MSI MAG Z690 Tomahawk WiFi: DDR5 support, OC and decent VRM

Numerical computing

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

Important note at the beginning

This test does not serve as a full comparison of DDR4 to DDR5 memory, although it may appear that way. While the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 works with the test modules still in Gear 1 mode, the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi (i.e. the variant with DDR5 memory support) uses a divider (Gear 2) natively for higher frequencies, just as the vast majority of boards do when combined with high-speed memory. This includes Tomahawk WiFi DDR4, if you have 4400 MHz modules for example.

With a 1:2 divider (Gear 2), the memory controller has half the frequency, but that doesn’t mean that better results are guaranteed with Gear 1 (1:1). Therefore, we don’t even “excuse” the Gear 2 boards and don’t adjust the factory settings in this regard. What are the performance differences between DDR4 and DDR5 memory at the same controller frequency, you will find out in an upcoming test that we are focusing specifically on this issue. But now on to the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi.

MSI sells this motherboard for roughly 20 EUR more than the Z690 Tomahawk variant with DDR4, but because of the significantly more expensive DDR5 memory, the price difference is quite large in terms of a complete PC setup. But some may not see it so dramatically and the extra price may be justified, for example, just in terms of the longer lifespan of the DDR5 memory and the board itself. The LGA 1700 platform (and we believe the support of upcoming processors by current chipsets) will be with us for some time.

MSI MAG Z690 Tomahawk WiFi

As you already know, MSI has two Tomahawk motherboards with the Intel Z690 chipset. In the designation of the variant with DDR5 memory support, any affiliation to the newer standard is missing. Thus, the attribute (DDR4) is only used to distinguish the variant for DDR4 memory. The full designation of the DDR5-capable board is, in short, “MSI MAG Z690 Tomahawk WiFi”. The absence of the “DDR5” designation is also the only difference by which you can quickly distinguish the cardboard boxes. This in the context of completeness does carry more detailed specifications, but that’s down to the small print on the back of the box’s graphics.

The dimensions of the board conform to the ATX standard (304 × 244 mm), and the PCB differs from the traditional ones only by a small cut-out from the right side. We wrote in the Z690 Tomahawk DDR4 article that this is a useless decoration, but I take back that statement. The practical significance is, of course, in the eventual more convenient cable feed to the SATA connectors. Although these are not visible from the front view, they are hidden under the chipset heatsink. The cutout in the case opens up more space to work with the data cable connection. In some cases, though, it will be at the cost of not being able to use an angled type connector due to a collision with the protruding motherboard tray plate.

   

There are up to six SATA connectors, and none share a PCIe lane with the M.2 connectors, so up to ten internal storage devices can be connected in total. Six inch and four M.2 (of which one SSD can be an extra 110mm in length). Three M.2 slots have PCIe 4.0×4 support, one has half the speed (PCIe 3.0), but is still connected to the south bridge by four PCIe lanes. You already know about the inconvenient mounting of the M.2 SSDs in some positions (because the SSDs themselves are secured only by a screw in the SSD heatsink) from the previous Z690 Tomahawk DDR4 test. In these respects, both Tomahawk boards with LGA 1700 are the same.

The difference of the DDR5 variant, however, is in the voltage regulators used. Their manufacturer is still Monolithic Power, but instead of MP2128 they are equipped with MP2118, for which we could not find technical documentation. Which of the power deliveries is qualitatively more efficient is quite clear in our tests. But for now, we’ll leave you guessing. Anyway, the VRM controller (MP2120) and the number of phases (18, 16 of which are VCore) are the same as for the variant with support for DDR4 memory modules.

The VRM heatsinks are two aluminum blocks with a total weight of 425 grams. We should also highlight the efforts to achieve the most segmented surface, although it certainly could have been better (in the result with more surface area), but even so, considering the needs of the power delivery, the heatsinks have sufficient capacity even with headroom for less favorable conditions, whether due to higher ambient temperature (typically in the summer) or weaker system cooling.

   

The motherboard doesn’t physically contain any RGB LED elements, but it has enough connectors to connect lighting accessories (typically fans). Three of the four are digital (3-pin 5V), one is a 12-volt 4-pin analog for backwards compatibility.

The selection of external connectors is also decent. The USB ports are super fast. Three support the 3.2 gen. 2 standard (10 Gbps) and the USB Type-C even the 3.2 gen. 2×2. This 20-gigabit interface tends to be an unwritten rule on Z690 boards, and manufacturers like to pull it out of the south bridge to the rear panel.

MSI doesn’t skimp on video outputs either, and both HDMI (2.1) and DisplayPort (1.4) are in the latest standards. On some boards where the manufacturer does not anticipate the use of iGPUs, it is customary to skimp in this regard, but this does not apply to the MSI MAG Z690 Tomahawk WiFi board. Compared to the B660 Tomahawk WiFi or the smaller Mortar boards, this one also has a BIOS update button with a marked USB port, even without a processor, which may come in handy later (after the Raptor Lake generation is released).

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

What it looks like in the BIOS

The layout of the simplified mode’s (EZ Mode) elements is clear. And it’s not at the expense of options. There really are quite a few of them, and nothing that the average user might be looking for is missing.

The graphical interface is nicely divided into sections according to content. The more information-rich items (CPU, Memory, Storage, Fan Info and Help) have tabs concentrated on the left side. From Fan Info, you can then also easily navigate to the more advanced mode settings (Hardware Monitor), which we’ll cover in more detail at the end of this chapter. Functions that are either on or off have their buttons (switches) concentrated at the bottom. Memory Profile or Game Boost, on the other hand, is set from the top.

To enter advanced mode, press the F7 key. Its screen is divided into two rows of tiles. On the left are the tiles Settings, OC and M-Flash and on the right the OC profile, Hardware Monitor and Beta Runner.

   

If you want to format some of the installed SSDs, there is a tool for this (Secure Erase+) in the settings tab. Among other things, you can also manage security settings, TPM or Secure Boot here.

   

Managing the performance stuff around the processor is naturally under the “OC” tab. For quick power limit settings, MSI has three preset profiles. Their content varies with respect to the processor used.

With open multiplier processors, however, the “Water Cooler” profile has both PL1 and PL2 fully unlocked (symbolically set by the 4096 W number). But you won’t lose performance even after selecting the PL1 profile at 288 W, which doesn’t limit even the Core i9-12900K. The biggest differences depending on the installed processor are within the “Boxed Cooler” profile, which for Core i5 with locked multiplier respects Intel’s recommended PL1 value for long-term load – 65 W (TDP).

   

You can manually adjust the negative offset level in the section controlling the processor’s behavior under load with AVX instructions. While the all-core boost frequencies will be slightly lower than the CPU achieves in games, for example, the reward is supposed to be lower power draw and better efficiency. The impact on performance is typically quite small, because the AVX instruction is usually associated with a multi-threaded workload, in which it doesn’t matter so much whether the core frequencies are 100 MHz higher or lower. It doesn’t reflect too much on machine time.

On the other hand, to increase the multiplier above the standard all-core boost all P and E cores are possible with the “Game Boost” option. Performance in games can thus be increased, but this gain will always be disproportionate to the increase in power draw. Even in Full HD with the most powerful graphics cards, when the increase is highest, the frame rate will only be higher cosmetically even in the best cases. But power draw will increase quite significantly. The power draw of the Ci9-12900K test processor increased by roughly 24–26 % (approx. 30 W) under gaming load.

To keep the processor stable even at higher frequencies, the board sets a more aggressive power supply. In Game Boost mode, by the way, there is no tweaking of small things that could improve efficiency – everything is in the motherboard’s automatic control.

The CPU settings are one thing, and the memory settings are another. With XMP enabled, it doesn’t stop there for more demanding users and at the very least they will consider the memory controller frequency setting. We’re talking about options that are marketed as Gear 1 and Gear 2. With the Gear 2, the IMC frequency is halved, but that doesn’t mean performance always has to be worse. We’ll cover this issue in detail in a separate article and for now we’ll just note that the Z690 Tomahawk board prefers the Gear 2 and we’re not changing that.

The fan management interface is excellent. A custom speed curve can be fully configured for each of the eight connectors, for both PWM and DC control. And why is it excellent? Because of the fact that the intensity of the regulation can be based on five different temperature sensors, which is not the case with all boards, and they differentiate only one heat source (the sensor in the processor).

   

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

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.

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

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.

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

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 frequencies, whether under all-core load or even single-threaded tasks. We use the HWiNFO application to record the frequencies 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 frequency 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.

Frequency 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 frequencies during the tests in the graphs. We monitor the temperatures and frequencies 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.

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

Test setup

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

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

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.

---

---

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

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.

   

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

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).

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

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.

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

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.

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

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.

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

PCMark

Geekbench

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

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).

---

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

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)

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

Adobe Premiere Pro (PugetBench)

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

---

---

---

---

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

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).

---

---

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

Graphics effects: Adobe After Effects

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

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

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

---

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

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

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

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.

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

WinRAR 6.01

7-Zip 19.00

---

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

TrueCrypt 7.1a

Aida64 (AES, SHA3)

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

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)

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

RodiniaLifeSci (SPECworkstation 3.1)

WPCcfd (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Poisson (SPECworkstation 3.1)

LAMMPS (SPECworkstation 3.1)

NAMD (SPECworkstation 3.1)

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

Memory tests…

… and cache (L1, L2, L3)

---

---

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

M.2 (SSD) slots speed

---

---

---

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

USB ports speed

---

---

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

Ethernet speed

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

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

---

---

---

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

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

---

---

---

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

Total power draw w/o power limits…

… and with Intel’s power limits

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

Achieved CPU clock speed w/o power limits…

… and with Intel’s power limits

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

CPU temperatures w/o power limits…

… and with Intel’s power limits

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

VRM temperatures w/o power limits…

… and with Intel’s power limits

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

SSD temperatures

---

---

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

Chipset temperatures (south bridge)

---

At first glance, it’s the same board as the last tested Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 with one difference, that it supports the newer DDR5 memory standard. That’s how the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is profiled, but looks are deceiving. A detailed analysis shows that there are some differences, including ones in design. Whether it’s for better or for worse is something you’ll learn exclusively from our measurements.

Conclusion

The MSI MAG Z690 Tomahawk WiFi comes away from the in-depth review with a good score. Compared to the Z690 Tomahawk with DDR4 memory support, the VRM efficiency is a bit weaker in a heavy multi-threaded workload (At full Ci9-12900K power, we measured 20–30 W more power draw on the EPS cable), but at the same time at lower temperatures. This is a nice example that the quality of the power delivery needs to be judged in a more complex way. Lower temperatures do not automatically indicate higher efficiency.

It is worth noting that in the default settings, the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi has a -2 multiplier offset for the ATX load while the DDR4 variant only has -1. We can surmise that this is so that there is not a significant difference in efficiency to the detriment of the DDR5 memory-enabled variant of the board. The slightly lower performance during 3D rendering is due to the lower all-core boost frequencies, and other applications using AVX instructions will be affected as well, unless you reduce the negative offset for the multiplier (at least by 1).

Typically for games, however, there is also the option to increase the multiplier (by 1 for all cores) via the Game Boost button. But after that, you’ll be deprived of exemplary efficiency in gaming workloads. Just as we’ve written about lower efficiency under high load, the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi excels under lower load (and that includes gaming). How is this possible? While the efficiency of the voltage regulators drops off above 200W, it hovers around the optimal level at half that load.The Z690 Tomahawk is more efficient than most boards, including the Z690 Tomahawk DDR4 and B660M Mortar WiFi even under single-threaded load or while idle.

For a powerful gaming PC with forward-looking memory with the ability to be used with upcoming platforms, the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is a functionally attractive choice. One of the things we struggle a bit with in our evaluation is the higher price tag for a mid-range product. Some other boards with very similar features are also 30–40 EUR cheaper. But unlike those, the Z690 Tomahawk WiFi has passed our detailed tests and you can be sure that nothing will surprise you. Ethernet speed is balanced and bidirectionally high, at the limit of physical 2.5 Gb capabilities. We measured the highest SSD transfer speeds on this board. This in the fourth M.2 slot, closest to the south bridge of the chipset. However, SSD heatsinks could be more efficient, they no longer outperform the competition. Under normal workloads (games or shorter sequential file transfers), even the most powerful NVMe SSDs won’t run into trouble.

The selection of fast (USB) and modern (HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 1.4) external connectors is also worth praising. The portion of connectors for fans (8×) or accessories with RGB LEDs (4×) is also nice, and a bit lacking is the second 19-pin pair for USB 3.2 gen. 1. There is only one of these on the board, and yet there are others that can be conveniently brought out from the Intel B660 chip. Two USB 3.2 gen. 1 connectors should be a staple, so that it never happens that part of the connectors on some case is left unconnected. And even the MSI’s Sekira, for example, has four 5-gigabit USB ports on the front panel.

In summary, the MSI MAG Z690 Tomahawk WiFi is a very decently equipped and functioning motherboard that has no critical flaws. There are always some little things, but they don’t take the “Approved” award away.

English translation and edit by Jozef Dudáš

Games for testing 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)

• Contents
• MSI MAG Z690 Tomahawk WiFi in detail
• What it looks like in the BIOS
• Methodology: Performance tests
• Methodology: How we measure power draw
• Methodology: Temperature and frequency measurements
• 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 2/2: DaVinci Resolve Studio
• Graphics effects: Adobe After Effects
• Video encoding
• Audio encoding
• Photos: Adobe Photoshop, Affinity Photo, ...
• (De)compression
• (De)cryption
• Numerical computing
• Simulations
• Memory and cache tests
• M.2 (SSD) slots speed
• USB ports speed
• Ethernet speed
• Power draw curve (EPS + ATX connector) w/o power limits
• Power draw curve (EPS + ATX connector) with Intel’s power limits
• Total power draw (EPS + ATX connector)
• Achieved CPU clock speed
• CPU temperatures
• VRM temperatures – thermovision of Vcore and SOC
• SSD temperatures
• Chipset temperatures (south bridge)
• Conclusion