| Intel DZ77GA-70K Benchmark Performance |
| Reviews - Featured Reviews: Motherboards | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Written by David Ramsey | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Monday, 07 May 2012 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Intel DZ77GA-70K Motherboard Benchmark Performance Tests
Manufacturer: Intel Corporation Full Disclosure: Intel Corporation provided the product sample used in this article. Does Intel really want to cater to enthusiasts? Personally, I've never known anyone who used an Intel motherboard in their rig, although I'm sure some people do. And it's hard to blame them: historically, third party vendors have offered superior performance and features. Intel seemed to be more concerned with stuff like skull logos whose eyes blinked as drive activity indicators rather than creating motherboards enthusiasts would actually want to use.
Here's a preview: while Intel still has a way to go to before the likes of ASUS, MSI, and EVGA need to start worrying, their latest Extreme series motherboard is the first one I've tested that's actually competitive in features and performance. In one specific area it's better than anything I've seen before. Testing Methodology and SpecificationsI was fortunate enough to have three new Intel Z77 Express motherboards available: the MSI Z77A-GD65 that I've previously reviewed, an ASUS P8Z77-V Deluxe, and the subject of this performance comparison, the Intel DZ77GA-70K. I compared the performance of the motherboards at stock speeds using the benchmark programs listed below, with a spiffy new Ivy Bridge Core i7-3770K CPU. Since the Core i7-3770K's "HD 4000" integrated graphics shares L3 cache and memory bandwidth with the CPU cores, I disabled it and use and AMD Radeon HD5770 video card for all benchmarks. I used the same processor, hard disk, and memory on each motherboard, so that the motherboards were the only thing that changed between tests. Any performance differences at stock clock speeds are thus due to the motherboards. On the Intel motherboard, I also ran the benchmarks at the highest overclock I could achieve. Intel Z77 Express Test Platform
Benchmark Applications
Intel DZ77GA-70K SpecificationsSpecifications supplied by Intel.
Let's get to the benchmarks! AIDA64 Extreme Edition TestsAIDA64 Extreme Edition is the evolution of Lavalys' "Everest Ultimate Edition". Hungarian developer FinalWire acquired the rights to Everest in late November 2010, and renamed the product "AIDA64". The Everest product was discontinued and FinalWire is offering 1-year license keys to those with active Everest keys. AIDA64 is a full 64-bit benchmark and test suite utilizing MMX, 3DNow! and SSE instruction set extensions, and will scale up to 32 processor cores. An enhanced 64-bit System Stability Test module is also available to stress the whole system to its limits. For legacy processors all benchmarks and the System Stability Test are available in 32-bit versions as well. Additionally, AIDA64 adds new hardware to its database, including 300 solid-state drives. On top of the usual ATA auto-detect information the new SSD database enables AIDA64 to display flash memory type, controller model, physical dimensions, and data transfer performance data. AIDA64 v1.00 also implements SSD-specific SMART disk health information for Indilinx, Intel, JMicron, Samsung, and SandForce controllers. All of the benchmarks used in this test- Queen, Photoworxx, ZLib, hash, and AES- rely on basic x86 instructions, and consume very little system memory while also being aware of Hyper-Threading, multi-processors, and multi-core processors. Of all the tests in this review, AIDA64 is the one that best isolates the processor's performance from the rest of the system. While this is useful in that it more directly compares processor performance, readers should remember that virtually no "real world" programs will mirror these results. 
The Queen and Photoworxx tests are synthetic benchmarks that iterate the function many times and over-exaggerate what the real-world performance would be like. The Queen benchmark focuses on the branch prediction capabilities and misprediction penalties of the CPU. It does this by finding possible solutions to the classic queen problem on a chessboard. At the same clock speed theoretically the processor with the shorter pipeline and smaller misprediction penalties will attain higher benchmark scores. Like the Queen benchmark, the Photoworxx tests for penalties against pipeline architecture. The synthetic Photoworxx benchmark stresses the integer arithmetic and multiplication execution units of the CPU and also the memory subsystem. Due to the fact that this test performs high memory read/write traffic, it cannot effectively scale in situations where more than two processing threads are used, so quad-core processors with Hyper-Threading have no real advantage. The AIDIA64 Photoworxx benchmark performs the following tasks on a very large RGB image:
As you might expect with three motherboards running the same chipset and processor, the performance results are very close, with the MSI motherboard running just a few percent behind the Intel and ASUS motherboards. The Intel and ASUS boards post scores within a fraction of a percent of each other. 
Overclocking buys us 21% improvements in both ZLIB and Hash (the ZLIB results don't look as impressive due to the scaling of the chart). The AES test shows virtual parity between all platforms, although going by the numbers the MSI motherboard wins this one. Oddly, overclocking the ASUS motherboard lowers the score very slightly. 
Let's move on to the PCMark 7 benchmark. PCMark 7 TestsPCMark 7 is Futuremark's successor to PCMark Vantage. The full suite of tests comprises seven different sequences with more than 25 sub-tests that exercise your system's abilities in storage, computation, image and video manipulation, web browsing and gaming. It was developed with input from the designers, engineers and product managers at AMD, Compal, Dell, Hitachi GST, HP, Intel, NVIDIA, Samsung, Seagate, Western Digital and many other well-known companies. For this benchmark I chose the PCMark test, which provides a number indicating total system performance, as well as the Productivity, Creativity, and Computation test suites. Productivity TestThe Productivity test is a collection of workloads that measure system performance in typical productivity scenarios. Individual workloads include loading web pages and using home office applications. At the end of the benchmark run the system is given a Productivity test score. The Productivity test consists of:
Creativity TestThe Creativity test contains a collection of workloads to measure the system performance in typical creativity scenarios. Individual tests include viewing, editing, transcoding and storing photos and videos. At the end of the benchmark run the system is given a Creativity test score.
Computation TestThe Computation test contains a collection of workloads that isolate the computation performance of the system. At the end of the benchmark run the system is given a Computation test score.
It's important to note that since PCMark 7 was designed as a system test, the scores are dependent on the configuration of the entire system being tested, including things like the memory, hard disk, and graphics cards used: it's not an isolated test like most of the other benchmarks I'm using in this review. However, since all other hardware (CPU, video card, memory, hard disk, etc.) was identical, with only the motherboards being changed, any performance differences here can be attributed to differences in motherboard performance. 
Except in the Computation section, overclocking doesn't help the scores that much. It does boost the Creativity score by 9%, but that won't be noticeable outside benchmark use. But in Computation, we get a nice 28% boost. At stock clock speeds, the Intel board wins only the Creativity section, but the largest difference between it and the ASUS P8Z77-V Deluxe is only about 4%. In the next section I run everyone's favorite benchmark: CINEBENCH! CINEBENCH R11.5 BenchmarksMaxon CINEBENCH is a real-world test suite that assesses the computer's performance capabilities. CINEBENCH is based on Maxon's award-winning animation software, Cinema 4D, which is used extensively by studios and production houses worldwide for 3D content creation. Maxon software has been used in blockbuster movies such as Spider-Man, Star Wars, The Chronicles of Narnia, and many more. CINEBENCH Release 11.5 includes the ability to more accurately test the industry's latest hardware, including systems with up to 64 processor threads, and the testing environment better reflects the expectations of today's production demands. A more streamlined interface makes testing systems and reading results incredibly straightforward. The CINEBENCH R11.5 test scenario comprises three tests: an OpenGL-based test that models a simple car chase, and single-core and multi-core versions of a CPU-bound computation using all of a system's processing power to render a photo-realistic 3D scene, "No Keyframes", the viral animation by AixSponza. This scene makes use of various algorithms to stress all available processor cores, and the CPU performs all rendering: the graphics card is not involved except as a display device. The multi-core version of the rendering benchmark uses as many cores as the processor has, including the "virtual cores" in processors that support Hyper-Threading. The resulting "CineMark" is a dimensionless number only useful for comparisons with results generated from the same version of CINEBENCH.
Here we see virtual parity between the Intel and ASUS boards, with the MSI board trailing ever so slightly. Overclocking nets a 20-21% improvement in multi-core rendering and single-core rendering. Let's take a look at some CPU-limited gaming results in the next section. CPU-Dependent 3D GamingStreet Fighter IV uses a new, built-from-scratch graphics engine that enables CAPCOM to tune the visuals and performance to fit the needs of the game, as well as run well on lower-end hardware. Although the engine is based on DX9 capabilities, it does add soft shadows, High Dynamic Range lighting, depth of field effects, and motion blur to enhance the game experience. The game is multi-threaded, with rendering, audio, and file I/O all running in different threads. The development team has also worked to maintain a relatively constant CPU load in all parts of the game so that on-screen performance does not change dramatically in different game scenarios.
I ran the Street Fighter IV benchmark at its lowest resolution (640x480) will all graphical features turned down to the minimum possible settings. This makes the video card much less of a factor in the results, biasing towards processor performance. The ASUS board performs noticeably better than its competition here, with a score 12% better than its next closest competitor. In fact the ASUS' stock clock score is better than the Intel DZ77GA-70K's overclocked score. Handbrake Media EncodingIt's a truism that consumer-level computer performance reached the "fast enough" point years ago, where increases in system performance don't make thing any faster for most people. Web browsing, e-mail, word processing, and even most games won't benefit dramatically from a super-fast CPU. There are some exceptions, though, and media encoding is one of them: transcoding video, especially high-definition video, can bring the strongest system to its knees. Fortunately, media transcoding is one of those things that (depending on the design of the code, of course) that scales really well with both clock speed and the number of cores, so the more you have of both, the better your results will be. The free and open-source Handbrake 0.96 video transcoder is an example of a program that makes full use of the computational resources available. For this test I used Handbrake 0.96 to transcode a standard-definition episode of Family Guy to the "iPhone & iPod Touch" presets, and recorded the total time (in seconds) it took to transcode the video.
Here the Intel and ASUS performance is identical, both being slightly better than the MSI board. Overclocking saves a total of 18 seconds on this relatively short transcode. x264 HD Benchmark 3.19Tech ARP's x264 HD Benchmark comprises the Avisynth video scripting engine, an x264 encoder, a sample 720P video file, and a script file that actually runs the benchmark. The script invokes four two-pass encoding runs and reports the average frames per second encoded as a result. The script file is a simple batch file, so you could edit the encoding parameters if you were interested, although your results wouldn't then be comparable to others.
The ASUS board takes a dive here, turning in significantly lower scores than its competition in each of the four x264HD runs. 
The P8P77-V Deluxe' performance dip here is something I can't explain. It's significant, too, being about 13% slower than the Intel board every time. Overclocking the Intel board returns a 21% performance improvement. SPECviewperf 11 testsThe Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation is "...a non-profit corporation formed to establish, maintain and endorse a standardized set of relevant benchmarks that can be applied to the newest generation of high-performance computers." Their free SPECviewperf benchmark incorporates code and tests contributed by several other companies and is designed to stress computers in a reproducible way. SPECviewperf 11 was released in June 2010 and incorporates an expanded range of capabilities and tests. Note that results from previous versions of SPECviewperf cannot be compared with results from the latest version, as even benchmarks with the same name have been updated with new code and models. SPECviewperf comprises test code from several vendors of professional graphics modeling, rendering, and visualization software. Most of the tests emphasize the CPU over the graphics card, and have between 5 and 13 sub-sections. For this review I ran the Lightwave, Maya, and Seimens Teamcenter Visualization tests. Results are reported as abstract scores, with higher being better. LightwaveThe lightwave-01 viewset was created from traces of the graphics workloads generated by the SPECapc for Lightwave 9.6 benchmark. The models for this viewset range in size from 2.5 to 6 million vertices, with heavy use of vertex buffer objects (VBOs) mixed with immediate mode. GLSL shaders are used throughout the tests. Applications represented by the viewset include 3D character animation, architectural review, and industrial design. MayaThe maya-03 viewset was created from traces of the graphics workload generated by the SPECapc for Maya 2009 benchmark. The models used in the tests range in size from 6 to 66 million vertices, and are tested with and without vertex and fragment shaders. State changes such as those executed by the application- including matrix, material, light and line-stipple changes- are included throughout the rendering of the models. All state changes are derived from a trace of the running application. Siemens Teamcenter Visualization MockupThe tcvis-02 viewset is based on traces of the Siemens Teamcenter Visualization Mockup application (also known as VisMockup) used for visual simulation. Models range from 10 to 22 million vertices and incorporate vertex arrays and fixed-function lighting. State changes such as those executed by the application- including matrix, material, light and line-stipple changes- are included throughout the rendering of the model. All state changes are derived from a trace of the running application.
I like tests like the SPECviewperf suite because being base on real-world code that's actually used in commercial applications, they provide a better indicator of real-world performance than do purely synthetic benchmarks. Here the ASUS board trails the Intel and MSI boards very slightly. SPECapc LightwaveSPECapc (Application Performance Characterization) tests are fundamentally different from the SPECviewperf tests. While SPECviewperf tests incorporate code from the various test programs directly into the benchmark, the SPECapc tests are separate scripts and datasets that are run against a stand-alone installation of the program being benchmarked. SPECapc group members sponsor applications and work with end-users, user groups, publications and ISVs to select and refine workloads, which consist of data sets and benchmark script files. Workloads are determined by end-users and ISVs, not SPECapc group members. These workloads will evolve over time in conjunction with end-users' needs and the increasing functionality of PCs and workstations. For this test, I ran the SPECapc "Lightwave" benchmark against a trial installation of Newtek's Lightwave 3D product. The benchmark, developed in cooperation with NewTek, provides realistic workloads that simulate a typical LightWave 3D workflow. It contains 11 datasets ranging from 64,000 to 1.75 million polygons and representing such applications as 3D character animation, architectural review, and industrial design. Scores for individual workloads are composited under three categories: interactive, render and multitask. The benchmark puts special emphasis on processes that benefit from multi-threaded computing, such as animation, OpenGL playback, deformations, and high-end rendering that includes ray tracing, radiosity, complex textures and volumetric lighting. The test reports three scores: Animation (multitasking), Animation (interactive), and Rendering. The numeric scores represent the time it took to complete each section of the benchmark, in seconds, so lower scores are better. I've found the SPECapc Lightwave 3D test to be an excellent indicator of overclock stability. In many cases, overclocked systems that will make it through every other benchmark here will crash in this test. It's also one of the most "fun" benchmarks to watch, as multiple windows with various complex rendering tasks appear and disappear on your screen. 
This is one of the most "real" benchmarks, since it's just a set of scripts that control a standard Lightwave installation (SPECviewperf uses embedded Lightwave code). Here the ASUS board beats the other two boards in two of the three tests (albeit by very small amounts), losing by 13 seconds to the Intel board in the Rendering section. BlenderBlender is an open-source, free content creation suite of 3D modeling, rendering, and animation capabilities. Originally released in 2002, it's available in versions for Mac OS X, Windows, Linux, and several Unix distributions. It supports rigid and soft-body objects and can handle the draping and animation of cloth, as well as the rendering and animation of smoke, water, and general particle handling. Our Blender test renders multiple frames of an animation of a rotating chunk of ice, with translucency and reflections. Rendering of this model uses ray-tracing algorithms and the program reports the rendering time for each of the animation's 25 frames. The results are a summation of the rendering times for all frames and the lower the score, the better. 
A nice progression of performance, here, with the ASUS winning at stock speeds. Overclocking boosts performance in this test by about 17%. POV-RayThe Persistence of Vision ray tracer is a free, open source 3D modeling program that uses ray-tracing algorithms to generate realistic three-dimensional images. Ray tracing is very computationally intensive, and the POV-Ray program has a handy built-in benchmark to let you check the performance of your system.
Here the ASUS P8Z77-V Deluxe comes in second, 5% slower than the Intel board. DZ77GA-70K OverclockingIf you've read our review of the Intel Core i7-3770K processor, you've seen this part. If you haven't, the short version is that Ivy Bridge processors do not, at least in their current stepping, overclock as well as Sandy Bridge processors. Despite their vaunted 22nm, "3D" transistors, at 4.8GHz individual core temperatures spiked to over 100 degrees Celsius, leading the CPU throttling under load, even though I was using a Thermalright Silver Arrow cooler, the best air cooler I've ever tested. So the best overclock I was able to get was 4.7GHz on all cores under load...which is the same overclock I was able to hit on the other two Z77 Express motherboard in this test. While I didn't have to increase the voltage to reach this level, individual core temperatures were still in excess of 90 degrees under load, so it's not something I'd recommend doing long term. I've tried overclocking this CPU on three Z77 Express motherboards now, with identical results on each one, so I'm pretty sure the CPU is the limiting factor here.
So keep in mind that this probably doesn't represent this board's overclocking limits. That said, its power circuitry is less sophisticated that that of the MSI and ASUS motherboards, so its ultimate limits may be lower. Z77 Express Motherboard Final ThoughtsThe Intel DZ77GA-70K is the first (early production) Intel motherboard I've actually been impressed with. Its performance is easily comparable to that of the top-end third party motherboards, and it brings some real innovation to the party with its USB 3.0 hub design, POST code progress LEDs, and other features like the PLX chip and high-current USB port. Still, for a high end motherboard, some corners have been cut in the extras: the WiFi module only supports b/g/n, and not "a", and the Bluetooth module is stuck at revision 2.1 of the Bluetooth standard while ASUS has moved on to revision 4.0. There are only four fan headers, and you can't calibrate the fans or slave them to onboard temperature sensors.
The Intel board also doesn't compete well in terms of Windows software. Intel does provide its Extreme Tuning Utility, but it doesn't even provide the overclocking help that the BIOS overclock section does, and there's no automatic tuning feature like ASUS and MSI provide. There's certainly nothing even close to ASUS' Turbo V Evo or MSI's utilities. Still, this board does have one redeeming feature that the enthusiast community will love: what is perhaps the best UEFI BIOS I've ever seen. Really, it's a revelation, and makes up to some extent for Intel's other shortcomings. I'll cover the BIOS of this board in detail in the forthcoming Features review of this motherboard. Intel DZ77GA-70K ConclusionIMPORTANT: Although the rating and final score mentioned in this conclusion are made to be as objective as possible, please be advised that every author perceives these factors differently at various points in time. While we each do our best to ensure that all aspects of the product are considered, there are often times unforeseen market conditions and manufacturer changes which occur after publication that could render our rating obsolete. Please do not base any purchase solely on our conclusion, as it represents our product rating specifically for the product tested which may differ from future versions. Benchmark Reviews begins our conclusion with a short summary for each of the areas that we rate. After years of mediocre Extreme motherboards, Intel finally has a serious contender in the DZ77GA-70K. With a good array of features and excellent performance, the skull logos Intel likes to plaster all over this series of boards doesn't look quite as silly as it used to. 
There are a few things I'd change: I see no reason for PCI slots on a modern enthusiast level motherboard, for example. And the power circuitry isn't quite up to the standard set by some of the high end third party boards Intel is competing against. Last, this board is very light on Windows-based utility software. But the incredible BIOS is so good that it almost completely makes up for that lack. The Intel DZ77GA-70K sticks with Intel's standard white/black/gray color scheme. Some ports are accented in yellow and red plastic, which makes them very visible on the board if nor particularly aesthetic. The build quality is excellent. There are many very small components on this board, but there's no over-soldering and the components all line up. Even the solder mask is placed with extreme precision. The performance, overall, was about equal to the ASUS motherboard and slightly better than the MSI motherboard. This might not seem like much but is better than Intel has done in the past. The value of this board is hard to judge in its current form. As usual with early Intel review boards, it's missing some accessories that I presume will be included with the retail board, like SATA cables and a manual. Still, I think I have enough here to make a stab at evaluating it. While not as feature-rich as some of the top-end third party Z77 motherboards, the DZ77GA-70K offers solid performance, some innovative features, and a truly excellent BIOS. Intel says this board will sell for between $224.00 and $240.00 At the high end of that range it's still $35.00 less than the ASUS P8Z77-V Pro, which is a reasonable tradeoff for the ASUS board's more elaborate features. If you don't need these extra features, this board represents a good value, certainly better than previous Intel boards, especially if you can find one at the lower end of this price range. Pros:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments
1. Most people only boot their systems once a day, if that, and the time spent to get to the Windows desktop is insignificant compared to the time the computer's being used.
2. The time will vary greatly depending on the boot device (regular hard disk, Velociraptor, SSD); the version of Windows being booted, drivers, etc.
Granted, you could use a standard hardware configuration and Windows installation to reduce the number of variables in #2, but I don't think that many people would find it useful. FWIW I didn't notice the board being particularly speedy or slow.
For reference try googling it and see dozens and dozens (hundreds even?) of people on tech forums around the world trying to find this information out :).
Or head over to anandtech and see how almost all of the positive comments mention POST time benchmarking as a great review feature.
As to hardware variability, I would assume by now that any enthusiast knows that overall boot time is greatly effected by hardware, most notably HDD/SSD. However POST time can still make 20 seconds of difference in startup time, considering most machines with SSDs start up in well under a minute, you can see how a lot of everyday users would like to see how they could shave most of this time off.
Once again, thank-you for the great review and for the reply :).
If you want a fast bootup: you should disable all of the motherboard features you don't use, use a small and fast boot device like a SSD without RAID, and don't install drivers and services unless you absolutely need it.