Great value for money? Gigabyte Z690 Gaming X DDR4

Ľubomír Samák

2 years ago

(De)cryption

Here we have a test of the latest motherboard, which is designed primarily for the needs of Intel Alder Lake processors. It is also compatible with Raptor Lakes, but most importantly we finally have a tough opponent for the MSI Pro Z690-A DDR4. That board has set the bar really high among the cheaper models. But Gigabyte also has one ace up its sleeve in the low-end segment. The Z690 Gaming X DDR4 motherboard is truly a class act!

The Z690 Gaming X DDR4 is one of the best-selling Intel LGA 1700 motherboards Gigabyte has to offer. The reason for this is mainly due to the lower price while still packing a lot of features. And know that this is no cliché. This motherboard definitely doesn’t give off a low-budget impression, and what’s more, it doesn’t “skimp” on the Core i9 class “K” processors either, quite the opposite. It takes a bold approach to the most powerful Z690 Gaming X DDR4 processors, and at times we honestly were puzzled as to how confident it is with them.


Parameters		Gigabyte Z690 Gaming X DDR4 (rev. 1.1)

Socket		Intel LGA 1700
Chipset		Intel Z690
Format		ATX (305 × 244 mm)
CPU power delivery		19-phase
Supported memory (and max. frequency)		DDR4 (5333 MHz)
Slots PCIe ×16 (+ PCIe ×1)		3× (+ 0×)
Centre of socket to first PCIe ×16 slot		90 mm
Centre of socket to first DIMM slot		56 mm
Storage connectors		6× SATA III, 4× M.2 (42–110 mm): 3× PCIe 4.0 ×4 + 1× PCIe 4.0 ×4/SATA III
PWM connectors for fans or AIO pump		6×
Internal USB ports		1× 3.2 gen. 2 type C, 2× 3.2 gen. 1 type A, 4× 2.0 typ A
Other internal connectors		1× TPM, 2× ARGB LED (5 V), 2× RGB LED (12 V), 2× Thunderbolt (add-in card), 1× jumper Clear CMOS
POST display		no (but has debug LED)
Buttons		reset, Q-Flash
External USB ports		1× 3.2 gen. 2×2 type C, 2× 3.2 gen. 2 type A, 3× 3.2 gen. 2 type A, 4× 2.0 type A
Video outputs		1× HDMI 2.1, 1× DisplayPort 1.2
Network		1× RJ-45 (2,5 GbE) – Realtek RTL8125B
Audio		Realtek ALC1220-VB (7.1)
Other external connectors		–
Approximate retail price		221 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-1834" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-1834 { ... } #supsystic-table-1834 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-1834 tbody tr { ... } */

Gigabyte Z690 Gaming X DDR4 (rev. 1.1)

This is Gigabyte’s cheapest motherboard that has “Gaming” in the designation. Below the Z690 Gaming X DDR4 are only “UD” (Ultra Durable) boards and low-end models more suited for more low-power processors with a TDP of 65 W. But the Z690 Gaming X DDR4 is still a properly robust board, in more ways than one.

Price-wise, the Z690 Gaming X DDR4 is in the same category as the MSI Pro Z690-A DDR4, but it’s closer to the more expensive MSI MAG Z690 Tomahawk DDR4 in many ways when it comes to features.

First of all, it should be noted that this is an ATX-format board – the dimensions (305 × 244 mm) are therefore quite usual. At a price of around 220 EUR, the Z690 Gaming X DDR4 board clearly stands out because of its massive VRM and SSD heatsinks. From this comparison, the MSI Pro Z690-A DDR4 comes out rather poor and yet this (robust cooling) is definitely not due to a weaker power delivery that would need more intensive cooling. The power delivery here is robust, with 19 phases (16 of which are for the CPU). Rather than comparing it to the Pro Z690-A, a comparison with the Tomahawk Z690 DDR4 board is again suggested here, which is some 50–70 EUR more expensive depending on the store.

The VRM heatsinks have a total weight of 397 g (123 + 274 g) and are in contact with the Renesas ILS99390 voltage regulators via thermal pads. And get this, the Asus ROG Maximus Z690 Hero, a 700-euro motherboard, has its power delivery built on those as well. Still, it is true that the Gigabyte Z690 Gaming X DDR4 has fewer phases and the total current load is lower. But even so, it’s 1440 (Vcore) to 1710 A. The PWM controller is also from Renesas – the RAA229130. The VRM is well above standard, even extreme, considering where the board is priced.

The layout of the M.2 SSD slots is also unusual. One is standard above the first PCI Express ×16 slot (which, by the way, supports the speeds of the fifth generation of this interface) and the remaining three are below it. And it’s important to emphasize that they are there one after the other. The gap between the first and second PCIe ×16 slot is 75 mm, in which there are three M.2 slots supporting SSDs up to 110 mm. This arrangement has two advantages right away. Firstly, the fact that all three SSDs have a huge shared heatsink weighing 112 g and in case you only use one position, you don’t really have to worry about the SSD temperatures. Although the heatsink is not that articulated, it still has a large surface area. And the other advantage of this slot layout is that using very tall graphics cards won’t take away the extra PCI Express ×16 slots.

A bit of a disadvantage is that the two bottom PCI ×16 slots are close to the edge of the PCB, just above each other, but this won’t matter so much in practice. Both are in fact four-lane and count on single-slot devices, which usually have lower performance and thus don’t have big demands on cooling (and don’t mind the closer contact with possibly worse airflow).

The board has fewer fan and pump connectors than you might expect – “only” six (even some cheaper boards have as many as 7–8). So in case you need to plug in more fans, you will need a hub. On the other hand, what’s nice is that there is up to six SATA connectors for connecting inch storage. Too bad there’s not a pair of internal USB 3.1 gen. 1 connectors. After all, several cases have four 5-gigabit USB connectors on the front panel, and with this board, half will remain unconnected (that is, unless you expand the board with an additional USB controller card).

The selection of external connectors is rich. There are up to ten USB ports, three of which are very fast, two of the 3.2 gen. 2 standard (with 10 Gbps) and one (type C) 3.2 gen. 2×2 (with a theoretical bandwidth of 20 Gbps). Three are then 5-gigabit (USB 3.2 gen. 1) and four of the 2.0 standard for connecting slower devices, typically peripherals (keyboard, mouse, headset, printer… whatever). The R-45 Ethernet connector has a Realtek RTL8125B 2.5 Gb adapter in front of it, and Gigabyte didn’t skimp on the audio chip either, using a more solid Realtek ALC1220(-VB) in circuit with renowned WIMA “audio” capacitors and a headphone amplifier.

Following the sound equipment, only the jack lineup is stripped down. These are only two instead of five (but in a configuration with S/PDIF optical output, which is unusual), line out/stereo and microphone. This is probably also in view of the fact that few people connect a home theatre with satellites and subwoofer in dedicated jacks to computers like the ones this board is expected to be in. And if it works out to similar money this way as using a cheaper codec, then it can be seen as a more practical solution.

What it looks like in the BIOS

The UEFI color scheme is not according to the “Aorus” boards, but according to the cheaper Ultra Durable ones. However, this does not change the functionality. The very first screen of the Easy Mode contains all the basic information about the installed hardware. It is possible to activate the memory profile (XMP), have an overview of connected storage, fans or temperature of the CPU, chipset or VRM MOSFETs.

For a more detailed detection of the components you have to go to the advanced mode (via the F2 key) to the “System info” tab, where you can also find, for example, the MAC address of the network adapter.

“Tweaker” is a tab for more detailed tuning of the processor, memory or VRM. In the tests we leave almost everything at default settings (including the LLC) to preserve the boards’ “identity” and get them to the situation they will be used in practice in the vast majority of cases.

There is one thing, regarding the power supply, which we are nevertheless adjusting. Namely, power limits. We set these manually to unlimited (for all tests) and then according to Intel’s recommendations, including accepting the Tau timeout for a short-term load with 241 W for PL2.

The board also includes an encryption security module (TPM), which is already active by default.

BIOS updates are traditionally done via Q-Flash and support for Intel Raptor Lake processors is already promised in the current F8 version from August 2022.

The fan management interface is as we’re used to with Gigabyte boards – with extremely detailed customisation options. Basic things like selecting control by type (PWM/DC) or adjusting the fan curve depending on temperatures is a given. Beyond that (which not every board can do) is the selection of alternative temperature sensors to manage the regulation. And there are quite a few of them, including critical spots around the PCI Express ×16 slot (according to this point the system cooling can be well optimized with respect to the graphics card) and the processor VRM.

However, in our traditional testing of individual connectors, we found that the system fan connectors needed a higher PWM intensity to force their activity. For example, we didn’t get the Noctua NF-A12x25 PWM fan below 840 rpm (at 31 %), although it can start from about 230 rpm. This is a notable finding, and we will cover the issue of PWM control on the fan connectors in more detail in future motherboard tests.

We know that the system connectors in this respect normally lag behind the more “sensitive” CPU_fan connector, but we haven’t paid any particular attention to it. But now it turns out that on at least some boards it may not be possible to slow the fans down sufficiently via all connectors. And especially with system ones that count on low speed, it can be an unpleasant surprise in the end.

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.

Výsledky všetkých výkonnostných testov sú pre čo najvyššiu presnosť tvorené priemerom z troch opakovaných meraní.

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 i9-12900K and Intel Core i5-12400 CPUs

Alphacool Eisbaer Aurora 360 liquid cooler

Patriot Blackout memory (4×8 GB, 3600 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

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)

Test environment: Set of PugetBench tests. We keep the version of the application (Adobe Premiere Pro) at 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

Analysis of power draw (EPS + ATX connector) w/ Intel’s power limits

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

There aren’t many boards priced at the Gigabyte Z690 Gaming X DDR4 level that prefer maximum all-core boost to 4.9 GHz for the Core i9-12900K under high load with AVX2 instructions. Often a negative offset is applied to “ease” the load, which is not the case here. This is why, for example, the best results are achieved in Cinebench. And thanks to the CPU’s robust and efficient power delivery (VRM), power draw is only average.

There are motherboards that, for similar computing performance, in this part (CPU power), have 30 W higher power draw, but also 50 W lower (such as the Gigabyte B660 Aorus Master DDR4). Although the power delivery here is one of the most efficient, the power supply plan is, so to speak, “balanced”.

While some boards with weaker VRMs have lower power draw to avoid ever overheating, this is the same case as the ROG Z690 Maximus Hero – there’s a definite emphasis on high stability too, the power supply is a little oversized. But it’s nothing that you can’t fine-tune manually for maximum overall efficiency. Claims of a strong power delivery are supported by thermal imaging. With relatively high power draw (and losses in the VRM) surface temperature is kept at pleasant values even without using a heatsink.

What’s notable are the few first places that the Z690 Gaming X DDR4 board has racked up. One is in cooling the SSD with a secondary (the big shared one) heatsink. The cooler in the first slot, on the other hand, behaves rather strangely. In what way? On SSDs, we measure temps from two points (from the controller and from the memory) and with this cooler the biggest difference is achieved (up to 16 °C), and we have repeated the mounting several times and everything is definitely fine in this respect. Further, we measured the lowest power draw in a single-threaded load (although there it follows with the lowest performance in the given test) and idle power draw is also low.

On the performance side of things, the first M.2 slot is in the lead for speed, and the USB 3.2 gen. 1 ports were no worse off. Network (Ethernet) speed is average, but above 288 MB/s in both directions. There were no performance anomalies in any of the tests, and all measured values are within the typically small differences between boards. In gaming tests, the Total War Saga: Troy (about 12 % below the best) scores poorly. In the rest of the games, the deviation from the average is negligible. The top results in Cinebench have already been mentioned.

Weaker (on par with the weakest) results are from the powerful Core i9 processor (12900K) when encoding x265 video, with the Core i5 (12400) the results are average. But it is above average in most tests, although we are still talking about differences within one or two percent. Relatively slower are the filters in Photoshop, but again super fast is the live video playback (H.264) in Adobe Premiere Pro or again excellent results in (de)encryption. But again, these are all such small differences that they’re practically not worth talking about. The important thing is that the Gigabyte Z690 Gaming X DDR4 never gets into a predicament where it somehow loses out significantly in performance.

During the basic tests of the fan connectors, we noticed that the system ones (SYS_fan1-4) required a higher PWM intensity to run. However, it is possible that this is not an isolated case and the fan control is, shall we say, weaker on more boards. So we won’t go into this in detail now (so as not to be unfair). In the future, however, we will also focus on fan connector tests, so that these can also be evaluated in a relevant way and it will be obvious which board has handled the fan regulation with more elegance.

Considering the set of all the features, their quality aspects, and the price this board sells for, it’s clear what editorial award the Gigabyte Z690 Gaming X DDR4 will end up with – “Smart buy!“.

English translation and edit by Jozef Dudáš


Gigabyte Z690 Gaming X DDR4 (rev. 1.1)
+ Powerful 19-phase power delivery (VRM)...
+ ... handles even the Core i9-12900K without power limits with no performance loss
+ Option to manually overclock the CPU by changing the multiplier
+ Very attractive price/value ratio
+ Above-standard features within the price category
+ Up to four four-lane M.2 SSD slots...
+ ... and three fast USB 3.2 gen. 2(×2) connectors on the rear I/O panel
+ Very detailed fan management options
+ Fast Ethernet connection in both directions
Has an SSD cooler with the highest TDP in tests...
- ... but the second (smaller) SSD cooler is one of the weakest
- Only one internal connector for two USB 3.2 gen. 1 ports
Approximate retail price: 221 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-1835" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-1835 { ... } #supsystic-table-1835 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-1835 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: Numerical computing