Asus ROG Maximus Z690 Hero: Elite board with extreme VRM

Ľubomír Samák

2 years ago

3DMark

An expensive but a very effective motherboard. Thus, the high purchase price of the Maximus Z690 Hero can be gradually returned in lower operating costs after fine-tuning. First and foremost, however, it is a proper support for the most powerful processors, which can be safely overclocked well beyond the capabilities of the most powerful coolers. The board also comes with an SSD expansion card, unusually.

The Z690 Hero motherboard can be considered a sort of “starter” model of the ROG Maximus series. From an overall perspective, the price of around 685 EUR is very high, but Asus has bigger extremes, literally – three times more expensive the ROG Maximus Z690 Extreme.

The Z690 Hero, unlike the similarly priced (though still slightly more expensive…) Z690 Apex, is designed for the casual user who still has high demands, but doesn’t appreciate features such as liquid nitrogen (LN2) CPU overclocking support and the like.


Parameters		Asus ROG Z690 Maximus Hero

Socket		Intel LGA 1700
Chipset		Intel Z690
Format		ATX (305 × 244 mm)
CPU power delivery		21-phase
Supported memory (and max. frequency)		DDR5 (6400 MHz)
Slots PCIe ×16 (+ PCIe ×1)		3× (+ 0×)
Centre of socket to first PCIe ×16 slot		96 mm
Centre of socket to first DIMM slot		56 mm
Storage connectors		6× SATA III, 3× M.2: 1× PCIe 4.0 ×4 (42–110 mm) + 1× PCIe 4.0 ×4/SATA III (42–80 mm) + 1× PCIe 3.0 ×4 (42–80 mm)
PWM connectors for fans or AIO pump		8×
Internal USB ports		1× 3.2 gen. 2×2 type C, 2× 3.2 gen. 1 type A, 2× 2.0 type A
Other internal connectors		1× TPM, 3× ARGB LED (5 V), 1× RGB LED (12 V), 1× jumper Clear CMOS
POST display		yes
Buttons		Start, FlexKey (reset), ReTry, BIOS flashback, Clear CMOS
External USB ports		7× 3.2 gen. 2 (6× type C + 1× type C), 2× 2.0 type A
Video outputs		1× HDMI 2.0, 1× DisplayPort 1.4
Network		1× RJ-45 (2,5 GbE) – Intel I225-V, WiFi 6E (802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax)
Audio		Realtek ALC4082 (7.1)
Other external connectors		2× Thunderbolt 4 (USB-C)
Approximate retail price		685 EUR

/* Here you can add custom CSS for the current table */ /* Lean more about CSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets */ /* To prevent the use of styles to other tables use "#supsystic-table-1808" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-1808 { ... } #supsystic-table-1808 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-1808 tbody tr { ... } */

Asus ROG Maximus Z690 Hero

In its essence, the Z690 Hero is very similar to the Z690 Formula board, except there is no liquid cooling of the VRM (the Formula is ready for it) and no 10-gigabit ethernet (Hero traditionally has “only” a 2.5 Gb network). So much for the basic orientation among ROG Maximus boards for both Intel Alder Lake processors and the upcoming Raptor Lake generation.

Although we are in a higher class where wider E-ATX formats start to appear, the Z690 Hero still retains the ATX dimensions (305 × 244 mm) and thus compatibility with relatively smaller computer cases. The front side in particular is distinguished from other boards by the Polymo display. The latter is between the external I/O panel and the VRM heatsink. It doesn’t have as great a resolution as OLED displays, but it’s a cheaper to manufacture and hopefully more reliable option in terms of time.

What the board lacks a bit in this price class is definitely the backplate, which both protects the PCB during installation (into the case, but also for example when mounting a CPU cooler) and strengthens it. When using heavier coolers (which is also the case with the Z690 Hero), for which higher pressure is also suitable, the substrate should not be deformed. Sure, it’s a cosmetic thing that gets lost during assembly, but still…

Asus invested the savings in an ROG Hyper expansion card to expand the total number of PCI Express 4.0-enabled M.2 SSD slots. This adds two more (on the expansion card) to the two built-in ones on the motherboard and when you factor in the slowest M.2 slot (with PCIe 3.0 support, but still a four-lane one), there are up to five slots available for this modern storage format. That’s already one more than the number of SATA ports some boards have. Here, it’s one less (M.2) slot, as you can attach up to six inch-scale storage devices to the Z690 Hero.

The ROG Hyper card allows mounting of M.2 SSDs up to 110 mm in length and has a heatsink for them with a hefty (almost half a kilo, the whole card weighs 515 grams) portion of aluminum. Of the three M.2 slots directly on the motherboard, two allow for mounting SSDs up to 80 mm and one (the first) up to 110 mm. By the way, the first PCI Express ×16 slot, connected to the north bridge of the chipset (in the processor) supports PCIe 5.0. This probably doesn’t surprise anyone with this board, but it’s worth mentioning for completeness.

Just as Asus didn’t skimp on material for the ROG Hyper card, they didn’t skimp on it for the CPU and iGPU power delivery heatsink either. The latter also has a decent weight (567 g) and for better heat dissipation, a heatpipe is also used to connect the two otherwise monolithic blocks into a single unit.

The more articulated surface of the heatsink should also be highlighted, thanks to which the cooler has a larger contact area with the air flow, which increases its efficiency. Increasing the cooling performance to the maximum is especially important here, because the power delivery is really massive and it would be a real shame if it was hampered by a weaker cooler.

In total, the power delivery has 21 phases (20 for the CPU, one for the iGPU) with a maximum current load of 1890 A (1800 A for the CPU). Power draw of CPUs, even the most powerful ones after overclocking, is naturally significantly lower, but with a view to achieving the best possible effectiveness at the lowest possible temperature, such a robust solution makes sense. The voltage regulators used, by the way, are Renesas ISL99390, for which we also have technical documentation with a wiring diagram and detailed parameters.

To power the processor VRM, there is a pair of eight-pin connectors, which differ from many competing boards, even more expensive ones, with metal reinforcement. In terms of increasing the mechanical stress that typically occurs when handling and connecting connectors with, shall we say, varying user dexterity, such a measure has merit.

Like most of the more expensive boards, the Z690 Hero has a power button (so you don’t have to short-circuit the front panel with a screwdriver when experimenting outside the case), as well as a reset button (FlexKey). Then there’s one more small one among the buttons – ReTry, which tuners know well. This comes in handy when the board doesn’t POST after you change settings and you want to undo the failed choices after a reboot.

The rest of the features are otherwise, fairly ordinary. However, the thermal pads under the PCIe 4.0-enabled m.2 slots are worth praising. Through them, they transfer heat from the back of the SDD to a larger area of the motherboard, which has a lower temperature in these places in critical situations and thus acts as a heatsink. Aluminum heatsinks on top of the SSDs are present in all positions.

Then it is also worth pointing out the absence of short PCI Epxress ×1 slots (only three PCIe ×16 slots are available). There are plenty of fan connectors for a change (8), well spaced at the edges of the PCB. There are are also handy, refracted two USB 3.2 gen. 1 connectors and all SATA (III) ports. The sound chip is a Realtek ALC4082 with DAC, ESS ES9018Q2C network adapter, then a 2.5Gb Intel I225-V and what else have we forgotten? The WiFi radio frequency module (6E), which is included and there are connectors (SMA) on the rear panel for it to mount antennas (these are not missing among the accessories either).

We are already on the rear panel, where two of the three USB support Thuderbolt 4 (with 40 Gb/s), unlike the Apex boards, a monitor connection to the iGPU is also foreseen, and HDMI 2.1 is also among the connectors. Most of the external USB ports are in the 3.2 gen. 2 standard (7×). Double the speed (20 Gbps) – 3.2 gen. 2×2 – can only be pulled from the internal connector.

What it looks like in BIOS

The initial screen (EZ Mode) of the BIOS contains all the key information indicators. Whether it’s detected hardware (CPU, RAM, SSD/HDD or fans), profile settings (XMP, but also fan ones within Q-Fan) or temperature and CPU tuning and the motherboard checkpoint. Within the quick navigation, it is then immediately possible to manage lighting, (de)activate the ReSizable BAR, or run memory through MemTest straight from this environment.

For build details beyond these basics, you need to go into “advanced mode”. However, if you’re only accessing the BIOS to update it, you’ll have to look for the EZ Flash 3 application in the utility tab. It might not be a bad idea to pull the button for it into the simplified mode environment as well, as some manufacturers have, but sure – everything can’t be there while maintaining clarity.

Hardware tuning is traditionally on the “Extreme Tweaker” tab. You can both influence the behavior of the CPU multiplier in AVX loads and adjust the Thermal Velocity Boost settings. The AVX2 frequency management is one of the few that does not reduce the offset and the all-core boost is kept at the maximum values even for the Core i9-12900K (i.e. 4.9 GHz). Of course, such a robust board can handle the higher load. The negative offset is usually set on boards mainly with regard to weaker VRMs or limited CPU cooler options. In case you have a weaker/quieter cooler, you can manually reduce the negative offset. However, Asus assumes that the owner of such a board will also own an adequate high TDP cooler.

In the tuning section, it is traditionally possible to customize the short and long term power limit. We manually remove the power limits for all boards and also for this one for testing purposes, but then we also set them in the same way for selected tests according to Intel’s recommendations.

However, we do not interfere with the more detailed settings of the power delivery (DIGI+ VRM card) and we keep the boards in their “original identity” with the default behavior profile. But you can play around with it for best results. Or if it’s primarily about performance, there’s a simpler option – cancel all limits via MCE (MultiCore Enhancement) and force an all-core boost according to ST boost frequency. Of course, for it to make sense you have to be able to keep it adequately cool.

Sensors to monitor temperatures are also included within the VRM, so you can keep the board under control temperature-wise. Fan settings are also detailed, although we have some complaints about them.

Q-Fan interface is at an advanced level, allowing PWM curve adjustment for all 4-pin connectors for fans and liquid cooler pumps. In addition to creating a manual curve to suit individual needs, there are nice preset profiles ranging from quiet (low PWM intensity), to standard, turbo, and maximum speed, which corresponds to 100 % PWM/12 V DC control.

However, for some reason, Asus has apparently removed the ability to assign a profile to a different temperature sensor (such as the one for the VRM) than the CPU one. They used to be able to switch between sources, now we don’t find this option on Asus boards.

We will confront the manufacturer as to why this is so. With the TUF Gaming B660 Plus WiFi D4 it could still be overlooked – it’s a “cheap” board, but on the Z690 Hero such a limitation looks already quite disproportionate to the rest.

Gaming tests…

The vast majority of tests is based on the methodology for processors and graphics cards. The choice of games is slimmer for motherboards, but that’s in order to be able to run all the tests with two different processors as promised. Each board will always be tested with a more powerful processor from the top end, but also with a weaker, average one. The more powerful variant on the LGA 1700 platform is the Core i9-12900K and the mid-range one is the Core i5-12400.

Based on tests with processors from different classes, you’ll be able to easily decide whether a more expensive motherboard for a cheaper processor makes sense for you or, conversely, how good of an idea it is to skimp on a cheaper motherboard while using a more expensive and more powerful processor, which naturally also has higher power draw and places higher demands on the overall quality of the motherboard.

We’ve selected five titles from the games and we’re testing them in two resolutions. There are significantly fewer games than in the CPU or graphics card tests, but there is just enough for the motherboard tests. Few people consider performance in a particular game when choosing a motherboard. But an indicative overview of how a motherboard shapes gaming performance (compared to other motherboards) is a must. To avoid significantly skewing the result over time, we reached for relatively older titles that no longer receive significant updates.

These are Borderlands 3, F1 2020, Metro Exodus, Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Total War Saga: Troy. For newer games, there might be some performance changes over time (with updates) and especially in high resolutions with high details. This is one of the test setups (2160p and Ultra, or the highest visual detail but without ray-tracing) that focuses on comparing performance, for which the bottleneck is the graphics card. In other words, it will be clear from these tests which motherboard and to what extent can impact the graphics card’s performance for some reason. In contrast, a setup with Full HD resolution and with graphical details reduced to “High” will also reflect the CPU’s influence on the final gaming performance.

We use OCAT to record fps, or the times of individual frames, which are then used to calculate fps, and FLAT to analyze the CSV. The developer and author of articles (and videos) for the GPUreport.cz website is behind both.
For the highest accuracy, all runs are repeated three times and average values of average and minimum fps are displayed in the graphs. These multiple repetitions also apply to non-game tests.

… Computing tests, SSD tests, USB ports and network tests

We test application performance in a very similar way to the processor tests. Almost all tests are included, from the easier ones (such as those in a web environment) to those that push the CPU or graphics card to the limit. These are typically tests such as 3D rendering, video encoding (x264, x265, SVT-AV1) or other performance-intensive computing tasks. As with processors or graphics cards, we have a wide range of applications – users editing video (Adobe Premiere Pro, DaVinci Resolve Studio), graphic effects creators (Adobe Premiere Pro), graphic designers or photographers (Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom, Affinity Photo, AI applications Topaz Labs, …) will find their own in the results, and there are also tests of (de)encryption, (de)compression, numerical calculations, simulations and, of course, tests of memory.

SSD performance tests are also important for motherboards. Therefore we test the maximum sequential read and write speeds on an empty Samsung 980 Pro SSD (1 TB) in the well distributed CrystalDiskMark, in all slots. We approach the USB port tests in the same way. We use a WD Black P50 external SSD to test them. It supports fast USB 3.2 gen. 2×2, so it won’t be a bottleneck for even the fastest USB controllers. We report only one result for each USB standard. This is calculated from the average of all available ports.

We won’t deprive you of network bandwidth tests either. We move large files in both directions within a local network between the motherboard network adapters and the Sonnet Solo10G 10-gigabit PCIe card. This from the aforementioned Samsung 980 Pro SSD to the Patriot Hellfire (480 GB), which is still fast enough to not slow down even the 10 Gb adapter.

The results of all performance tests are averaged over three repeated measurements for best accuracy.

CPU settings…

We primarily test processors without power limits, the way most motherboards have it in factory settings. For tests that have overlap with power, temperature and CPU clock speed measurements, we also observe the behavior of boards with power limits set according to CPU manufacturers’ recommendations. We set PL1 to the TDP level, respecting also the tau timeout (56 s) for Intel CPUs. The upper power limit (PL2/PPT) is also set according to the official CPU specifications. Technologies for aggressive overclocking, such as PBO2 (AMD) or ABT (Intel), MCE (Asus) and the like, are not dealt with in our standard motherboard tests.

… and application updates

Tests should also take into account that over time, individual updates may skew performance comparisons. Some applications we use in portable versions that do not update or can be kept on a stable version, but for some this is not the case. Typically games get updated over time, which is natural, and keeping them on old versions out of reality would also be questionable.

In short, just count on the fact that the accuracy of the results you are comparing with each other decreases a bit as time goes on. To make this analysis easier, we’ve listed when each board was tested. You can find this out in the dialog box, where you can find information about the date of testing. This dialog is displayed in the interactive graphs, next to any result bar. Just hover over it.

Methodology: How we measure power draw

Motherboard “power draw” analysis is an extremely attractive topic if approached methodically. What does it mean? Measuring the electric current and voltage directly on the wiring that powers the motherboard. Naturally, the processor, or the processor power supply, has the most significant draw, which we measure separately – just as in processor tests.

In addition to the EPS cable, there is also a 24-pin ATX cable with multiple voltages, which is good to keep track of. The key ones are +3.3 V (from which the chipset is typically powered), +5 V (memory) and +12 V, from which the PCI Express slots are powered, and the biggest draw will be in the case of our test configuration on the graphics card. All of these wires are closely monitored. But then within the ATX connector there are also a few relatively unimportant branches that are no longer even used in modern computers (that is, -12 V and -5 V) or are relatively unimportant in terms of power draw. For example +5 VSB (power supply for USB or ARGB lighting even when the computer is switched off; this can usually be switched off in the BIOS) or PG (Power Good), which is only informative and during operation it is only “an also-run”. These branches (-12 V, -5 V, +5 VSB and PG) always have only one wire and often with a smaller cross section, which is also a sign of always very low power draw.

The 24-pin wires on which we measure the power draw are always connected in parallel and are at least in pairs (+12 V) or greater in number. For example, the +3.3 V branch uses four conductors to increase the cross section and the +5 V branch has up to five. However, this branch is quite oversized from today’s point of view, as historically it was intended to power more HDDs or their logical part (+12 V is used for the mechanical part).

We use a shunt of our own making to measure the draw from the 24-pin. This is built on a very simple principle and consists of very low-value resistors. The value is set so low that the voltage drop is not higher than the ATX standard. Based on the known resistance in the circuit and the voltage drop across it, we can calculate the electric current, and once the output is substituted into the known formula to calculate the power, the mathematics is easy. Samples during the course of the tests are recorded using the Keysight U1231A multimeter array via a service application that allows the recorded data to be exported in CSV. And that’s the final destination for creating line graphs or counting averages (into bar interactive graphs). That’s how simple it is.

For completeness it is good to add that the current clamps for measuring the current draw from the EPS cables (power supply to the processor) are Prova 15. These will soon be replaced by a more practical solution for desktop use, namely a similar shunt we use for the ATX connector. The only reason it is not yet in circulation is its more complex design (as it has to account for very high currents) and the need for thorough testing, which we are yet to get to. Since we place a high emphasis on accuracy in our tests, all measuring devices are properly calibrated.

Methodology: Temperature and frequency measurements

By far the most critical part in terms of temperatures on the motherboard is the power delivery (VRM) for the CPU. This is where we return to the Fluke Ti125 thermal imager, which produces temperature maps that can be used to locate the average temperature, as well as the hottest point. We record both these values (average and maximum temperature on the Vcore) in graphs, and we will later evaluate the efficiency of the VRM heatsinks based on the maximum one. However, we lack a suitable thermometer for that yet. Of course, the thermovision is implemented without a heatsink, and a thermocouple needs to be installed on the hottest MOSFET to detect the reduction of temperature with a heatsink. This will be added soon.

Thermovision always relates to operating with the more powerful of the pair of test processors. With it, the differences and possible limitations or impending risks (for example, even from thermal throttling) become more apparent. In order to have a good view of the VRM, we use an Alphacool Eisbaer 360 liquid cooler with the fans fixed at full power (12 V) instead of a tower cooler (from the CPU tests). The temperature tests also include CPU temperatures for completeness, and we also test the efficiency of the supplied SSD heatsinks as part of the motherboard tests. These are already included with virtually all better motherboards, and so the question naturally arises whether to use them or replace them with other, more finned ones. We will test these heatsinks on a Samsung 980 Pro SSD during ten minutes of intense load in CrystalDiskMark. Finally, the temperature of the chipset’s southbridge and the cooling efficiency in this direction is noteworthy as well.

All tests are conducted in a wind tunnel, so full system cooling is provided. This consists of three Noctua NF-S12A PWMs@5V (~550 rpm) . Two of which are intake, one is exhaust. But the three fast AIO fans also function as exhaust fans, so there is a vacuum in the case.

The temperature at the entrance to the tunnel is properly controlled and ranges between 21-21.3 °C. Maintaining a constant temperature at all times during testing is important not only for the accuracy of the temperature measurements, but also because a higher or lower ambient temperature also affects the eventual behaviour of the processors’ boost. And we also properly monitor and compare the clock speeds, whether under all-core load or even single-threaded tasks. We use the HWiNFO application to record the clock speeds and temperatures of the cores (sampling is set to two seconds).

Maintaining a constant temperature at the intake is necessary not only for a proper comparison of processor temperatures, but especially for objective performance comparisons. The clock speed development, and specially the single core boost, is precisely based on the temperature. Typically in summer, at higher temperatures than is normal in living quarters in winter, processors can be slower.

Temperatures are always read as maximum (both from the VRM thermovision and average, but still from the local maximum values at the end of Cinebench R23). For Intel processors, for each test we read the maximum temperature of the cores, usually all of them. These maxima are then averaged and the result represents the final value in the graph. From the single-threaded workload outputs, we extract only the recorded values from the active cores (there are usually two of these, and they alternate between each other during the test). For AMD processors it is a bit different. They don’t have temperature sensors for each core. In order to make the procedure methodically as similar as possible to the one we apply on Intel processors, we define the average temperature of all cores by the highest value reported by the CPU Tdie (average) sensor. However, for single-core workloads we already use the CPU sensor (Tctl/Tdie), which usually reports a slightly higher value that better corresponds to hotspots of one or two cores. However, these values as well as the values from all internal sensors should be taken with a grain of salt, the accuracy of sensors across CPUs varies.

Clock speed evaluation is more accurate, each core has its own sensor even on AMD processors. However, unlike the temperatures, we write the average values of the clock speeds during the tests in the graphs. We monitor the temperatures and clock speed of the CPU cores in the same tests in which we also measure power draw. Thus, sequentially from the lowest desktop idle load in Windows 10, through audio encoding (single-threaded load), gaming load in Shadow of the Tomb Raider to Cinebench R23.

Test setup

Intel Core i5-12900K and Intel Core i5-12400 CPUs

Alphacool Eisbaer Aurora 360 liquid cooler

Patriot Blackout memory (4×8 GB, 3900 MHz/CL18). We test motherboards with DDR5 memory support with Kingston Fury Beast (2×16 GB, 5200 MHz/CL40)

MSI RTX 3080 Gaming X Trio graphics card

Patriot Viper VP4100 (1 TB) and Patriot Viper VPN100 (2 TB) SSDs


Testovacia konfigurácia
Chladič CPU	Noctua NH-U14S@12 V
Teplovodivá pasta	Noctua NT-H2
Základná doska *	MSI MAG Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 (BIOS 7D32v11)
Pamäte (RAM)	Patriot Blackout, 4× 8 GB, 3600 MHz/CL18
Grafická karta	MSI RTX 3080 Gaming X Trio, Resizable BAR off
SSD	2× Patriot Viper VPN100 (512 GB + 2 TB)
Napájací zdroj	BeQuiet! Dark Power Pro 12 (1200 W)

/* Here you can add custom CSS for the current table */ /* Lean more about CSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets */ /* To prevent the use of styles to other tables use "#supsystic-table-1142" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-1142 { ... } #supsystic-table-1142 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-1142 tbody tr { ... } */

Note: Graphics drivers used at the time of testing: Nvidia GeForce 466.77 and OS Windows 10 build 19043

3DMark

We use 3DMark Professional for our tests and from the tests, Night Raid (DirectX 12), Fire Strike (DirectX 11) and Time Spy (DirectX 12). In the graphs you will find the CPU sub-scores, the combined scores, as well as the graphics scores. From this you can see to what extent a given CPU is limiting the graphics card.

Borderlands 3

<Test environment: resolution 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset High; API DirectX 12; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: None; test scene: built-in benchmark.

Test environment: resolution 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset Ultra; API DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

F1 2020

Test environment: resolution 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset High; API DirectX 12; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: off, Skidmarks Blending: off; test scene: built-in benchmark (Australia, Clear/Dry, Cycle).

Test environment: resolution 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset Ultra High; API DirectX 12; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: TAA, Skidmarks Blending: off; test scene: built-in benchmark (Australia, Clear/Dry, Cycle).

Metro Exodus

Test environment: resolution 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset High; API DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

Test environment: resolution 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset Extreme; API DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

Test environment: resolution 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset High; API DirectX 12; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: built-in benchmark.

Test environment: resolution 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset Highest; API DirectX 12; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: TAA; test scene: built-in benchmark.

Total War Saga: Troy

Test environment: resolution 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset High; API DirectX 11; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

Test environment: resolution 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset Ultra; API DirectX 11; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

PCMark

Geekbench

Speedometer (2.0) and Octane (2.0)

Test environment: To ensure that results are not affected by web browser updates over time, we use a portable version of Google Chrome (91.0.472.101), a 64-bit build. Hardware GPU acceleration is enabled as well, as it is by default for every user.

Note: The values in the graphs represent the average of the scores obtained in the subtasks, which are grouped according to their nature into seven categories (Core language features, Memory and GC, Strings and arrays, Virtual machine and GC, Loading and Parsing, Bit and Math operations, and Compiler and GC latency).

Cinebench R20

Cinebench R23

Blender@Cycles

Test environment: We use well distributed projects BMW (510 tiles) and Classroom (2040 tiles) and the renderer Cycles. Render settings are set to None, with which all the work falls on the CPU.

LuxRender (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Adobe Premiere Pro (PugetBench)

Testovacie prostredie: súbor testov PugetBench. Verziu aplikácie (Adobe Premiere Pro) držíme na 15.2.

DaVinci Resolve Studio (PugetBench)

Test environment: set of PugetBench tests, test type: standard. App version of DaVinci Resolve Studio is 17.2.1 (build 12).

Graphics effects: Adobe After Effects

Test environment: set of PugetBench tests. App version of Adobe After Effects is 18.2.1.

HandBrake

Test environment: For video conversion we’re using a 4K video LG Demo Snowboard with a 43,9 Mb/s bitrate. AVC (x264) and HEVC (x265) profiles are set for high quality and encoder profiles are “slow”. HandBrake version is 1.3.3 (2020061300).

x264 and x265 benchmarks

Naposledy sme sa zaoberali základnou doskou, ktorá, ktorá je aj vďaka nižšej cene vhodná najmä na použitie s lacnejšími procesormi. Teraz tu máme o zhruba 50 eur drahšiu Gigabyte B660 Aorus Master DDR4. Príplatok tu má jasné opodstatnenie a odzkadľuje sa na lepších vlastnostiach. Napájacia kaskáda je výrazne efektívnejšia, chladiče sú účinnejšie a výbava je celkovo bohatšia, vrátane svetielok.

Audio encoding

Test environment: Audio encoding is done using command line encoders, we measure the time it takes for the conversion to finish. The same 42-minute long 16-bit WAV file (stereo) with 44.1 kHz is always used (Love Over Gold by Dire Straits album rip in a single audio file).

Encoder settings are selected to achieve maximum or near maximum compression. The bitrate is relatively high, with the exception of lossless FLAC of about 200 kb/s.

Note: These tests measure single-thread performance.

FLAC: reference encoder 1.3.2, 64-bit build. Launch options: flac.exe -s -8 -m -e -p -f

MP3: encoder lame3.100.1, 64-bit build (Intel 19 Compiler) from RareWares. Launch options: lame.exe -S -V 0 -q 0

AAC: uses Apple QuickTime libraries, invoked through the application from the command line, QAAC 2.72, 64-bit build, Intel 19 Compiler (does not require installation of the whole Apple package). Launch options: qaac64.exe -V 100 -s -q 2

Opus: reference encoder 1.3.1, Launch options: opusenc.exe –comp 10 –quiet –vbr –bitrate 192

Adobe Photoshop (PugetBench)

Test environment: set of PugetBench tests. App version of Adobe Photoshop is 22.4.2.

Affinity Photo (benchmark)

Test environment: built-in benchmark.

Topaz Labs AI apps

Topaz DeNoise AI, Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI. These single-purpose applications are used for restoration of low-quality photos. Whether it is high noise (caused by higher ISO), raster level (typically after cropping) or when something needs extra focus. The AI performance is always used.

Test settings for Topaz Labs applications. DeNoise AI, Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI, left to right. Each application has one of the three windows

Test environment: As part of batch editing, 42 photos with a lower resolution of 1920 × 1280 px are processed, with the settings from the images above. DeNoise AI is in version 3.1.2, Gigapixel in 5.5.2 and Sharpen AI in 3.1.2.

The processor is used for acceleration (and high RAM allocation), but you can also switch to the GPU

WinRAR 6.01

7-Zip 19.00

TrueCrypt 7.1a

Aida64 (AES, SHA3)

Aida64, FPU tests

FSI (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Kirchhoff migration (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Python36 (SPECworkstation 3.1)

SRMP (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Octave (SPECworkstation 3.1)

FFTW (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Convolution (SPECworkstation 3.1)

CalculiX (SPECworkstation 3.1)

RodiniaLifeSci (SPECworkstation 3.1)

WPCcfd (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Poisson (SPECworkstation 3.1)

LAMMPS (SPECworkstation 3.1)

NAMD (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Memory tests…

… and cache (L1, L2, L3)

M.2 (SSD) slots speed

USB ports speed

Ethernet speed

In the second test setup we use a Sonnet Solo10G network card to measure the LAN adapter transfer speeds

Analysis of power draw (EPS + ATX connector) w/o power limits

Analýza spotreby (EPS + ATX konektor) s limitmi napájania podľa Intelu

Total power draw w/o power limits…

… and with Intel’s power limits

Achieved CPU clock speed w/o power limits…

… and with Intel’s power limits

CPU temperatures w/o power limits…

… and with Intel’s power limits

VRM temperatures w/o power limits…

… and with Intel’s power limits

SSD temperatures

Chipset temperatures (south bridge)

Conclusion

In rendering a verdict over the Maximus Z690 Hero board, we’ll start with a question that will probably be quite common among users. That is, why pay double the price compared to what, for example, the MSI MAG Z690 Tomahawk WiFi costs. It can also handle the most powerful Core i9 with confidence. Aside from the fact that it has (compared to the aforementioned MSI board) an extra graphics display, that you also have to pay for, there are also some functional reasons why the Maximus Z690 Hero might be a more attractive choice.

The main reason lies in better preparedness for higher performance. This means that even in worse conditions (say, with higher ambient temperature), it can handle a more powerful processor. Typically after above-standard overclocking (e.g. via MCE). In other words, where a board with a weaker VRM will struggle, the Maximus Z690 Hero still has room to spare. With the Z690 Tomahawk with Core i9-12900K, MSI preemptively sets the load offset multiplier for AVX to -2, and in these situations the doesn’t look like it at first glance from power draw measurements – the B660 Aorus Master DDR4 temps of voltage regulators.

Despite the higher power draw on the Z690 Hero, which has already been discussed, the efficiency is very high, the highest, even from the point of view of the whole system, that is, even including the power draw of devices powered via the ATX connector.

The huge price increase over the MSI MAG Z690 Tomahawk WiFi due to the difference in features is really high. When comparing prices, however, you also need to look at the other features led by the ROG Hyper expansion card for additional M.2 SSDs or the wider selection of external connectors, among which shines Thunderbolt 4 in particular. And then there’s the slightly better memory support, overall wider tuning options, physical buttons directly on the board, and a bunch of miscellaneous details that we won’t overwhelm you with in the final review (some of which have already been covered in the first two chapters of this article). However, we have to admonish Asus for the inability to assign different temperature sources to the PWM fan curves – this is a basic feature of even cheap boards, and it can’t be missing on the Z690 Hero. But it is.

Performance tests did not deviate from other boards. There are tests where the Z690 Hero scores the highest (from games such as in Metro Exodus), but the lead over the second “fastest” board is usually less than 1 %. We make these measurements practically only to detect possible anomalies with significant drops in performance, which are very rare. In the case of the Z690 Hero, we haven’t come across anything at all, and when you do observe higher performance somewhere than other boards, it’s usually due to the higher bandwidth of DDR5 memory (many boards are tested with DDR4 memory) or because of the case with video encoding (x265) in HandBrake, for example. But even so, the benefit is completely negligible (+1 %). Interestingly though, there are a few scenarios where the configuration with the cheaper processor doesn’t fare too well compared to the cheaper boards. The Core i5-12400 in the Z690 Hero does sometimes lag up to 5 % behind the results when it’s in the Biostar B660GTA (or other top-scoring board in that test). We’ll discuss why this happens later in a separate article.

For the most powerful processors that this class of motherboards is for, the Maximus Z690 Hero is one of the technically best options. Sure, the price could have been lower, and compared to significantly cheaper (and not that much “worse”) boards, it’s hard to justify. But if there’s one thing we don’t take into account when giving something the Top-notch award, it’s price.

English translation and edit by Jozef Dudáš


Asus ROG Z690 Maximus Hero
+ Very powerful 21-phase power delivery (VRM)...
+ ... handles even Core i9-12900K efficiently after manual overclocking
+ Option to manually overclock the CPU by changing the multiplier
+ Efficient power management
+ Particularly high efficiency at lower CPU power power draw (below 125 W)
+ Three fast (four-lane) M.2 slots for SSD...
... up to five after counting the additional two on the included expansion card
+ Seven fast USB 3.2 gen. 2 connectors on the rear I/O panel
+ Thunderbolt 4 included (via two USB-C connectors)
+ Detailed fan management options
- Very high price point
- For PWM curves, you can't adjust the temperature source (everything is tied to the CPU sensor)
Orientačná koncová cena: 685 EUR

/* Here you can add custom CSS for the current table */ /* Lean more about CSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets */ /* To prevent the use of styles to other tables use "#supsystic-table-1809" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-1809 { ... } #supsystic-table-1809 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-1809 tbody tr { ... } */

Test games are from Jama levova

Special thanks to Blackmagic Design (for licenses for DeNoise AI, Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI) and Topaz Labs (for licenses for DeNoise AI, Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI)

Continue: Borderlands 3