The MSI MEG Z390 ACE Motherboard Review: The Answer To Your USB 3.1 Needs
by Gavin Bonshor on December 17, 2018 12:30 PM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
- Intel
- Killer
- MSI
- Coffee Lake
- i7-8700K
- Z390
- ACE
- Z390 ACE
System Performance
Not all motherboards are created equal. On the face of it, they should all perform the same and differ only in the functionality they provide - however, this is not the case. The obvious pointers are power consumption, but also the ability for the manufacturer to optimize USB speed, audio quality (based on audio codec), POST time and latency. This can come down to manufacturing process and prowess, so these are tested.
For Z390 we are running an updated version of our test suite, including OS and CPU cooler. This has some effect on our results.
Power Consumption
Power consumption was tested on the system while in a single ASUS GTX 980 GPU configuration with a wall meter connected to the Thermaltake 1200W power supply. This power supply has ~75% efficiency > 50W, and 90%+ efficiency at 250W, suitable for both idle and multi-GPU loading. This method of power reading allows us to compare the power management of the UEFI and the board to supply components with power under load, and includes typical PSU losses due to efficiency. These are the real world values that consumers may expect from a typical system (minus the monitor) using this motherboard.
While this method for power measurement may not be ideal, and you feel these numbers are not representative due to the high wattage power supply being used (we use the same PSU to remain consistent over a series of reviews, and the fact that some boards on our test bed get tested with three or four high powered GPUs), the important point to take away is the relationship between the numbers. These boards are all under the same conditions, and thus the differences between them should be easy to spot.
In comparison to other Z390 models, the MSI MEG Z390 ACE is at the top end in both idle and long idle states, but performs well when at load.
Non-UEFI POST Time
Different motherboards have different POST sequences before an operating system is initialized. A lot of this is dependent on the board itself, and POST boot time is determined by the controllers on board (and the sequence of how those extras are organized). As part of our testing, we look at the POST Boot Time using a stopwatch. This is the time from pressing the ON button on the computer to when Windows starts loading. (We discount Windows loading as it is highly variable given Windows specific features.)
The Z390 ACE is reasonably competitive here - at default, the POST time was just over 19 seconds, where as we managed to achieve a quicker 17.4 seconds when non-essential controllers were disabled within the BIOS.
DPC Latency
Deferred Procedure Call latency is a way in which Windows handles interrupt servicing. In order to wait for a processor to acknowledge the request, the system will queue all interrupt requests by priority. Critical interrupts will be handled as soon as possible, whereas lesser priority requests such as audio will be further down the line. If the audio device requires data, it will have to wait until the request is processed before the buffer is filled.
If the device drivers of higher priority components in a system are poorly implemented, this can cause delays in request scheduling and process time. This can lead to an empty audio buffer and characteristic audible pauses, pops and clicks. The DPC latency checker measures how much time is taken processing DPCs from driver invocation. The lower the value will result in better audio transfer at smaller buffer sizes. Results are measured in microseconds.
The DPC latency performance from the Z390 ACE gave an average result of 130 microseconds. None of the boards we have tested so far has been optimized for DPC latency, however, some models designs are clearly more effective than others.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
25 Comments
View All Comments
rsandru - Monday, December 17, 2018 - link
We're almost in 2019, can we move on beyond those 16 + 4 PCI-E lanes for the CPU please?I just want my GPU and M.2 storage connected directly to the CPU and not sharing bandwidth and latency with a million USB, SATA or audio ports and other traffic on the DMI uplink...
DanNeely - Monday, December 17, 2018 - link
I'd not hold my breath. Adding more PCIe lanes to the CPU would drive up die sizes and board costs for the >90% of systems that don't have a GPU.The only way I could see that happen is if Intel takes the CPU on Chipset stacking concept they showed at manufacturing day beyond the mobile demo to the desktop. Even then, I'd expect what they'd do is 16PCIe + ~8 configurable HSIO lanes so that entry level desktops could have 3-5x USB3, a 4/2 lane PCIe SSD and onboard wifi; either without needing a separate chip; or only with a tiny superbare bone chip to handle all the ultra-legacy and low bandwidth connections needed to control assorted chips on the board behind the scenes.
With that being a new manufacturing process though, I wouldn't expect to see it in the next year or two on the high volume mainstream desktop platform. Far more likely would be for it to launch as a premium option for top end laptop makers in the next year or two that trickles down over the to the rest of the market 2 or 4 years later.
DigitalFreak - Monday, December 17, 2018 - link
I agree, but the Intel/AMD response would be that you should look at HEDT / Threadripper if you need more CPU PCI-E lanes.Ryzen CPUs actually have 32 PCI-E lanes on the CPU, but the socket AM4 is only designed to for 16 GPU + 4 NVME + 4 to the SB. The other 8 aren't used. No idea why they didn't design AM4 to use all of them, unless it was for backwards compatibility with the pre-Ryzen CPUs.
DanNeely - Monday, December 17, 2018 - link
The problem is that both companies big socket platforms are a lot more expensive; and 90% of it is for things that are irrelevant to the average enthusiast; while both companies mainstream sockets fall a little bit short. Intel's by forcing SSDs into the DMI bottleneck; AMD's just in that their current chipset is a more or less obsolete piece of junk (eg only supporting PCIe 2.0). A combination of AMD's 20 non chipset lanes and a chipset approaching what Intel's are capable of would cover most of the gap between the mainstream platforms and enthusiast goals without going the budget busting route of the big sockets.Dunno that AMD's ever spoken about the unused 8 lanes. Could be cost reasons (would've made boards more expensive for legacy platforms); or even just to limit forward compatibility/confusion issues like the garbage fire Intel created when they had an LGA20xx generation that could have 16, 28, or 44 PCIe lanes and board makers either had to add a lot of extra complexity, have large chunks non-operational if using a low lane count chip, or ignore the potential of a number of lanes on the higher end chips.
namechamps - Monday, December 17, 2018 - link
It is backward compatibility. At this point one would think manufacturers would break that backwards compatibility (i.e. 2nd and 3rd m.2 slots not available for non-Ryzen processors).philehidiot - Monday, December 17, 2018 - link
So, please clarify this for someone who is not a computer scientist and is mildly drunk... if I buy a new Ryzen CPU, thinking I'm going to get 24 PCI-E lanes, I will in truth only be able to access 16, same as Intel? Or is it that I'd be able to access 24 whilst the CPU is designed for 32?DanNeely - Monday, December 17, 2018 - link
You can effectively use 20 lanes. The last 4 are used to connect the chipset on any but the lowest end boards which the CPU operate in SoC mode (and which probably will ignore the last 4 lanes entirely to save costs).tvanpeer - Monday, December 17, 2018 - link
Sure you can: get an AMD CPU.shaolin95 - Monday, December 24, 2018 - link
Sure and then get a performance hit. No thanksThe_Assimilator - Monday, December 17, 2018 - link
Congratulations, you're among a tiny minority of users. If you really want or need that feature, pony up the cash to step up to the HEDT segment.