Better than on paper. Low-cost “OC” mobo MSI Pro Z690-A DDR4

Methodology: Performance tests

MSI’s second cheapest motherboard with the Intel Z690 chipset costs significantly less compared to the higher-end Tomahawk DDR4. The difference in features is small. And perhaps too small, as the specifications artificially downgrade some components. The power delivery is less efficient and the heatsinks are more modest, but the roughly 80 EUR saved is almost as much as the cost of upgrading from a Core i5-12600K to a Core i7-12700K(F).

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 frequency 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.


  •  
  •  
  •  
Flattr this!

Analysis: What have we learned from motherboard tests

Over time, we have tested ten motherboards with Intel B660 and Z690 chipsets in great detail. From more than 5000 different measurements, we can thus confidently deny some speculations that are usually spread on the Internet from the ignorance of the authors of articles or comments (in discussions). But this is natural. The less substantial the reviews are, the more fertile ground they create for various confusions. Read more “Analysis: What have we learned from motherboard tests” »

  •  
  •  
  •  

Comments (6) Add comment

  1. Do you guys think this board would handle the 13900K? With power limits and decent air cooling (Noctua NH-D15, U14S, Dark Rock Pro 4, AK62, or Thermalright PA 120SE?

    1. With a power limit of 253 W? The Pro Z690-A DDR4 is up to the task for such a load, although you have to expect lower power efficiency. But that’s only natural in this class.

  2. Hey guys, I have a Gigabyte 750h psu that i bought back in 2020, thing is.. it only has 1x 8pin CPU power connector, this motherboard required 2x 8pin CPU power connectors, i want to purchase this motherboard along with a i5 13600k (im not gonna do overclocking at least until i change the psu) am I gonna be ok with just 1x 8pin CPU power cable connected ?

    1. Yes, a single 8-pin EPS connector (or a pair of two 4-pin connectors) will be sufficient with the Core i5-13600K, and by a wide margin. It’s capable of 336 W, and your processor’s power draw won’t be more than 180 W.

  3. First of all, congratulations for the work done, I have never seen such complete tests for motherboards. There are so many information that I didn’t even think about, now I’m confused. Before, I didn’t think about the consumption or the achieved CPU clock speed.

    MSI MAG B660M Mortar WiFi (128 USD) it consumes less energy and at the same time keeps the CPU at a higher frequency!
    MSI Pro Z690-A DDR4 (170 USD): I thought it was a clear winner, I thought I’d put a 12600k on it and then in a few years upgrade to a 13900k or maybe even the 14 series. More lanes.
    At the same time, there are chances that I will not upgrade to a CPU on the same platform. Hard to chose, or not?

    1. I wouldn’t be put off by the difference in achieved clock speeds. This is just the sort of thing that can be well controlled by a simple manual adjustment of the settings. The Pro Z690-A DDR4 board obviously has a more aggressive minus offset setting for AVX instructions and therefore achieves lower CPU clock speeds in Cinebench. But in games and at lower load they are already the same as with the B660M Mortar. To a certain extent, until the limits of the VRM (in)efficiency are reached, the power draw can be tuned. It’s possible that what makes a bigger difference in the power draw than VRM efficiency (the components on the Pro Z690-A DDR4 don’t look that much worse on paper…) on the hardware side is that the Pro Z690-A DDR4 has a significantly more aggressive power supply, which can be adjusted. But that’s all a matter for detailed manual tweaking and fine-tuning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *