Follow-up: MSI MAG B660M Mortar WiFi performance with Core i5

PCMark and Geekbench

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

You might remember the blog From HWC Testlab #2: Searching for the perfect CPU test board. The latter arose on the basis that we were encountering opinions that, in their own way, undermined the relevance of tests of cheap processors on expensive boards. Probably because those more expensive boards should somehow “help” them. However, we did not find an explanation why this should be the case, even in a thematic article on root.cz, which built its core on this assumption (that it is inappropriate to use more expensive boards to test cheaper processors).

Sure, it may happen that a more expensive board will show higher CPU performance, but it can also be the other way around. Anyway, chipsets from third-party manufacturers are no longer available and these differences will not be due to the chipset used, but to, for example, power management settings, FSB and so on. More expensive boards also have various technologies to support high frequencies (such as Multicore Enhancement) thanks to more robust power deliveries, but we are not aware of a single thing in the default settings that would cause better performance results on a more expensive board, for example with a Core i3, compared to running on a cheaper board.

The reasons why we use “overkill” motherboards for all processors were explained in detail in the article above. In short, we will just note here that the key to an objective comparison is to always use the same motherboard and preferably one that will not (for example due to VRM overheating) limit the performance of the most powerful processors of a given platform. And for objective power draw comparisons, it is also very important that across differently performing processors (e.g. between a Core i3 with 50W and a Core i9 with 350W), the power efficiency (VRM) is as similar as possible. At a level that does not significantly distort reality.

In the motherboard tests, we will run “only” performance tests with the cheaper processor. It would be nice to have it complete, even with power draw, but that is no longer feasible for us in terms of time constraints. First and foremost, though, we’ll be interested to see how different motherboards can sway CPU performance with respect to the cheaper Core i5-12400 model. This is a processor with a native 6-core chip (its S-Spec code is SRLY5).

As with the CPU tests, the power limits are unrestricted in the board tests. However, the tested MSI MAG B660M Mortar WiFi motherboard also has a preset profile that has the PL1 set to 65W. That’s the limit for long term loads. For short-term (tau, 56 seconds) it is 169 W. This is a bit more than Intel’s recommended 117 W, but it doesn’t matter that much. The Ci5-12400 won’t get to over a hundred watts even in unrestricted power mode.

Rather, the higher PL2 value is a kind of headroom for the more powerful Core i7. These preset profiles on the B660M Mortar WiFi are not always the same, but they can be for some group of processors. With the Core i9-12900K, however, the box cooler preset profile is set somewhat nonsensically at 241/241 W (PL1/PL2), but that’s probably also because no box cooler is shipped with the K processors (but the developers could have at least tweaked the PL1 to 125 W for the Ci9-12900K).

Significant overclocking of locked processors via BCLK is not supported by the MSI MAG B660M Mortar WiFi, as it does not have an external clock generator.
This is the prerogative of more expensive motherboards, which are discussed in this article by Jan Olšan. But now there are 19 chapters of performance tests waiting for you. There’s no point in commenting on them yet, as we don’t have any board to compare them to, but they will accumulate over time… and it will be a more attractive study.

net/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/motherboards-methodology-01-1024×683.jpg” alt=”” width=”390″ height=”260″ />

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.

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

Test setup

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

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

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.

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

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.

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

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).

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

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.

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

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.

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?>

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.

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

PCMark

Geekbench

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

Speedometer (2.0) and Octane (2.0)

Test environment: o 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).

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

Cinebench R20

Cinebench R23

Blender@Cycles

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

LuxRender (SPECworkstation 3.1)

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

Adobe Premiere Pro (PugetBench)

Test environment: set of PugetBench tests. App version of Adobe Premiere Pro is 15.2.

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

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).

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

Graphic effects: Adobe After Effects

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

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

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 profile is “slow”. HandBrake version is 1.3.3 (2020061300).

x264 and x265 benchmarks

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

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

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

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 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.

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

WinRAR 6.01

7-Zip 19.00

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

TrueCrypt 7.1a

Aida64 (AES, SHA3)

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

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)

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

RodiniaLifeSci (SPECworkstation 3.1)

WPCcfd (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Poisson (SPECworkstation 3.1)

LAMMPS (SPECworkstation 3.1)

NAMD (SPECworkstation 3.1)

We will do as we promised. We will test all motherboards with two processors – a powerful one, which will push the board hard, and a weaker one, which will show something a bit different. Namely, how the more expensive motherboard will (not) help the cheaper processor from the lower class. Can more expensive boards really benefit cheaper models in CPU tests, as some believe?

Memory tests…

… and cache (L1, L2, L3)

English translation and edit by Jozef Dudáš

• Contents
• Core i5-12400 on B660M Mortar WiFi
• Test setup
• 3DMark
• Borderlands 3
• F1 2020
• Metro Exodus
• Shadow of the Tomb Raider
• Total War Saga: Troy
• PCMark and Geekbench
• Web performance
• 3D rendering: Cinebench, Blender, ...
• Video 1/2: Adobe Premiere Pro
• Video 1/2: DaVinci Resolve Studio
• Graphic effects: Adobe After Effects
• Video encoding
• Audio encoding
• Photos: Adobe Photoshop, Affinity Photo, ...
• (De)compression
• (De)encrypting
• Numerical computing
• Simulations
• Memory and cache tests