Asus ROG Strix B760-I Gaming WiFi in detail
There are only a few models among the cheaper Mini-ITX motherboards for the Intel LGA 1700 platform. After testing the Gigabyte variant, the Asus ROG Strix B760-I Gaming WiFi is now here for review. This motherboard is designed for DDR5 memory and at the same time, we can still note its good affordability. Take a look at all that the Asus motherboard brings and how it fares in the tests.
Conclusion
First of all, it’s worth noting that the ROG Strix B760-I Gaming WiFi is a fairly feature-rich motherboard for its size and its price range. The back panel with I/O ports is fuller than on the competing Gigabyte B760I Aorus Pro (DDR4) and little expense was spared on the sound adapter with the Realtek ALC1220 chip as well. Sure, it’s nothing special, but on a relatively cheap Mini-ITX board, such a solution can be considered above standard.
ROG Strix B760-I Gaming WiFi is primarily a motherboard for mid-range processors. But it can also achieve attractive power efficiency with more powerful and expensive models (CPUs), as long as you lower their power limit a bit. This can also be seen well in comparison to the Gigabyte (B760I Aorus Pro DDR4) motherboard mentioned above, where the efficiency of the Strix B760-I Gaming WiFi at lower power is significantly higher than when it’s being pushed to the edge. At that point, the efficiency is already even, but the significantly higher VRM temperatures play against the Asus board.
Hotspots attacking 120 °C may already look “threatening”, but it should be stressed that these are measurements without VRM heatsinks. With those on, the temperatures will be lower and further away from the critical values at which thermal throttling of the VRM could occur. However, that’s still at around 300W of power, and this motherboard expects a rather lower load. After reducing the sustained load of the Ci9-13900K test processor to the TDP level, the VRM suddenly gets to a comfortable value of around 60°C.After reducing the sustained load of the Ci9-13900K test processor to the TDP level, the VRM suddenly gets to a comfortable value of around 60°C. And in that case, the Asus is even cooler than the Gigabyte board being compared.
The move towards higher performance of “unlimited” Core i9s is reversing the situation, but owners of non-K processors (such as the Core i5-14400/F) needn’t care at all. They, on the other hand, will enjoy slightly lower power consumption at low load. Although the Strix B760-I Gaming WiFi’s efficiency in single-threaded load or “idle” is only average, we have had lower-power boards here. But again, these were usually more expensive as well, and in this case it is important to take into account the lower purchase price. Sure, another Mini-ITX board for similar money may have a more robust, better sized VRM, but again, those inevitable savings will show up in other places where the Strix B760-I Gaming WiFi has the upper hand. We’ve already talked about the above-standard port selection and audio solution.
The design of the SSD cooler is also above standard, both in terms of cooling performance and visuals (with the fancy ROG Strix logo), which everyone has to judge (and appreciate) for themselves. However, from the tests, we can conclude that many (SSD) coolers have lower cooling performance, but also higher.
No anomalies were observed in the speed measurements. Neither in tasks dependent on the performance of the CPU or the graphics card, nor in speed tests of the M.2 slots, ethernet or USB ports. When it comes to the USB ports, however, it’s good to highlight the presence of the 20-gigabit standard (3.2 gen. 2×2), which is rare in this price range.
Now you know the key pros and cons of the Asus ROG Strix B760-I Gaming WiFi and as long as you can work well with them, using this motherboard can be considered a good choice.
English translation and edit by Jozef Dudáš
| Asus ROG Strix B760-I Gaming WiFi |
| + Attractive value for money. Specially considering the "more expensive" Mini-ITX format |
| + Decent power efficiency at lower load |
| + As many as eight USB connectors on the rear I/O panel... |
| + ... including one 20-gigabit (standard 3.2 gen. 2×2) |
| + Two high-speed M.2 SSD slots |
| + ... and an efficient and flashy cooler on the first (M.2) slot |
| + High-speed Ethernet connectivity in both directions |
| + Detailed fan management options |
| - Relatively lower power efficiency with more powerful CPUs… |
| - ... and higher VRM temperatures (with CPUs over 250 W) |
| Suggested retail price: 200 EUR |
Some of the tested boards are also available in the Datacomp e-store
Special thanks also to Blackmagic Design (for the license to DaVinci Resolve Studio) and Topaz Labs (for the licenses to DeNoise AI, Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI)
- Contents
- Asus ROG Strix B760-I Gaming 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
- Visual effects: Adobe After Effects
- Video encoding
- Audio encoding
- Photos: Adobe Photoshop, Affinity Photo, ...
- (De)compression
- (De)encryption
- Numerical computing
- Simulations
- Memory and cache tests
- M.2 (SSD) slots speed
- USB ports speed
- Ethernet speed
- Power draw without power limits
- Power draw with power limits
- Achieved CPU clock speed
- CPU temperature
- VRM temperature – thermal imaging of Vcore and SOC
- SSD temperature
- Chipset temperature (south bridge)
- Conclusion
As I understand it, the protruding I/O shroud violates the ITX motherboard specifications, and in some cases completely prevent the installation of the motherboard (for example, in the very compact Velka 3). In my opinion, it is a problem worth a negative bullet point in the conclusion part.
For ITX boards in particular, I hope it’s possible to test for cooler compatibility, especially some popular low-profile models (for example, Thermalright AXP90, AXP120, Deepcool AN600, Noctua L12S). Incompatibly to said coolers isn’t that big of a deal in typical systems, but can be a deal breaker for many SFF systems.
Socket position matters a lot too, not only in terms of potential interference between the cooler and the GPU, but also whether the cooler will protrude towards the top part of the motherboard, which can cause all sorts of issues (preventing installation of fans, bumping into power cords, or outright not fitting at all). So thank you for measuring this important metric. If possible, I suggest also providing the position in the X axis, as well as position of Y axis in terms of distance from the top end of the board.
Thanks for the insightful comments and additions to the article. In some PC cases the I/O shroud extending past the motherboard PCB probably really can be subject to collision. We will be using this board also in the new methodology for PC case tests and we still have to consider whether it would be appropriate to remove this shroud as a precaution to avoid possible collision with some (SFF) models, which would make them impossible to test. Anyway, I don’t know if it will really be as critical as we are discussing here. If you’ll notice, the I/O shield always overhangs the PCB (by those approx 5 mm), on all motherboards, including the Gigabyte B760I Aorus Pro (DDR4). The difference is that on the Asus motherboard, this PCB overhang extends more in the direction where I guess it can collide with the fans or with another element of the small case, in which everything is stacked a bit… tightly. However, this is not an isolated thing and the I/O shroud extends over the PCB like this on the MPG B760I Edge WiFi or even on motherboards of other/larger formats. It would probably be worth some caveat and consideration within the evaluation (and maybe the list of negatives), but I’m not sure how big of a “problem” it might be. And I’d hate to devote any more space to something than is appropriate. I mean, if the overhanging I/O shroud is going to cause incompatibility in one of 100 PC cases, then it doesn’t really matter that much. However, we don’t have that data on how many cases this “issue” will apply to, but it would certainly be appropriate to do some research on it.
Yes, precise control over the socket position is especially important for Mini-ITX boards (with regard to compatibility of larger coolers in SFF systems, as you write…) and we will be looking into it more in the layout analysis. That is, unless after a couple of boards we find that it doesn’t change too much. For example, the distance from the center of the CPU socket to the center of the first DIMM slot is the same on the vast majority of motherboards. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a motherboard where it wasn’t 56mm. This might be a standardized thing? I confess I don’t know… I haven’t studied this to the last detail. 🙂
Thanks for the insightful comments!
–“…the distance from the center of the CPU socket to the center of the first DIMM slot is the same…”
Yes, this is mostly the same, but on the other hand, the distance of CPU socket in north/south direction varies a lot. I recently made ITX build in the SS Sugo 14. I wanted to install my old NH-U14S in it and I found out, that if I used Gigabyte B550I Aorus AX it wouldn’t be possible to install the right-side bracket (maybe with the offset).
On the other hand, ASRock B550M-ITX/AC has the CPU Socket moved 1 cm south, so in this case, it is OK (in fact, it is OK in both cases – with or w/o offset mount).
In my case, I have it mounted with the offset …despite what Noctua says.
”When used with the offset mounting position of the AM5 offset mounting kit, the cooler overhangs the top PCIe x16 slot. This issue can be resolved by using the standard (non-offset) position.”
my classic mistake, I have flipped the labels on the picture 😀 😀 …sorry
ASRock has a distance of 4.8 cm and Gigabyte only 3.8 cm from the north edge of socket to the north edge of MoBo.
Thank you for the additional information. For exactly the reason you describe, we list the dimension “Center of socket to first PCIe ×16 slot” in the parameter table for each motherboard. For coolers with a symmetrical base, it is then easy to calculate whether or not the CPU cooler will collide with an expansion card in the first PCI Express ×16 slot. For coolers with an asymmetrical base it’s worse, but as long as the manufacturer publishes a schematic with the dimensions…
–“…For exactly the reason you describe, we list the dimension “Center of socket to first PCIe ×16 slot” in the parameter table for each motherboard…”
Yes, that is perfect, 👍 … and the length from the center to the top edge of the MoBo (which is important, especially in SFF format) can be calculated (from it), but you could list it for lazy bastards like me 😛
So I’ve been looking into the specifications and came to this excellent summary (https://www.overclock.net/threads/guide-to-drawing-pci-e-and-atx-mitx-rear-io-bracket-for-a-custom-case.1589018/). The I/O shield aperture (i.e. opening) extends 2.44 mm from the motherboard area. There’s an additional 2.54 mm keepout zone surrounding the I/O shield, reserved for the lip for proper mounting. What isn’t clear, however, is if this 2.54 mm may be used other motherboard components that are not the I/O shield.
In any case, this ASUS board (and some others) has taken the stance of “we can use this 2.54 mm for heatsinks”, and Velka 3 is designed around the assumption that this 2.54 mm is only for the I/O shield and nothing else, which lead to incompatibility issues like this (https://www.reddit.com/r/sffpc/comments/t9ab51/on_asuss_oversizednoncompliant_miniitx/). Perhaps we can do more digging into who’s in the right here…
Most floor plans depicted the I/O space as a safety area without further specification. From my perspective, It is primarily a manufacturer oversight, as they do not account for the need for a small additional space.
Additionally, you can see that the 0.1″ keep-out zone surrounding the I/O shield in the rear view is specified as minimal.
Thank you for the link.
Page 14:
“The 0.1″ (2.5mm) keepout zone around the I/O aperture area is required in an ATX 2.2-compliant chassis (Figure 4). This allows ATX 2.2-compliant I/O shields to fit into ATX 1.1 or 2.2-compliant cases. The keepout area is needed for the shield attachment points. Avoid paint application in this area.”
“0.100 MIN KEEPOUT AROUND OPENING”
“Do not place any topographical features in this area on either the inside or outside surface. Avoid paint application in this area.”
All wordings, to me, imply that this keepout zone is strictly meant for the case panel surrounding the I/O shield, and is not meant to extend to other parts of the I/O area. Thus, the non-compliant thing here is the ASUS board(s), not Velka 3.
The area should remain clear throughout, as depicted in the top view (detailed layout), to ensure easy installation and for maintenance purposes. The rear bracket could be integrated as a fixed component of the motherboard. In my opinion, the case manufacturer has underestimated the need for adequate space. They are reducing the size too much.
As Ľubo suggested, this type of I/O block has been on the market for several years, so I believe it’s the case manufacturer’s flaw. You can’t rely solely on specifications; you need to consider existing solutions on the market.
Look at the 2015/2016 Z170 boards, five of eight used probably the same area for I/O block.
Maybe it wasn’t clear, but it is at least a 6-year-old discussion about integrated shields. As we know, the space surrounding them can vary according to the original specifications. I’m done for now, I promise 😅
It can be quite misleading to look from the front of the motherboard due to perspective. To confirm whether there’s anything protruding from the board area, it’s best to look from the bottom side.
I decided to check the first page recent motherboards reviewed by TPU to see which boards have protrusions from the board area and which do not (I wanted to include all links but it was detected as spam, so I’ll just post a few examples). No boards other than ASUS’ have protruding elements. 2 out of 3 tested ASUS boards have protrusions.
Does not protrude:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/gigabyte-x670-aorus-elite-ax/3.html
Protrudes:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-rog-crosshair-x670e-hero/3.html
So is it an ASUS problem? Let’s look into 9 more ASUS boards: 6 out of 9 protrudes. It seems ASUS really like to have the protruding elements on boards with integrated I/O shields.
Final bonus: do the Z170 boards have protrusions? At least for the boards shown in your image, no. (The last two were skipped because they obviously are not protruding).
https://www.kitguru.net/components/motherboard/luke-hill/asus-maximus-viii-hero-z170-motherboard-review/3/
Sorry for the long comment, I’m just really interested in this topic😅
Thanks for the comment! You can always post comments with whatever links you want. It will never be spam. It’s just our “dumb” filter, haha, that evaluates it that way, and if a comment doesn’t get published right after it’s written, I’ll always approve it manually. Hopefully we can somehow optimise that “spam filter” more sensibly, so that it only blocks really inappropriate, downright advertising comments and always lets the informationally enriching ones through, regardless of whether or not they contain critical links. I’m pretty sure that’s too complicated for me and we’ll have to get advice from someone who has experience in this area. So, for the time being, with the withheld comments, let’s call them that, it’s always going to be about manual approval…
You are right; the picture of the Z170s doesn’t show any of the protrusions we discussed. The perceived protrusion was for sure a result of perspective distortion. I made a mistake due to vague memories about the early solutions of the integrated I/O shield. Indeed, Asus has recently extensively used this option.
However, my attitude remains the same. Manufacturers like Velka seem to be pushing miniaturization too far. How many customers would be concerned by an additional 1 cm of space? Their efforts seem irrational to me. So, I’m not and won’t be their customer.
In my opinion, both are true – Velka is pushing miniaturization a bit too far, and ASUS is also violating the spec for no good reason (just to make the board… look better when viewed from top? I don’t know…)
I think Velka 3 is a case with too much compromises too (only 37 mm cooler clearance, strictly 2-slots only, no space to avoid turbulent noises), but from these designs you can see that that design philosophy is “small size over everything else”. And as far as I know, ASUS hasn’t made ITX boards with protrusions like that before Intel 6xx series, so I can’t really fault them on this given that the case was designed before that.
Maybe I am a bit biased against ASUS, but I have seen too many of their recent boards that add useless things just for “aesthetics”. There were some boards so bad that even the U12A cannot fit, because they’re using purely decorative plastic pieces over their VRM heatsinks that interfere with the cooler. There’s also their B550I board which was good, but had issues with RTX 40-series that they refused to fix even now, which makes me think they don’t really care about SFF users.
For the spam stuff, my initial reply probably contained so many links that I got a “rejected as spam” message😅 I don’t think that version even passed through enough to be able to be manually approved.
You’re right; the justification for altering a settled form of I/O block should be rational, not merely for aesthetic reasons. But I still believe that integrating the rear bracket/shield is a valid reason.
About the problem with spam-marked links: HWC typically approves comments containing problematic links and notifies users about the process. Occasionally, however, posted links are flagged as spam, leading to an error page. This may be due to a blacklist in the backend that the editor can’t easily manage.
Per this comment on SFF network (https://smallformfactor.net/forum/threads/consistency-of-location-of-a-cpu-socket-relative-to-the-board.17419/post-262562), socket position isn’t fixed, so you find quite a bit of variation in the north-south axis. As for the east-west axis, there probably is some variation, but that axis is very cramped (I/O, socket, RAM, cable connectors) so there isn’t much option there. As for the distance between the socket and RAM, as I understand it, the minimum distance is mandated by the socket. Meanwhile, everyone wants the shortest distance for best latency and stability, so it is effectively a fixed value.