breathe, strobe, cycle through all the colours, fade in and out, flash on and off, just statically display one colour, and more. You can also adjust the speed at which these LEDs turn on and off.

Prime_X399A-171th.jpg
Prime_X399A-170th.jpg

Prime_X399A-172th.jpg
Prime_X399A-173th.jpg

Click on image to enlarge

With only a handful of RGB LEDs tucked under the chipset heatsink this motherboard is obviously isn't going to natively wow anyone with its lighting capabilities. However, the LEDs are plenty bright and colourful, and they can be supplemented by attaching some light strips to the two onboard RGB LED headers. Those who want to disable this feature entire are in luck since you can do that in bot the UEFI and the AURA utility.
 

MAC

Associate Review Editor
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
Montreal
Feature Testing: Onboard Audio

Feature Testing: Onboard Audio


Since fewer and fewer consumers seem to be buying discrete sound cards, the quality of a motherboard's onboard audio is now more important than ever. As such, we figured that it was worthwhile to take a closer look at just how good the analog signal quality is coming out of the onboard Crystal Sound 3 audio subsystem that is implemented on the PRIME X399-A. As mentioned earlier in this review, this audio solution is comprise of a modern Realtek ALC1220 codec, Nichicon Fine Gold audio capacitors, and a PCB-level isolation line. However, unlike most motherboards in this price range (and far below it) it does not have an aftermarket Texas Instruments op-amp for the front-panel headphone jack, relying instead on the internal op-amp built into the Realtek codec.

Since isolated results don't really mean much, but we have also included some numbers from the plethora of motherboards that we have previously reviewed. All of the motherboards that we have included are feature onboard audio solutions that are built around the Realtek ALC1150 or ALC1220 codecs, but feature different op-amps, headphone amplifiers, filtering capacitors, secondary components and layouts.

We are going to do this using both quantitative and qualitative analysis, since sound quality isn't really something that can be adequately explained with only numbers. To do the quantitative portion, we have turned to RightMark Audio Analyzer (RMAA), which the standard application for this type of testing.

Since all modern motherboards support very high quality 24-bit, 192kHz audio playback we selected that as the sample mode option. Basically, what this test does is pipe the audio signal from the front-channel output to the line-in input via a 3.5mm male to 3.5mm male mini-plug cable, and then RightMark Audio Analyzer (RMAA) does the audio analysis. Obviously we disabled all software enhancements since they interfere with the pure technical performance that we are trying to benchmark.

Prime_X399A-174th.png

The PRIME X399-A achieved audio numbers that were frankly terrific. It surpassed the ASRock Fatal1ty X399 in some categories and fell a tiny bit short in other categories, which is high praise considering that the ASRock model was the second best motherboard that we have ever tested. In fact, when comparing the X399-A's results to those of the ASUS STRIX Z270I, we wouldn't hesitate to say that we have a new audio champion on our hands. Maybe excluding the aftermarket op-amp is not such a bad thing after all...

As we have mentioned in the past, at this high level we can't proclaim to notice a difference in qualitative audio quality between motherboards, especially since sound preference is intensely personal. However, when listening to a variety of music and spoken word content using a mix of Grado SR225i and Koss PortaPro headphones, Westone UM1 IEMs, and Logitech Z-5500 5.1 speakers, and the playback was clean and loud enough for our liking.

On a side note, we would have loved to see an angled front-panel audio header like on the ASRock X399 since it is a brilliant idea that solves the overhang issue that can block the front-panel audio header, especially on motherboards designed to hold multiple graphics cards.
 

MAC

Associate Review Editor
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
Montreal
Feature Testing: M.2 PCI-E 3.0 x4

Feature Testing: M.2 PCI-E 3.0 x4


When compared to AMD's mainstream AM4 X370 platform, the TR4 X399 has significantly improved the availability of high-speed storage interfaces. Whereas the mainstream platform is limited to one NVMe M.2 slot running straight off of the processor, ThreadRipper processors natively support three full-speed PCI-E 3.0 x4 M.2 slots. This is one of the huge advantages of AMD's HEDT platform, since not only do you get ample high-speed connectivity but it has no negative effect on the capabilities of PCI-E slots. Having said that, ASUS has decided to only bless the PRIME X399-A with two M.2 slots, and exchange the third M.2 slot for a U.2 NVMe port. This a dubious choice to us since the U.2 interface has proven to be largely useless due to a lack of compatible products aside from one variant of the Intel 750 series SSD.

Prime_X399A-144th.png

While a few SSDs exist that can reach the 3.5-3.6GB/s real-life limit of this interface, we settled on one that can crack the 2000MB/s barrier: the Samsung SSD 950 PRO 256GB. Despite now being usurped by the SSD 960 PRO, this high performance NVMe PCI-E SSD combines Samsung's powerful UBX controller with its industry-leading 3D V-NAND and is capable of sequential read speeds of up to 2,200MB/second and write speeds of up to 900MB/sec.

One of the ways that we will be evaluating the performance of a motherboard's M.2 interface is by verifying that is capable of matching or exceeding these listed transfer rates. The other is by checking to see whether the M.2 slots performs as well as when we install the SSD 950 PRO onto a ASUS Hyper M.2 x4 expansion card plugged directly into a PCI-E 3.0 x16 slot. While both methods utilizes the same PCI-E lanes coming the processor, it is still worth checking to see whether the PCI-E lane splitting and switching has been properly implemented.

Prime_X399A-147th.jpg
Prime_X399A-146th.jpg
Prime_X399A-148th.jpg

PCI-E vs M.2 #1 vs. M.2 #2

As can see, the performance of the two M.2 slots on the PRIME X399-A are effectively identical, and are also inline with the performance that we achieved with the M.2 SSD in the PCI-E adapter. There are definitely a few differences here and there, but the variances are small enough to be well within benchmark variances.

While transfer rates are obviously an important metric, we figured that it was also worthwhile to take a peak at instructions per second (IOPS) to ensure that there wasn't any variance there either:

Prime_X399A-149th.jpg
Prime_X399A-150th.jpg
Prime_X399A-151th.jpg

PCI-E vs M.2 #1 vs. M.2 #2

Once again, the differences are essentially non-existent and well within the margin of error for this benchmark. Having said that, the 16MB Read results are pretty bad, achieving roughly half the IOPS results that we would expect from this SSD. This isn't related to this particular motherboard though, it is a platform/driver issue at the moment. Nevertheless, overall it is clear that no matter how you choose you install an NVMe M.2 SSD on this PRIME X399-A motherboard you will be achieving optimal performance... in most respects.
 
Last edited:

MAC

Associate Review Editor
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
Montreal
Auto & Manual Overclocking Results

Auto & Manual Overclocking Results


The ASRock Fatal1ty X399 Professional Gaming that we recently reviewed had zero forms of automatic overclocking functionality, neither in the UEFI BIOS nor via a utility. Despite this, we did not judge this omission too harshly due to the fact that with ThreadRipper we are dealing with processors with a default TDP of up to 180W, which is already pretty difficult to cool without a top-notch cooling solution. And furthermore, there just isn't a huge amount of additional performance to be extracted, especially since AMD's SenseMI technology and eXtended Frequency Range (XFR) feature does such a terrific job of maximizing frequency and boosting overall performance past - at least in some workloads - what a static Auto OC preset could hope to achieve. Nevertheless, ASUS clearly has a different opinion than we do since the PRIME X399-A is packed with three different automatic overclocking methods. We will be demonstrating what each of them was able to do with a twelve-core 1920X.

For those who prefer to go hands-on, this motherboard makes manual overclocking easy. Simply set the CPU voltage to 1.30-1.35V and start increasing the CPU multiplier (and CPU frequency if you want to get ultra-precise) until it crashes in your preferred stress test, then back off a little bit. Although you cannot manually overclock the SOC/Fabric frequency, it is automatically increased when you set a higher memory speed. Specifically, the Fabric runs at half the memory speed, so DDR4-3200 means a 1600Mhz Fabric frequency. Since manual memory overclocking is still a little iffy on both of AMD's new platforms, we recommend sticking to whatever kits have been validated for your particular motherboard and just working up from whatever settings the XMP profile sets. Having said that, if you've done your research and picked a memory with a Samsung B-die ICs, this motherboard has a bunch of awesome memory profiles that range from DDR4-3200 with ultra-tight timings to DDR4-3600 with more reasonable timings. It's a fantastic addition.


Auto Overclocking

Like many previous ASUS motherboards, the PRIME X399-A features three types of automatic overclocking. There is the TPU feature and the Overclocking Presets sub-menu that you can find in the UEFI BIOS, and the 5-Way Optimization feature that is located in the Ai Suite III utility. Both of the BIOS-based options rely on presets and they are very quick since all you need to do is select your preferred option and exit BIOS. We are going to focus on these two BIOS-based approaches first.

Prime_X399A-175th.jpg

Click on image to enlarge

The TPU feature only offers two choices, TPU I or TPU II. Usually, TPU I applies a overclocking preset that is designed for those with air cooling, while TPU II is a more aggressive option for those with liquid cooling or very high-end air cooling. However, given how little headroom ThreadRipper processors have there's very little actual different between both presets. In practice, TPU I overclocked our 1920X to 3.8GHz at 1.243V, while the The TPU II option upped the core clock to 3.9GHz at 1.330V. Both options left the memory speed untouched. Although this BIOS-based automatic overclocking option is very fast, it is designed to be very safe so it produces slightly less impressive results than what is truly possible.

With that in mind, ASUS also offers the 4G OC Profile preset. This preset promises a 4.0GHz overclock, which isn't outlandish at all for a ThreadRipper processor. However, it's the CPU core voltage that is going to be interesting, so let's see if it worked:

Prime_X399A-176th.jpg

Click on image to enlarge

As expected, this preset was applied without any fanfare. The CPU core voltage fluctuated between 1.352V and 1.373V. This is getting a little high, but with a high-end air or liquid cooling solution - which you should have if you're spending well over a thousand dollars on this HEDT platform - it is easily manageable. Much like the TPU presets, the memory speed is left untouched and thus runs at a lowly DDR4-2133. The side effect of this is that Fabric/SOC frequency is limited to a meager 1066Mhz, so you're really not maximizing core-to-core bandwidth as well as memory bandwidth. As you will see in our benchmarking results, despite the higher all-core frequency, this configuration is often a fair bit slower than when running at the stock CPU frequency but with a higher speed.

With the two 'dumb' preset methods tested, let's see what smart 5-Way Optimization feature is capable of:

Prime_X399A-177th.jpg

Click on image to enlarge

As mentioned above, within the Ai Suite III utility there is the 5-Way Optimization automatic overclocking feature. This is an intelligent approach to automatic overclocking because it does not rely on presets. Instead, it slowly increases your processor's clock speed and voltage, tests for stability, monitors fan speeds and temperatures, and repeats until it has found the sweet spot.

Since we are always aggressive when it comes to overclocking, we selected the TPU II and Extreme Tuning options. After a few minutes As you can see above, the results are pretty much the same as when we used the previously mentioned 4Ghz OC Preset. The only difference is that the CPU multiplier was set to 39.75X instead of 40.00X and there's a tiny bump up in the bus speed. That miniscule bus speed increase does provide a slight memory speed and Fabric/SOC overclock as well. The CPU core voltage bounced between 1.373V and 1.395V pretty regularly, independent of the type of workload. Despite this occasional bump in core voltage, there wasn't any appreciable increase in temperatures when compared to the 4GHz OC Preset.


Manual Overclocking

Prime_X399A-178th.jpg

Click on image to enlarge

As you can see, we were able to push our twelve-core 1920X processor all the way up to 4.15GHz at a very reasonable 1.30-1.31V. This is the all-core frequency too, so quite a bit better than the default all-core frequency of 3.70Ghz, and pretty darn close to the XFR frequency of 4.2GHz (which is limited to 4 cores). We could have potentially hit a bit higher - even without any additional voltage - but temperatures really seemed to skyrocket at/past 4.2GHz. Either way, 4.15GHz is still very much at the upper-end of what these ThreadRipper processors are capable of using conventional cooling, in our case a Thermaltake Floe Riing 360 all-in-one liquid CPU cooler.

On a side note, since ASUS has allowed bus speed to natively float up to 100.60Mhz we needed to set the CPU multiplier to 41.25X in order to stay at or below 4150MHz. We usually - like on the ASRock Fatal1ty X399 - set a 41.5X multiplier but on this motherboard that pushed the CPU frequency up to 4175MHz which is simply not stable on this processor at ~1.30V.

When it came to the memory we utilized our always trusty G.Skill Trident Z F4-3200C14Q-32GTZSW (4x8GB - Samsung B-die ICs) memory kit, which features a DDR4-3200 XMP profile with 14-14-14 timings. This motherboard had no issues applying the XMP profile's memory speed or timings, and it appropriately increased the SOC voltage from the 0.81V default (at DDR4-2133) to 1.11V and set the DRAM voltage to 1.35V. Using this as a starting point, we were able to push the memory speed to DDR4-3600 16-16-16 with only a slight increase in the SOC voltage to 1.13V. When pushing up to DDR4-3733 we had more stability on this motherboard than on the ASRock Fatal1ty X399, but ultimately still could no get it fully stable. Still not too shabby given that the PRIME X399-A is only validated for DDR4-3333.

Prime_X399A-205th.jpg

Click on image to enlarge

While we are on the topic of memory, just like with their numerous CPU automatic overclocking features, ASUS have also included a bunch of memory overclocking presets. While they are all tailored for Samsung B-die based kits, they are all really impressive presets, particularly the "Fast 3333Mhz" that has superb secondary timings and the bottom DDR4-3600 option is an easy way to reach that high number. Obviously stay away from the top profiles with the 1.8V and 1.9V voltage settings, since those are for extreme sub-zero overclockers.

Overall, this motherboard was a pleasure to work with and it makes overclocking easy enough so that just about anyone should be able extract from additional headroom from their CPU and/or memory kit. The real question is whether these automatic overclock actually add extra performance when compared to just enabling XMP on a sufficiently fast memory kit.
 

MAC

Associate Review Editor
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
Montreal
System Benchmarks

System Benchmarks


In the System and Gaming Benchmarks sections, we reveal the results from a number of benchmarks run with the AMD ThreadRipper 1920X 12-core processor on the ASUS PRIME X399-E motherboard. These tests were run at default clocks, at default clocks with XMP enabled, with an automatic overclocking applied and using our manual overclock. This will illustrate how much performance can be achieved with this motherboard in stock and overclocked form. For a thorough comparison of the TR 1920X versus a number of different CPUs have a look at our "AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X & 1950X Review" article.


SuperPi Mod v1.9 WP


When running the SuperPI 32MB benchmark, we are calculating Pi to 32 million digits and timing the process. Obviously more CPU power helps in this intense calculation, but the memory sub-system also plays an important role, as does the operating system. We are running one instance of SuperPi Mod v1.9 WP. This is therefore a single-thread workload.

Prime_X399A-181.jpg


wPRIME 2.10


wPrime is a leading multithreaded benchmark for x86 processors that tests your processor performance by calculating square roots with a recursive call of Newton's method for estimating functions, with f(x)=x2-k, where k is the number we're sqrting, until Sgn(f(x)/f'(x)) does not equal that of the previous iteration, starting with an estimation of k/2. It then uses an iterative calling of the estimation method a set amount of times to increase the accuracy of the results. It then confirms that n(k)2=k to ensure the calculation was correct. It repeats this for all numbers from 1 to the requested maximum. This is a highly multi-threaded workload.

Prime_X399A-182.jpg


Cinebench R15


Cinebench R15 64-bit
Test1: CPU Image Render
Comparison: Generated Score


The latest benchmark from MAXON, Cinebench R15 makes use of all your system's processing power to render a photorealistic 3D scene using various different algorithms to stress all available processor cores. The test scene contains approximately 2,000 objects containing more than 300,000 total polygons and uses sharp and blurred reflections, area lights and shadows, procedural shaders, antialiasing, and much more. This particular benchmarking can measure systems with up to 64 processor threads. The result is given in points (pts). The higher the number, the faster your processor.

Prime_X399A-183.jpg


WinRAR x64


WinRAR x64 5.40
Test: Built-in benchmark, processing 1000MB of data.
Comparison: Time to Finish

One of the most popular file archival and compression utilities, WinRAR's built-in benchmark is a great way of measuring a processor's compression and decompression performance. Since it is a memory bandwidth intensive workload it is also useful in evaluating the efficiency of a system's memory subsystem.


Prime_X399A-184.jpg



FAHBench


FAHBench 1.2.0
Test: OpenCL on CPU
Comparison: Generated Score

FAHBench is the official FAH benchmark that measures the compute performance of CPUs and GPUs. It can test both OpenCL and CUDA code, using either single or double precision, and implicit or explicit modeling. The single precision implicit model most closely relates to current folding performance.


Prime_X399A-185.jpg



HEVC Decode Benchmark v1.61


HEVC Decode Benchmark (Cobra) v1.61
Test: Frame rates at various resolution, focusing on the top quality 25Mbps bitrate results.
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

The HEVC Decode Benchmark measures a system's HEVC video decoding performance at various bitrates and resolutions. HEVC, also known as H.265, is the successor to the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC (Advanced Video Coding) standard and it is very computationally intensive if not hardware accelerated. This decode test is done entirely on the CPU.


Prime_X399A-186.jpg


LuxMark v3.1


Test: OpenCL CPU Mode benchmark of the LuxBall HDR scene.
Comparison: Generated Score

LuxMark is a OpenCL benchmarking tool that utilizes the LuxRender 3D rendering engine. Since it OpenCL based, this benchmark can be used to test OpenCL rendering performance on both CPUs and GPUs, and it can put a significant load on the system due to its highly parallelized code.


Prime_X399A-187.jpg



PCMark 10


PCMark 10 is the latest iteration of Futuremark’s system benchmark franchise. It generates an overall score based upon system performance with all components being stressed in one way or another. The result is posted as a generalized score. In this case, we tested with both the standard Conventional benchmark and the Accelerated benchmark, which automatically chooses the optimal device on which to perform OpenCL acceleration.

Prime_X399A-188.jpg


AIDA64 Memory Benchmark

AIDA64 Extreme Edition is a diagnostic and benchmarking software suite for home users that provides a wide range of features to assist in overclocking, hardware error diagnosis, stress testing, and sensor monitoring. It has unique capabilities to assess the performance of the processor, system memory, and disk drives.

The benchmarks used in this review are the memory bandwidth and latency benchmarks. Memory bandwidth benchmarks (Memory Read, Memory Write, Memory Copy) measure the maximum achievable memory data transfer bandwidth. The code behind these benchmark methods are written in Assembly and they are extremely optimized for every popular AMD, Intel and VIA processor core variants by utilizing the appropriate x86/x64, x87, MMX, MMX+, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, SSE4.1, AVX, and AVX2 instruction set extension.
The Memory Latency benchmark measures the typical delay when the CPU reads data from system memory. Memory latency time means the penalty measured from the issuing of the read command until the data arrives to the integer registers of the CPU.


Prime_X399A-189.jpg
Prime_X399A-190.jpg
 
Last edited:

MAC

Associate Review Editor
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
Montreal
Gaming Benchmarks

Gaming Benchmarks



Futuremark 3DMark (2013)


3DMark v1.1.0
Graphic Settings: Fire Strike Preset
Rendered Resolution: 1920x1080
Test: Specific Physics Score and Full Run 3DMarks
Comparison: Generated Score


3DMark is the brand new cross-platform benchmark from the gurus over at Futuremark. Designed to test a full range of hardware from smartphones to high-end PCs, it includes three tests for DirectX 9, DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 hardware, and allows users to compare 3DMark scores with other Windows, Android and iOS devices. Most important to us is the new Fire Strike preset, a DirectX 11 showcase that tests tessellation, compute shaders and multi-threading. Like every new 3DMark version, this test is extremely GPU-bound, but it does contain a heavy physics test that can show off the potential of modern multi-core processors.


Prime_X399A-191.jpg


Futuremark 3DMark 11


3DMark 11 v1.0.5
Graphic Settings: Extreme Preset
Resolution: 1920x1080
Test: Specific Physics Score and Full Run 3DMarks
Comparison: Generated Score


3DMark 11 is Futuremark's very latest benchmark, designed to tests all of the new features in DirectX 11 including tessellation, compute shaders and multi-threading. At the moment, it is lot more GPU-bound than past versions are now, but it does contain a terrific physics test which really taxes modern multi-core processors.


Prime_X399A-192.jpg


Futuremark 3DMark Vantage


3DMark Vantage v1.1.2
Graphic Settings: Performance Preset
Resolution: 1280x1024

Test: Specific CPU Score and Full Run 3DMarks
Comparison: Generated Score

3DMark Vantage is the follow-up to the highly successful 3DMark06. It uses DirectX 10 exclusively so if you are running Windows XP, you can forget about this benchmark. Along with being a very capable graphics card testing application, it also has very heavily multi-threaded CPU tests, such Physics Simulation and Artificial Intelligence (AI), which makes it a good all-around gaming benchmark.


Prime_X399A-193.jpg


Valve Particle Simulation Benchmark


Valve Particle Simulation Benchmark
Resolution: 1920x1080
Anti-Aliasing: 4X
Anisotropic Filtering: 8X
Graphic Settings: High

Comparison: Particle Performance Metric

Originally intended to demonstrate new processing effects added to Half Life 2: Episode 2 and future projects, the particle benchmark condenses what can be found throughout HL2:EP2 and combines it all into one small but deadly package. This test does not symbolize the performance scale for just Episode Two exclusively, but also for many other games and applications that utilize multi-core processing and particle effects. This benchmark might be a little old, but is still very highly-threaded and thus will keep scaling nicely as processors gain more and more threads. As you will see the benchmark does not score in FPS but rather in its own "Particle Performance Metric", which is useful for direct CPU comparisons.


Prime_X399A-194.jpg


X3: Terran Conflict


X3: Terran Conflict 1.2.0.0
Resolution: 1920x1080
Texture & Shader Quality: High
Antialiasing 4X
Anisotropic Mode: 8X
Glow Enabled

Game Benchmark
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

X3: Terran Conflict (X3TC) is the culmination of the X-series of space trading and combat simulator computer games from German developer Egosoft. With its vast space worlds, intricately detailed ships, and excellent effects, it remains a great test of modern CPU performance. While the X3 Reality engine is single-threaded, it provides us with an interesting look at performance in an old school game environment.


Prime_X399A-195.jpg


Final Fantasy XIV: Heavensward Benchmark


Final Fantasy XIV: Heavensward
Resolution: 1920x1080
Texture & Shader Quality: Maximum IQ
DirectX 11
Fullscreen

Game Benchmark
Comparison: Generated Score

Square Enix released this benchmarking tool to rate how your system will perform in Heavensward, the expansion to Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn. This official benchmark software uses actual maps and playable characters to benchmark gaming performance and assign a score to your PC.


Prime_X399A-196.jpg



Grand Theft Auto V


DirectX Version: DirectX 11
Resolution: 1920x1080
FXAA: On
MSAA: X4
NVIDIA TXAA: Off
Anisotropic Filtering: X16
All advanced graphics settings off.

In GTA V, we utilize the handy in-game benchmarking tool. We do ten full runs of the benchmark and average the results of pass 3 since they are the least erratic. We do additional runs if some of the results are clearly anomalous. The Rockstar Advanced Game Engine (RAGE) is ostensibly multi-threaded, but it definitely places the bulk of the CPU load on only one or two threads.


Prime_X399A-197.jpg



Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor


Resolution: 1920x1080
Graphical Quality: Custom
Mesh/Shadow/Texture Filtering/Vegetation Range: Ultra
Lighting/Texture Quality/Ambient Occlusion: High
Depth of Field/Order Independent Transparency/Tessellation: Enabled

With its high resolution textures and several other visual tweaks, Shadow of Mordor’s open world is also one of the most detailed around. This means it puts massive load on graphics cards and should help point towards which GPUs will excel at next generation titles. We do three full runs of the benchmark and average the results.


Prime_X399A-198.jpg
 

MAC

Associate Review Editor
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
Montreal
Voltage Regulation / Power Consumption

Voltage Regulation

Despite the fact that this is a high-end desktop platform, the only ThreadRipper motherboard that has onboard voltage measurement points is ROG ZENITH EXTREME, no such luck on the cheaper PRIME X399-A. This is regrettable since that is our preferred method of accurately measuring the various system voltages. As a result, in this abbreviated overview, we utilized the AIDA64 System Stability Test to put a very substantial load on the system while also monitoring the stability of the all-important CPU Vcore line. This was achieved with a 60 minute stress test, and in order to increase the strain on the motherboard's voltage regulation components we overclocked our 1920X to 4.00Ghz at an accurate 1.30Vcore (1.325V LLC Level 1 in the BIOS).

Prime_X399A-199.png


As you can see, the CPU core voltage on this motherboard is perfect. It remained at 1.299V and never varied during the stress test. We did have to set the in-BIOS voltage to 1.325V and make use of the Load-Line Calibration (LLC) Level 1 setting in order to give us a Vcore that was closest to 1.30V under full load. While we did this using a 'mere' twelve-core 1920X, we have absolutely no reason to suspect that this motherboard's capable VRM couldn't achieve identical results with the flagship sixteen-core 1950X part.

Power Consumption

For this section, every energy saving feature was enabled in the BIOS and the Windows power plan was changed from High Performance to Balanced. For our idle test, we let the system idle for 15 minutes and measured the peak wattage through our UPM EM100 power meter. For our CPU load test, we ran Prime 95 In-place large FFTs on all available threads, measuring the peak wattage via the UPM EM100 power meter. For our overall system load test, we ran Prime 95 on all available threads while simultaneously loading the GPU with 3DMark Vantage - Test 6 Perlin Noise.

Prime_X399A-200.jpg

Now that we have reviewed two X399 motherboards we finally have the means to compare power consumption numbers. Much to our surprise, this ASUS model consumes a fair bit more than - about 40W under full load - than the higher-end and more feature-packed ASRock Fatal1ty X399 Professional Gaming (click for comparison pic). The disparity is particularly pronounced when we look at the stock and XMP numbers, and yet becomes effectively non existent once we set our manual overclock (which was identical on both models). What this tells us is that the ASUS motherboard can be as efficient as the ASRock, however it appears to be using higher voltages at default and XMP settings.
 
Last edited:

MAC

Associate Review Editor
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
Montreal
Conclusion

Conclusion


When going over the ASUS PRIME X399-A's specifications in the introduction we were pretty critical of certain aspects that seemed lacking for a $350 USD / $450 CAD motherboard. For example, why does it only have six SATA ports when the chipset natively supports eight? Why does it only have a single LAN port and no onboard Wi-Fi when there's plenty of sub-$200 motherboards with superior networking capabilities. Why is this the first motherboard that we have reviewed in years that doesn't have a Texas Instruments headphone amplifier tacked onto the audio section? While the audio results proved to be exemplary, the lack of an op-amp still seems like severe penny pinching.

Another curiosity is why doesn't this motherboard have three M.2 slots when it is natively supported by the platform? We understand that ASUS have swapped one of the M.2 slots for a U.2 port on this model, but they could have simply added a third M.2 slot and some PCI-E switches to give users the option of which interface to use. To put it into perspective, all of the X399 motherboards from the other manufacturers support three M.2 slots. Not only that, but they also all support four dual-slot graphics card whereas the PRIME X399-A can only handle three. Both of these shortcomings are not a cynical ploy to upsell consumers to a higher-end model either, since even the pricier ROG STRIX X399-E only has two M.2 slots and support for three dual-slot graphics card.

Prime_X399A-201.jpg

When it came time to overclock, we were pleasantly surprised to see that ASUS' usual arsenal of automatic overclocking features had found its way onto this platform. While auto overclocking succeeded in pushing our 1920X to an all-core CPU frequency of up to 4.0GHz, it did not touch the memory speed in any way and thus it languished at DDR4-2133. As a result, the Auto OC performance was generally worse than if we simply left the CPU untouched and enabled XMP instead. While we are on the topic of memory overclocking, we absolutely loved the memory presets page. If you have a memory kit with Samsung B-die ICs, this is a fast and easy way to maximize memory performance. However, for some reason, while the preset applied all the correct timings and voltages it wouldn't actually set the memory speed. We had to do that manually, which was a very mild inconvenience and probably something that will be fixed in an upcoming BIOS.

When it came time do some manual overclocking, the PRIME X399-A was essentially flawless. We were able to push our twelve-core 1920X chip to 4.15GHz across all cores at a very respectable 1.31V. Now despite the fact that our manual overclock causes a pretty hefty increase in power demands, the capable MOSFET heatsinks and active fan cooling had no problems dissipating the heat. Given the top-notch components used in the CPU VRM we have zero durability concerns. On the DDR4 front we managed to push our G.Skill Trident Z DDR4-3200 32GB memory kit up to DDR4-3600, which is higher than the DDR4-3333 level that this motherboard has been officially validated for. Once again, DDR4-3733 was definitely within reach, and even more stable than on the ASRock Fatal1ty X399, but we still occasionally got some HyperPI errors. The motherboard is clearly capable of it, we just haven't found the correct settings/voltages.

Overall, the PRIME X399-A does what it does very well, and it might suit certain users absolutely perfectly. However, we just feel that it doesn't make sufficiently adequate use of the substantial capabilities of this high-end platform. Also, while this is indeed one of the least expensive X399 motherboards on the market, the obvious cost cutting signs here and there leave us with a slightly sour taste in our mouths given the fact that this is still a $350 USD / $450 CAD product. It is quite possible that AMD is charging an exorbitant fee for the X399 chipset which makes it hard to reach this price point, but somehow the competition seems to have devised a way to manufacture more fully featured models at a fairly slight premium. Having said that, if the ASUS PRIME X399-A meets all of your current and future connectivity and expansion requirements it might just be an ideal entry point into the ThreadRipper platform.
 

Latest posts

Top