search for it

Friday, June 26, 2015

Best Graphics Cards For The Money: June 2015 (VGA Chart)



What about this other card that’s not on the list? How do I know if it’s a good deal or not? This will happen. In fact, because inventory levels and prices change quickly, it’s guaranteed to happen. So how do you know if that card you’ve got your eye on is a good buy in its price range? Here is a resource to help you judge if a card is a good buy or not. The graphics card hierarchy chart groups graphics cards with similar overall performance levels into tiers. The top tier contains the highest-performing cards available, and performance decreases as you go down the tiers from there. You can use this hierarchy to compare the pricing between two cards, to see which one is a better deal, and also to determine if an upgrade is worthwhile. I don’t recommend upgrading your graphics card unless the replacement card is at least three tiers higher. 

Otherwise, the upgrade is somewhat parallel, and you may not even notice any worthwhile difference in performance. At the request of readers, we've added mobile graphics and integrated chipsets to the hierarchy chart. We want to make it clear that there is very little performance data available for these graphics solutions. While the discrete video cards in the chart are placed in tiers based on a lot of information, many of the mobile and integrated devices in the chart are guesstimates based on their specifications. 

At worst, we doubt they’re more than one tier away from their actual performance, but this is something to keep in mind when considering mobile graphics chipsets. - See more at: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html#sthash.eumLyC7g.dpuf



Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart
GeForce Radeon Intel
Discrete: GTX Titan Z Discrete: R9 295X2
Discrete: GTX 690, Titan X, 980 Ti Discrete: HD 7990
Discrete: GTX 780 Ti, 980, Titan Black
Discrete: GTX 780, 970, Titan Discrete: R9 290, 290X, 390X, 390
Discrete: GTX 590, 680, 770 Discrete:  HD 6990, 7970 GHz Ed, R9 280X, 380
Go (mobile): 980M
Discrete: GTX 580, GTX 670, GTX 960 Discrete: HD 5970, 7870 LE (XT), 7950, 280, 285
Go (mobile): 970M
Discrete: GTX 660 Ti, GTX 760 Discrete: HD 7870, R9 270, R9 270X, R7 370
Go (mobile): 880M
Discrete: GTX 295, 480, 570, 660 Discrete: HD 4870 X2, 6970, 7850, R7 265,
Go (mobile): 680M, 780M Mobility: 7970M
Discrete: GTX 470, 560 Ti, 560 Ti 448 Core, 650 Ti Boost, 750 Ti Discrete: HD 4850 X2, 5870, 6950, R7 260X
Mobility: 7950M
Discrete: GTX 560, 650 Ti, 750 Discrete: HD 5850, 6870, 7790
Go (mobile): 580M, 675M Mobility: 6990M
Discrete: 9800 GX2, 285, 460 256-bit, 465 Discrete: HD 6850, 7770, R7 260, R7 360
Mobility: 6900M
Discrete: GTX 260, 275, 280, 460 192-bit, 460 SE, 550 Ti, 560 SE, GT 650, GT 740 GDDR5 Discrete: HD 4870, 5770, 4890, 5830, 6770, 6790, 7750 (GDDR5), R7 250 (GDDR5), R7 250E Iris Pro Graphics 6200
Go (mobile): 570M, 670M Mobility: HD 5870, 6800M
Discrete: 8800 Ultra, 9800 GTX, 9800 GTX+, GTS 250, GTS 450  Discrete: HD 3870 X2, 4850, 5750, 6750, 7750 (DDR3), R7 250 (DDR3)
Go (mobile): 560M, 660M Mobility: HD 4850, 5850, 7870M
Discrete: 8800 GTX, 8800 GTS 512 MB, GT 545 (GDDR5), GT 730 64-bit GDDR5 Discrete: HD 4770
Go (mobile): GTX 280M, 285M, 555M (GDDR5) Mobility: HD 4860, 7770M, 7850M
Discrete: 8800 GT 512 MB, 9800 GT, GT 545 (DDR3), GT 640 (DDR3), GT 740 DDR3 Discrete: HD 4830, HD 5670, HD 6670 (GDDR5), HD 7730 (GDDR5)
Go (mobile): 9800M GTX, GTX 260M (112), GTS 360M (GDDR5), 555M (DDR3) Mobility: HD 5770, HD 5750, 6600M/6700M (GDDR5), 7750M
Discrete: 8800 GTS 640 MB, 9600 GT, GT 240 (GDDR5) Discrete: HD 2900 XT, HD 3870, HD 5570 (GDDR5), HD 6570 (GDDR5)
Go (mobile): 9800M GTS, GTX 160M Mobility: 6500M (GDDR5), 6600M/6700M (DDR3), 7730M
Discrete: 8800 GS, 9600 GSO, GT 240 (DDR3) Discrete: HD 3850 512 MB, HD 4670, HD 5570 (DDR3), HD 6570 (DDR3), HD 6670 (DDR3), HD 7730 (DDR3), R7 240
Go (mobile): GTX 260M (96), GTS 150M, GTS 360M (DDR3) Mobility: HD 3870, HD 5730, HD 5650, 6500M (DDR3)
Discrete: 8800 GT 256 MB, 8800 GTS 320 MB, GT 440 GDDR5, GT 630 GDDR5, GT 730 128-bit GDDR5 Discrete: HD 2900 PRO, HD 3850 256 MB, 5550 (GDDR5)
Go (mobile): 8800M Mobility: HD 3850
Discrete: 7950 GX2, GT 440 DDR3, GT 630 DDR3, GT 730 128-bit DDR3 Discrete: X1950 XTX, HD 4650 (DDR3), 5550 (DDR3)
Integrated: HD 7660D
Discrete: 7800 GTX 512, 7900 GTO, 7900 GTX, GT 430, GT 530 Discrete: X1900 XT, X1950 XT, X1900 XTX 
Go (mobile): 550M
Discrete: 7800 GTX, 7900 GT, 7950 G, GT 220 (DDR3) Discrete: X1800 XT, X1900 AIW, X1900 GT, X1950 Pro, HD 2900 GT, HD 5550 (DDR2)
Go (mobile): 525M, 540M Integrated: HD 7560D
Discrete: 7800 GT, 7900 GS, 8600 GTS, 9500 GT (GDDR3), GT 220 (DDR2) Discrete: X1800 XL, X1950 GT, HD 4650 (DDR2), HD 6450, R5 230
Go (mobile): 7950 GTX Mobility: X1800 XT, HD 4650, HD 5165, 6400M
Integrated: HD 6620G, 6550D, 7540D
Discrete: 6800 Ultra, 7600 GT, 7800 GS, 8600 GS, 8600 GT (GDDR3), 9500 GT (DDR2)  Discrete: X800 XT (& PE), X850 XT (& PE), X1650 XT, X1800 GTO, HD 2600 XT, HD 3650 (DDR3), HD 3670 Integrated: Intel HD Graphics 4000
Go (mobile): 7800 GTX, 7900 GTX Mobility: X1900, 3670 
Integrated: 6520G, 6530D, 7480D
Discrete: 6800 GT, 6800 GS (PCIe), 8600 GT (DDR2), GT 520 Discrete: X800 XL, X800 GTO2/GTO16, HD 2600 Pro, HD 3650 (DDR2), 
Go (mobile): 7800, Go 7900 GS, 520M, 520MX Mobility: X800 XT, HD 2600 XT, 3650 
Integrated: 6410D, 6480G
Discrete: 6800 GS (AGP) Discrete: X800 GTO 256 MB, X800 PRO, X850 Pro, X1650 GT
Go (mobile): 6800 Ultra, 7600 GT, 8600M GT, 8700M GT, 410M Mobility: HD 2600 
Integrated: 6370D, 6380G
Discrete: 6800, 7300 GT GDDR3, 7600 GS, 8600M GS  Discrete: X800, X800 GTO 128 MB, X1600 XT, X1650 Pro
Go (mobile): 6800, 7700 Mobility: X1800, HD 5145, HD 5470 (GDDR5)
Discrete: 6600 GT, 6800LE, 6800 XT, 7300 GT (DDR2), 8500 GT, 9400 GT  Discrete: 9800 XT, X700 PRO, X800 GT, X800 SE, X1300 XT, X1600 PRO, HD 2400 XT, HD 4350, HD 4550, HD 5450 Integrated: Intel HD Graphics 3000
Go (mobile): 7600 (128-bit) Mobility: X800, 3470, HD 5470 (DDR3), HD 5450, HD 5430, 6300M
Integrated: HD 6310, HD 6320
Discrete: FX 5900, FX 5900 Ultra, FX 5950 Ultra, 6600 (128-bit) Discrete: 9700, 9700 Pro, 9800, 9800 Pro, X700, X1300 Pro, X1550, HD 2400 Pro
Go (mobile): 6800 (128-bit) Mobility: X1450, X1600, X1700, 2400 XT, X2500, 3450
Integrated: 9300, 9400 Integrated: HD 3200, HD 3300, HD 4200, HD 4250, HD 4290, HD 6250, HD 6290 
Discrete: FX 5800 Ultra, FX 5900 XT Discrete: 9500 Pro, 9600 XT, 9800 Pro (128-bit), X600 XT, X1050 (128-bit) Integrated: Intel HD Graphics (Core i5-6x1), 2000
Go (mobile): 6600, Go 7600 (64-bit) Mobility: 9800, X700, X1350, X1400, X2300, HD 2400
Discrete: 4 Ti 4600, 4 Ti 4800, FX 5700 Ultra, 6200, 8300, 8400 G, G 210, G 310 Discrete: 9600 PRO, 9800 LE, X600 PRO, HD 2300 Integrated: Intel HD Graphics (Core i3 5x0, Core i5-6x0)
Go (mobile): 315M Mobility: 9700 (128-bit), X600, X1300
Integrated: Xpress 1250
Discrete: 4 Ti4200, 4 Ti4400, 4 Ti4800 SE, FX 5600 Ultra, FX 5700, 6600 (64-bit), 7300 GS, 8400M GS, 9300M G, 9300M GS Discrete: 9500, 9550, 9600, X300, X1050 (64-bit)  Integrated: Intel HD Graphics (Pentium G)
Mobility: 9600
Discrete: 3 Ti500, FX 5200 Ultra, FX 5600, FX 5700 LE, 6200 TC, 6600 LE, 7200 GS, 7300 LE Discrete: 8500, 9100, 9000 PRO, 9600 LE, X300 SE, X1150 Integrated: GMA X4500
Go (mobile): 5700, 8200M, 9200M GS, 9100 Mobility 9700 (64-bit)
Integrated: 8200, 8300
Discrete: 3, 3 Ti200, FX 5200 (128-bit), FX 5500,  Discrete: 9000, 9200, 9250
Go (mobile): 5600, 6200, 6400, 7200, 7300, 7400 (64-bit) Mobility: 9600 (64-bit), X300
Discrete: FX 5200 (64 bit) Discrete: 9200 SE Integrated: GMA X3000, X3100, X3500
Go (mobile): 7200, 7400 (32-bit) Integrated: Xpress 200M, Xpress 1000, Xpress 1150
Integrated: 6100, 6150, 7025, 7050
Discrete: 2 GTS, 4 MX 440, 2 Ultra, 2 Ti, 2 Ti 200 Discrete: 7500 Integrated: GMA 3000, 3100
Discrete: 256, 2 MX 200, 4 MX 420, 2 MX 400 Discrete: SDR, LE, DDR, 7000, 7200 Integrated: GMA 500, 900, 950
Discrete: Nvidia TNT Discrete: Rage 128 Discrete: Intel 740




Now all that’s left to do is compare performance to your budget, and you'll be able to confidently decide which board is right for you - we even put in the legwork to help find you the best prices! - See more at: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html#sthash.eumLyC7g.dpuf

Source: Tom's Hardware

Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: June 2015 (CPUs Hierarchy Chart / Processors Hierarchy Chart)

What about this other CPU that’s not on the list? How do I know if it’s a good deal or not?
This will happen. In fact, it’s guaranteed to happen because availability and prices change quickly. So how do you know if that CPU you have your eye on is a good buy in its price range?
Here is a resource to help you judge if a CPU is a reasonable value or not: the gaming CPU hierarchy chart, which groups CPUs with similar overall gaming performance levels into tiers. The top tier contains the highest-performing gaming CPUs available and gaming performance decreases as you go down the tiers from there.
This hierarchy was originally based on the average performance each CPU achieved in our test suite. We have since incorporated new game data into our criteria, but it should be known that any specific game title will likely perform differently depending on its unique programming. Some games, for example, will be severely graphics subsystem-limited, while others may react positively to more CPU cores, larger amounts of CPU cache, or even a specific architecture. We also did not have access to every CPU on the market, so some of the CPU performance estimates are based on the numbers similar architectures deliver. Indeed, this hierarchy chart is useful as a general guideline, but certainly not as a one-size-fits-all CPU comparison resource. For that, we recommend you check out our CPU Performance Charts.
- See more at: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html#sthash.69bkXp0H.dpuf

You can use this hierarchy to compare the pricing between two processors, to see which one is a better deal, and also to determine if an upgrade is worthwhile. I don’t recommend upgrading your CPU unless the potential replacement is at least three tiers higher. Otherwise, the upgrade is somewhat parallel and you may not notice a worthwhile difference in game performance. - See more at: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html#sthash.69bkXp0H.dpuf




Summary
There you have it folks: the best gaming CPUs for the money this month. Now all that’s left to do is compare their performance to your budget before you decide which one is right for you. We even put in the work to help find the best prices.
Also remember that the stores don’t follow this list. Things will change over the course of the month and you’ll probably have to adapt your buying strategy to deal with fluctuating prices. Good luck!
- See more at: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html#sthash.69bkXp0H.dpuf

Source: Tom's Hardware

List CPUs: Core i7-2600, -2600K, -2700K, -3770, -3770K, -3820, -3930K, -3960X, -3970X, -4770, -4770K, -4790K, -5775C, -5820K, 5930K, -5960X, Core i7-965, -975 Extreme, -980X Extreme, -990X Extreme, Core i5-5675C, -4690K, 4670K, -4590, -4670, -4570, -4430, -3570K, -3570, -3550, -3470, -3450P, -3450, -3350P, -3330, 2550K, -2500K, -2500, -2450P, -2400, -2380P, -2320, -2310, -2300, Core i7-980, -970, -960, Core i7-870, -875K, Core i3-4370, -4170, -4160, -3250, -3245, -3240, -3225, -3220, -3210, -2100, -2105, -2120, -2125, -2130 FX-9590, 9370, 8370, 8350, 8320, 8150, 6350, 4350, Phenom II X6 1100T BE, 1090T BE, Phenom II X4 Black Edition 980, 975, Core i7-860, -920, -930, -940, -950, Core i5-3220T, -750, -760, -2405S, -2400S, Core 2 Extreme QX9775, QX9770, QX9650, Core 2 Quad Q9650, FX-8120, 8320e, 8370e, 6200, 6300, 4170, 4300, Phenom II X6 1075T, Phenom II X4 Black Edition 970, 965, 955 , A10-6800K, 6790K, 6700, 5800K, -5700, -7800, -7850K, A8-3850, -3870K, -5600K, 6600K, -7600, -7650K, Athlon X4 651K, 645, 641, 640, 740, 750K, 860K, Core 2 Extreme QX6850, QX6800, Core 2 Quad Q9550, Q9450, Q9400, Core i5-650, -655K, -660, -661, -670, -680, Core i3-2100T, -2120T, FX-6100, -4100, -4130, Phenom II X6 1055T, 1045T, Phenom II X4 945, 940, 920, Phenom II X3 Black Edition 720, 740, A8-5500, 6500, A6-3650, -3670K, -7400K, Athlon II X4 635, 630, Core 2 Extreme QX6700, Core 2 Quad Q6700, Q9300, Q8400, Q6600, Q8300, Core 2 Duo E8600, E8500, E8400, E7600, Core i3 -530, -540, -550, Pentium G3460, G3260, G3258, G3250, G3220, G3420, G3430, G2130, G2120, G2020, G2010, G870, G860, G850, G840, G645, G640, G630,Phenom II X4 910, 910e, 810, Athlon II X4 620, 631, Athlon II X3 460, Core 2 Extreme X6800, Core 2 Quad Q8200, Core 2 Duo E8300, E8200, E8190, E7500, E7400, E6850, E6750, Pentium G620, Celeron G1630, G1620, G1610, G555, G550, G540, G530, Phenom II X4 905e, 805, Phenom II X3 710, 705e, Phenom II X2 565 BE, 560 BE, 555 BE, 550 BE, 545, Phenom X4 9950, Athlon II X3 455, 450, 445, 440, 435, 425, Core 2 Duo E7200, E6550, E7300, E6540, E6700, Pentium Dual-Core E5700, E5800, E6300, E6500, E6600, E6700, Pentium G9650, Phenom X4 9850, 9750, 9650, 9600, Phenom X3 8850, 8750, Athlon II X2 265, 260, 255, 370K, A6-5500K, A4-6400K, 6300, 5400K, 5300, 4400, 4000, 3400, 3300, Athlon 64 X2 6400+, Core 2 Duo E4700, E4600, E6600, E4500, E6420, Pentium Dual-Core E5400, E5300, E5200, G620T, Phenom X4 9500, 9550, 9450e, 9350e, Phenom X3 8650, 8600, 8550, 8450e, 8450, 8400, 8250e, Athlon II X2 240, 245, 250, Athlon X2 7850, 7750, Athlon 64 X2 6000+, 5600+, Core 2 Duo E4400, E4300, E6400, E6320, Celeron E3300, Phenom X4 9150e, 9100e, Athlon X2 7550, 7450, 5050e, 4850e/b, Athlon 64 X2 5400+, 5200+, 5000+, 4800+, Core 2 Duo E5500, E6300, Pentium Dual-Core E2220, E2200, E2210, Celeron E3200, Athlon X2 6550, 6500, 4450e/b,  Athlon X2 4600+, 4400+, 4200+, BE-2400, Pentium Dual-Core E2180, Celeron E1600, G440, Athlon 64 X2 4000+, 3800+, Athlon X2 4050e, BE-2300, Pentium Dual-Core E2160, E2140, Celeron E1500, E1400, E1200

Monday, June 22, 2015

The Asus X99 Rampage V Extreme ROG Review

For a number of generations, each motherboard company has had its halo product that pushes boundaries and wallets. For ASUS, the Rampage IV Extreme, based on X79, was a resounding success for sales. We sourced the next chipset iteration, the X99 based Rampage V Extreme, for review to see if ASUS can follow the trend.



The Republic of Gamers Ethos
ASUS has been developing their Republic of Gamers brand for over eight years. What started off as a single motherboard is now a range of components including graphics cards, monitors, peripherals and even for storage. On the motherboard side of the equation for Intel platforms, there have been three stalwart models in the line: the micro-ATX Gene, the sound and gaming-focused Formula (ATX) and the gaming/overclocking Extreme (ATX or EATX). This has been added to in recent quarters with the Impact (mini-ITX), the Hero (cheap ATX) and the Ranger (cheap ATX also). Depending on the focus of the platform, some, none or all of these focal points are used. Traditionally the Extreme line was on all the major Intel chipsets, but this changed last year.

When Intel released the Haswell line of processors, the new LGA1150 socket was paired with the Z87 chipset and ASUS went all in with every ROG model. The purpose of Z87 was to facilitate the Haswell processor line but to also provide an upgrade to Broadwell when released. Z97 was launched when Broadwell was expected to hit the shelves, offering a similar sort of package to Z87 but with minor transitional updates. Similar circumstances happened on LGA1155 with Sandy Bridge (P67/Z68) to Ivy Bridge (Z77) in the two generations previous. What made Z97 and Intel's mainstream 9-series different for the ROG line is that only a few models were launched, and an Extreme version was absent.

At the time, although we couldn't publish it, our sources stated that it was for a singular reason: they wanted the X99 launch model to be the best, and insisted in skipping Z97 to spend more time developing the X99 model. Arguably the Z87 Extreme model existed to fill the gap anyway. This makes sense in the context that the X79 Rampage IV Extreme was the best-selling motherboard for that chipset - the need to get it right for X99 was paramount to continue.

The launch of X99 came and went in September 2014, with ASUS focusing on very few models for launch. We reviewed the X99 Deluxe, which was well received, and within the next month the X99 Pro, X99-A and the Rampage V Extreme were launched. Compared to X79, this is very few models. Depending on who you ask, the new edition of the Extreme has also not been getting as much excitement as the previous model, even with Haswell-E giving eight cores in the hands of the user.

One of the arguments for the lack of excitement might be that X79 and Sandy Bridge overclocking turned out to be a fairly big draw to gamers and enthusiasts, whereas Haswell-E’s overclocking prowess is slightly tempered. The appeal of a chipset and motherboard stack is ultimately limited by the processors the power it, so it might be the fact that Haswell-E is not as fun to overclock, or the entry price is too high, or any other number of factors. We've seen a reasonable response to our X99 coverage, which might suggest that users are still interested.

All this aside, with ASUS not even releasing an X99 based Rampage V Gene, and the launch X99 Deluxe was set at an MSRP of $400 meaning that they went all in at the high end of the most extreme platform. Personally one might feel this is slightly an oversight, especially with several other overclocking motherboards mopping up the cheaper aspect of the range. However with the mentality of the halo product, the new X99 Extreme sits exactly where it means to.

Overview
For anyone who has never invested into an ROG Extreme platform before, opening the box and playing with the contents is certainly a lot of fun. The appeal of an external OC panel, multiple bundled cables and an entry into the ROG ecosystem yields several measurable benefits. For users upgrading from a mid-range platform, such as the Z77 or Z87 models, will have the novel benefits of the extreme platform and quad channel DDR4 to have fun with. For X79 users, they might wonder why the X99 Extreme is slightly smaller, and that comes from some of the modifications that X79 Black Edition users will identify.

ASUS has been advertising (at least via their technical marketing) that the Rampage V Extreme is the culmination of many months of effort by a variety of specialists. This includes in-house experts Shamino, TL, elmor, and even former AnandTech motherboard senior editor Rajinder Gill. The results of this effort should result in a wide range of memory compatibility due to increased testing, memory overclocking due to the use of the OC socket, other board level optimizations, cleaner power delivery and tools which should allow the most extreme overclockers the control they request. In this sense, the Rampage V Extreme should build on its predecessor.

For pure functionality, the Extreme is the second Asus motherboard to be fitted with a three antenna Wi-Fi solution, a 3T3R 802.11ac. This remains a premium add-on over the now standard 2T2R and by virtue of moving from 2 to 3 should allow for a 50% bandwidth improvement when facilities allow, as well as increasing potential range in complex environments and beam forming. Alongside the Wi-Fi is SupremeFX, the upgraded Realtek ALC1150 audio solution with increased EMI shielding and PCB separation across the left hand side of the motherboard as well as a PCIe 3.0 x4 M.2 slot driven through the CPU.

As with most ASUS motherboards, all the fan headers are DC and PWM capable with four extra fan headers coming from the OC Panel, which saves space on the motherboard itself. Fans can be controlled via the BIOS using the interactive tool or through software.

The BIOS and software also get the ROG treatment, increasing the number of options for overclockers in the former and an array of gaming utilities for the operating system. This includes the newer features such as KeyBot, SoundStage and an update to Sonic Radar.

The Extreme is a formidable weapon in the arsenal, courting a $100 premium in launch price over the X99 Deluxe with that going to the OC Panel, the ROG BIOS/software packages and full support for four-way graphics in an x16/x8/x8/x8 arrangement.

Visual Inspection
As with any purchase of a high end motherboard for gaming, taking it out of the box is an experience. Only a system builder that has to put together 50 systems a week would get bored of it. Similar to other EATX motherboards, the size of the Extreme is sometimes something to be wary of, because holding it at one end causes the mass to influence torque, and you would rather not drop something that costs­­ $500


Taking the motherboard out of the box instantly gave me a sense of bulk, as well as the imposing black and red to which the Extreme line has been using for years. The motherboard PCB does look a bit busy, but users of substantially older Extreme models will note that a number of onboard overclock buttons are removed as they have migrated onto the OC Panel, similar to what we saw with the X79-based Rampage IV Black Edition.



The heatsink arrangement puts the eight-phase power delivery connected to the extended rear-IO cover, with the main purpose of this cover to remove the look of the normal silver on the tops of the IO ports and keep the look intact. There is another heatsink below the socket and another for the chipset. The heatsink below the socket is in an awkward location as it kind of blocks the latch for the first PCIe slot when a large GPU is installed, making it difficult to remove GPUs without a screwdriver which could, with a slip of the hand, end up removing a component.

The DRAM slots are color coded in red and black with an onboard listing to show which slots should be populated first (in this case, the red ones). These DRAM slots use single-sided latches in order to facilitate the first PCIe card, so users should ensure that the memory is firmly installed when building. The motherboard has eight fan headers, all 4-pin, with two CPU headers in the top right of the board, a CHA3B header just underneath that, two CHA1 headers to the left of the 24-pin ATX power connector, a CHA3A header to the bottom-left of the DRAM slots and two CHA2 headers at the bottom. This makes an interesting element to the design, something I have been mentioning to motherboard manufacturers on and off for about a year – one way to add headers on board is to have two connected to the same control, meaning they act together and have the same voltage applied depending on the settings. Here the Extreme has three sets of chassis headers (CHA1, CHA2, CHA3) which act as groups when it comes to fan speed and response settings for hardware and software. It is an incredibly easy design choice to make, and I am surprised it has taken one of the high end ASUS models to use the paradigm to its fullest.



At the top right of the motherboard is the ‘OC Section’, giving power/reset buttons, a two-digit debug display, PCIe disabling switches, a slow mode switch, a MemOK button, a retry button, a safe boot button and voltage read points. There is also a small number of LEDs beneath the voltage read points to indicate which part of the POST process is currently in action.

On the X79 Extreme, all the overclocking options were onboard and a bundled display adapter for DVI-D was provided. However the X99 Extreme has gone the way of the X79 Black Edition which uses a separate bundled OC Panel with a display to be able to change and view frequencies and voltages on the fly. It also doubles up as a fan controller for system builds.



We covered the OC Panel is great detail in our review of the X79 Black Edition so we won’t say much more here, except that if we look under the panel:



Here we get four additional fan headers, a slow mode switch, a pause switch, two VGA headers for voltage sensing and manipulation, with voltage points and supplementary SATA power as well. By partitioning some of these elements off to the panel, it allows for less complexity on the board for design as well as when it comes to RMA. At this point it might be worth mentioning that I rarely see extreme overclockers using the OC Panel outside of the basic controls due to the increase in VGA capabilities of external power cards. That being said, the OC Panel is designed to work as a display in a case as well with fan options, information on CPU temperatures and so forth.



Moving below the OC section on the motherboard gives us a PCIe 3.0 x4 M.2 slot which accepts PCIe drives at 2260, 2280 and 22110 dimensions (22x60mm, 22x80mm, 22x110mm). One of the USB 3.0 headers is here in red, and then follows a total of twelve SATA ports. The X99 chipset supports two AHCI controllers – one with RAID for six SATA ports, and one without for four SATA ports. Here the top six have RAID, whereas the next two do not. The X99 Extreme also has two SATA Express ports – one from the chipset and another via an ASMedia controller. Given the state of the market on SATA Express, it makes me wonder if we will ever see any commercial drives for it.



Below the SATA ports is the Keybot reset button, two SATA Express clock connections and a Thunderbolt header required for Thunderbolt use. The main bottom side of the motherboard also includes a BIOS Switch button for flicking between the BIOS chips, a front panel header, the OC Panel header (called ROG_EXT) which also has a USB 2.0 header, another USB 2.0 header, a second USB 3.0 header, the two Winbond 128Mb BIOS chips, a Soundstage button, a thermistor temperature sensor header, a TPM header, a four-pin molex for extra PCIe power and the front panel audio. Perhaps somewhat unfortunately we get a molex PCIe power connecter here for VGA power in 3-4 card situations – personally I prefer an extra 6-pin PCIe or a SATA power connector, but at this point due to how the board is designed the molex is the easiest to accomplish here.



The audio subsystem uses SupremeFX, ASUS’ brand for an enhanced Realtek ALC1150 solution with several added features. On the top are standard improved features – PCB separation of the audio channels as well as analog/digital signals, an electromagnetic shield for the codec itself, filter caps for the front panel audio and automatic headphone detection for low and high impedance headsets. The feature that users might not be familiar with is SoundStage which performs a configurable hardware based transform on the audio signal though the software. It comes with for presets for typical gaming scenarios (Driving, FPS and so on), although users can configure their own.



The PCIe layout might be a little difficult to get around. With 40 PCIe lane CPUs, the processor supplies x16/x8/x16/- in tri-GPU mode through the red slots or x16/x8/x8/x8 in quad mode. When the M.2 x4 is connected, the bottom PCIe slot reduces down to x4 mode, which means that quad-SLI is only available when the M.2 is not in use. With the i7-5820K, this reduces down to x16/-/x8 for dual graphics and x8/x8/x8 for three-way, leaving the bottom red slot disabled.



The black slot in the middle is a PCIe 2.0 x4 slot, which also comes with its own oddities. It can work in x1, x2 or x4 mode, and shares bandwidth with the first PCIe 2.0 x1 slot, two USB 3.0 ports on the rear panel and the top ASMedia SATA Express connector. When the PCIe x4 slot is in x4 mode, the USB ports, the PCIe x1 and the SATA Express are all disabled. When the PCIe x4 slot is in x2 or x1 mode, the PCIe x1 and USB3 ports are enabled, and SATA Express is only enabled with the PCIe x4 slot is disabled. In other words:



Here lies on of the fundamental issues to supporting many technologies on the same product. At some point you run out of bandwidth or space for routing, so in the end some features become an either/or scenario. The product is marketed as having them all, but the reality is split. Luckily in this case SATA Express is of limited use, and losing two SATA ports out of 12 is not that much of a loss when there are other PCIe slots available



The rear panel is practically full, and it comes enclosed in the shroud fitted to the motherboard. The shroud is designed to complete the look of the motherboard by removing the silvery IO ports from sight. On the back itself we get Clear CMOS and ROG Connect buttons, two USB 2.0 ports (bottom port for ROG Connect), a PS/2 combination port, 10 USB 3.0 ports (from ASMedia hubs), an Intel I218-V network port, the 802.11ac 3T3R dual band WiFi module and the audio jacks with an more gold plating. Two things are worth noting here – the network port is part of ASUS’ GameFirst III strategy which includes LANGuard shielding and surge protection, but also that the BIOS Flashback utility has been moved from a rear button to the same as the ROG Connect and USB port.

Board Features

ASUS ROG Rampage V Extreme (X99)
PriceUS
SizeE-ATX
CPU InterfaceLGA2011-3
ChipsetIntel X99
Memory SlotsEight DDR4 DIMM slots supporting up to 64 GB
Up to Quad Channel, 1600-3300 MHz
Video OutputsNone
Network ConnectivityIntel I218-V
Dual Band 3T3R 802.11ac
Onboard AudioRealtek ALC1150 (via SupremeFX)
Expansion Slots4 x PCIe 3.0 x16
- 40 PCIe CPU: x16, x16/x16, x16/x8/x8, x16/x8/x8/x8
- 28 PCIe CPU: x16, x16/x8, x8/x8/x8
1 x PCIe 2.0 x4
1 x PCIe 2.0 x1
Onboard Storage6 x SATA 6 Gbps, RAID 0/1/5/10
4 x S_SATA 6 Gbps, no RAID
2 x SATA 6 Gbps via ASMedia
1 x SATA Express (PCH)
1 x SATA Express (ASMedia)
1 x PCIe 3.0 x4 M.2 (2260/2280/22110)
USB 3.06 x USB 3.0 via PCH (2 headers, 2 rear panel ports)
10 x USB 3.0 via ASMedia Hubs (8 rear panel ports)
Onboard12 x SATA 6 Gbps
2 x SATA Express
1 x M.2 x4
2 x USB 3.0 Headers
2 x USB 2.0 Headers
8 x Fan Headers
TPM Header
Thunderbolt Header
MemOK! Button
Slow Mode Switch
9 x Voltage Measurement Points
3 x Thernal Sensors
Power/Reset Buttons
BIOS Switch
LN2 Mode Jumper
ROG Extension Header
Keybot Button
SoundStage Button
Safe Boot Button
ReTry Button
Front Panel Audio Header
Front Panel Header
Power Connectors1 x 24-pin ATX
1 x 8-pin CPU
1 x Molex (for PCIe)
Fan Headers1 x CPU (4-pin)
1 x CPU_OPT (4-pin)
6 x CHA (4-pin)
IO Panel1 x PS/2 Combination Port
1 x Intel I218-V Network Port
2 x USB 2.0
10 x USB 3.0 via ASMedia
Clear CMOS Button
ROG Connect Button
WiFi Module (3T3R 802.11ac)
Audio Jacks
Warranty Period3 Years
Product PageLink

ASUS Rampage V Extreme BIOS
There are a couple of interesting statistics that I want to see but I bet I’ll never be able to get a representative sample. These questions include, but are not limited to:

- How many users ever use the BIOS?
- How many users overclock? Using the BIOS, Software or other?
- What percentage of users ever update the BIOS?
- To those that do not use the BIOS, what stops you?

Actually, that last question might come with an answer, perhaps relating to fear, lack of experience or lack of interest. The same thing goes with the bundled software, incidentally enough. But the simple matter of this comes down to the fact that these motherboards are designed to plug and play, without any user needing to configure options. Bundle in a CPU, some DRAM, a graphics card, storage and an operating system and you’re pretty much set – at least that’s the theory.

Motherboard manufacturers update the BIOS as new hardware comes out to improve compatibility, fix bugs or introduce new features. Some of these are under-the-hood, others have a more active role, especially when compatibility is concerned. This often requires a user to go through the BIOS to update it, or using the manufacturer software. A decade ago, the issue was always that firmware updates could brick the motherboard if they fail in the middle, and I would envisage that an element of that still exists in the zeitgeist. Over the past decade, we now get dual BIOS chips on most reasonable motherboards in case this happens, but the process is still a little cumbersome on all but a few implementations. Is there a way to fix this?

The reason I bring this up is partly the reason I like to go through a manufacturer’s BIOS. (Personally I always refer to it as a BIOS, rather than a UEFI/EFI, as to avoid confusion.) As part of the firmware we essentially have the essence of the motherboard, and it holds a number of key enhancements or marketable features that the manufacturers like to promote. It can also be the source of many woes, which I have found to my detriment in the past, or wholly influence the performance of a product from BIOS to BIOS, making testing and reviewing a little difficult without a rigid procedure in place.  Despite the fact that (I believe) few users ever update the BIOS, before we test we do typically update it to the latest public release. Unless there are serious problems, I refuse to use emailed BIOSes, merely to avoid the opportunity of a ‘media enhanced’ firmware. I want to use what our readers end up with after all.

As a motherboard manufacturer, ASUS like the others does like to promote its BIOS features. Every year, for good reason, several tech media outlets are introduced by the ASUS technical marketing and engineers through the latest updates, how to use them, and why they have implemented them. The goal here is for writers like myself to accurately portray the features at hand, rather than stumble across something at review time and write it off due to lack of knowledge. Of course, some features make sense and are actually pretty good, and others might need another design cycle, but most of the motherboard manufacturers are at least reactive to our thoughts here at AnandTech, including those of our readers. Fundamental changes to the BIOS take time, sometimes in the order of quarters, but other tweaks can occur in weeks or days, depending on what they are. I’m happy to say that ASUS and others have at least implemented a few of our thoughts, or at least the essence of them, over the years.

One of the benefits of the BIOS, being what it is means that some features are platform agnostic and easier to transfer over. As a result, for example on the ASUS boards, we see a consistent EZ Mode/Advanced Mode design, with features like QFan controls being pervasive across most of the range: 




This front screen is the EZ Mode of ASUS’ BIOS, implemented to give somewhat of a ‘system-at-a-glance’ for users. We get the board name, BIOS version, CPU installed, CPU frequency, CPU temperature, CPU voltage, DRAM installed on a per module basis, SATA information, boot order, fan speeds, a boot menu and the fan profile for the CPU fan. I have remarked on the level of detail I like to see when entering the BIOS, and what ASUS provides upon entry is essentially what I need if I am examining a system for the first time without opening the case. From this screen users can also enable XMP on the left hand side, adjust the boot order by drag and drop, perform quick tuning or move into the graphical fan controls.



Selecting QFan Control shows the four different CPU fan groups, all controllable by PWM or DC, and here I have selected the manual fan option which allows the gradient adjustment.

One of my gripes about fan controls over the past two years is that the output of the fan can be given in two ways – either by RPM (or % of max RPM) or by voltage input. What annoys me is when motherboard manufacturers confuse the two, because voltage input is not proportional to RPM and most fans have a dead-zone or a non-linear curve. As a result, 50% power might be 30% RPM or 60% RPM, depending on how the fan is made. This can be confusing to a non-expert, and the only way to ensure you have it right is to appropriately label the axes on the graph but also to perform fan testing. ASUS does provide a fan testing tool, but this graph only shows ‘%’ as the axis and says ‘fan’s operating speed’ at the top, which makes no mention of RPM, % of RPM or applied fan voltage. /end gripe



For easier overclocking, ASUS did introduce the EZ Tuning Wizard last year to help people overclock their system. In OC mode, it asks the user to choose from a list of system uses (Office, Gaming) and then the type of CPU cooler being used (box cooler, tower cooler, water cooler, unknown). Using this information and what the BIOS already knows in the system, it will suggest and implement an appropriate overclock that should factor 95%+ of production processors and DRAM. In the lucky event when you might not have a good processor, the system is designed to automatically recover from a failed boot.



Here it suggested a 23% CPU increase, and no improvement on the DRAM. Users can either cancel, go back and adjust the options, or implement the overclock with a reboot by clicking Next.

For experienced users, the Advanced mode is the place to go to have better granularity for overclocking and chipset options. By virtue of the ROG line and the fact that this is the X99 Rampage V Extreme, there will be a few more overclocking options compared to regular channel motherboards.



At the top of the Advanced Mode is a more stereotypical front page for a motherboard, giving lists of numbers associated with firmware versions and basic system information



Extreme Tweaker holds the overclocking options, implemented somewhat as a long list with several sub-menu options. At the top we have the ‘target’ numbers showing the user what speed the system will be if the options are saved. Personally I think this info needs to move into the Hardware Monitor section on the right, so it stays persistent when the user scrolls through the options.

Also at the top is a sub-menu for overclocking presets, which in our BIOS offered the following:



Because the Rampage V Extreme is for gamers, overclockers and extreme overclockers (those who use liquid nitrogen to get frequency and performance records), there are options for all. In this case a gamer can implement the OC Profiles for either a 6-core (5820K) or 8-core (5930K, 5960X) CPUs, whereas extreme overclockers might want the DRAM OC profiles.



The ROG teams who work on the X99 Extreme are very proud of their DRAM knowledge, and so one of the focal points for this board is the memory section which derives from the board design to firmware capability. Here we have our regular list of sub-timings, along with an indication of the per-channel numbers. The Memory Presets menu gives an interesting list:



ASUS has gone through most of the high end memory kits and provided overclocking sub-timing packages for them. Some extreme overclockers find this useful, and so it is included. Also it is worth noting that at the top we have an IC Analyzer option, which states the following:



It gives a set of instructions so the user can find out if they have Micron, Hynix or Samsung integrated circuits on their DRAM. Unfortunately DRAM vendors like to hide/obfuscate the memory they are using due to the way the market is highly competitive, and different ICs can overclock at different rates, so having a way to determine which is which can be very helpful if you know what you are doing



At the bottom of the DRAM tuning sub-menu are a series of options relating to memory training when the machine is first turned on. X99 as a platform has stricter requirements for DRAM than previous platforms, and various parameters need to be optimized during post. These can technically be disabled here in order to improve POST times but it is not recommended as the user may end up with a less stable system as a result. Many of these optimizations are due to how silicon behaves as a function of temperature and age, and by doing them it enables the system to read and write knowing that there’s less chance of an error by aligning correctly.



A feature on most of ASUS’ models over last few years has been related to digital power, and the control therein. This allows the user, who is typically an overclocker, to adjust how the processor reacts to voltage drop as a result of load, or switching frequencies when load is applied. The power phases for the system can also be pushed beyond regular limitations, as well as thermal control. Normally for simple overclocking we adjust the load line calibration to ensure consistent voltage application when overclocked. This typically comes at the expense of power consumption and temperature, but improves stability.


Overclockers can also adjust the turbo mode parameters, in particular the CPU response to high power drain loads and whether to keep turbo mode active in such scenarios.
One feature ASUS likes to promote, particularly for overclockers that only require a few cores, is that ASUS can enable/disable each of the cores on the CPU individually. This allows the user to select the best 1/2/3/4 cores on the silicon die to get the best frequencies.
One feature I enjoy is being able to see what is installed where and at what speed. We have some of that with the DRAM in EZ mode, but ASUS does not implement something like Board Explorer which we see on ASRock and MSI products. Instead we get a feature like this shown above, where it shows the PCIe slots, which ones are installed and at what speed. Users can adjust the linked speed of each slot as well. Normally a user might adjust this due to compatibility with some PCIe cards, or if an internal failure caused the CPU to no longer support high PCIe speed.
In the previous page we noted that the PCIe configuration, particularly when multiple GPUs, the M.2 slot or the black PCIe 2.0 x4 are in use. The Onboard Devices Configuration menu is where the user can enable and disable various features in order to make sure they have the right stuff enabled and where the bandwidth goes. In the last page I mentioned that despite motherboards being advertised with X, Y and Z, sometimes not all of them can be enabled at once – this onboard devices menu is where the fate of your features is decided. It is worth noting that ASMedia’s battery charging support for the two rear IO USB 3.0 ports was disabled by default in our BIOS. Users will need to re-enable it to get access to this feature.
The Monitor menu gives a long list of all the temperature sensors, fan speeds and voltages detectable on the motherboard, including the data from the three optional thermal sensors if a user implements thermistors on the appropriate headers. We also get the basic implementation of the fan controls, similar to the old style we used to see:
Users can select which mode the fan group is in, a minimum speed, a preset profile or a manual adjustment based on a two point gradient.
The Boot tab gives options for fast booting modes, adjustment of the boot logo, what do to in the event of a booting error and boot override that allows for a one-time boot from a different storage device.
A lot of the ROG specific features can be found in the Tool menu. We’ve covered a lot of these before, but a brief rundown:
GPU Post: More detailed information about PCIe devices
EZ Flash 2: Update the BIOS
Secure Erase: Perform a complete wipe-to-zero for an SSD, restoring performance but losing data
OC Profile: Save sets overclocking settings for use in different scenarios
BIOS Flashback: Restore/update from the other BIOS
OC Panel H-Key: Implement a set of overclock options at push of a button
SPD Information: Detail about the DRAM installed
One last feature to mention is My Favorites:
Overclockers can indicate a series of options they like and get them copied into a custom menu, making it easier to scroll through the options that matter to their overclock. For example, these are the options we usually adjust for manual 24/7 overclocking. The only downside here is that there is not an option to boot straight into the My Favorites menu – instead the user needs to navigate each time.

ASUS Rampage V Extreme Software

At the beginning of the previous section, I asked some perhaps unanswerable questions relating to BIOS usage. I could easily flip them around and point them in the direction of the bundled software that comes with motherboards:
- How many users ever use the software?
- How many users overclock? Using the BIOS, Software or other?
- What percentage of users ever update the software?
- To those that do not use the software, what stops you?
Some of these numbers could be obtained by the manufacturer automatically if the user was connected to the internet (but they do not get this info, no need to worry). But the last question we could get some responses to. Off the top of my head, the three most common that I have heard come down to usability (or lack thereof), or that it’s useless, or they don’t want to use it. Similar to the smartphone space, there’s a general element of malaise that comes with buying hardware from a manufacturer but also then using software from the same company. In this case we’re not fighting complete UI rearrangement, but a couple of tools that might improve usage / update software as required. On one side it is a little baffling as it is such a minor thing, but on the other it only takes a bad experience to be put off.
Getting the right balance of usability, suitability of tools and design can be a tough one, especially when it used to be so bad. Now most of the manufacturers get users to access their tools through a singular interface, or at least a repetitive designed interface, rather than bundling 7 different tools at once. The problem here lies in the fact that there are two different tools: ones made by the manufacturer, and ones to which the manufacturer has a license to distribute. For example, with the right Realtek license, a motherboard manufacturer can reskin the audio software and even code in their own features. Similarly on the networking side, depending on what sort of redistribution license the manufacturer has with cFos, they can just bundle the cFos software, or enhance it with a manufacturer logo/skin, or add in their own algorithms and tools. Actually, most manufacturers bundle cFos because it is network controller agnostic, and the Realtek software is relatively bad. In this circumstance, Killer sits in the middle (but on the bad side of middle).
ASUS attacks the software front harder than most other manufacturers. This isn’t just as a result of iterative gains – over the past four years there has been a couple of complete redesigns and adjustments (moving from one coding platform to another, for example) in an attempt to realign itself with the customer base. Most of ASUS’ tools come under the AI Suite banner, though there are a few which have separate icons on the desktop.
ASUS Boot Setting is a tool to enable Fast Boot without going into the BIOS, but also allows users to go into the BIOS with a reboot and without having to press DEL/F2 in order to get there. I actually use the DirectBIOS button a fair amount when testing, particularly after a completed overclock test and when it’s time to adjust the settings.
Bundled on the CD is a version of CPU-Z, software commonly used by overclockers for frequency verification of the CPU and DRAM. This is an example of licensed software that ASUS has been able to reskin and add a logo for. The purpose of this was to make the screenshots proving overclockers’ scores and to promote the use of ROG hardware for those scores. That being said, the software is platform agnostic and works just as well in competitor brand G, M and ASR, some of whom also have their own variants of CPU-Z.
Keybot was launched last year with ROG motherboards, allowing users to assign macros to the various F keys on the keyboard. Here’s an interesting statistic for you: I have been running the program WhatPulse for 6+ years and it tracks my key presses and clicks on each of my systems separately. I am writing this on my UX301 which I purchased Q2 last year, and since then I have typed 1.12 million keys, and this is the rate of which I have pressed the F1 to F10 keys in that time:
F1: 5
F2: 2228
F3: 13
F4: 24
F5: 350
F6: 5
F7: 8
F8: 0
F9: 1
F10: 0
The evidence is in. I press F2 a lot because it’s the shortcut to rename a file or a cell in Excel, and F5 for webpage refreshing. F5 might seem low, but I have a touch screen which is perhaps a little easier to refresh with large buttons installed. (For those interested, the space bar came out top with 137k, and the backspace at 54k. I make a lot of mistakes.)
My point here about using F-keys for macros is this: I hardly ever use most of my F-keys. That makes them the perfect target for macros, and it somewhat alleviates the need for a keyboard with macros. Keybot stores its macros within a chip on the motherboard, allowing for persistent use in other operating systems or when the software isn’t running.
The macros can be assigned to keys, programs or quick-use features such as ‘Block WinKey’ which can be an important feature in gaming.
On the grand scheme of things, Keybot is a simple macro recorder that uses onboard hardware to keep persistent macros. Something like AutoHotKey is invariably a lot more powerful, but lacks that persistent implementation feature.
It is worth noting that the Smart Input method allows a string of characters to be input at once, something that might be used for passwords and such. ASUS has noted on this page that the recorded sequence stored on the Keybot chip is not encrypted, so if you subsequently sell the motherboard without resetting the Keybot profile, the new user might get a hold of it (if they figure out what it is). I also do not suggest realigning each macro to a funny phrase when you sell the motherboard either. I mean you can do it, and it would be quite funny if you’re selling to a friend, but I don’t suggest it.
MemTweakIt falls under the overclocking realm of the software package, allowing users to adjust most of the timings of their DRAM on the fly. None of these options have guidelines over how to adjust them – MemTweakIt is thus reliant on the user doing some research into what each option means and how to adjust it appropriately.
In previous generations, ASUS has used a skinned version of cFos as its network management software, but on the release of GameFirst III, I was told that it was a wholly new program built in-house. It would seem that ASUS found it more cost effective to start from the ground up in basic network management than continue to pay for cFos licenses. It was launched with the Z97 ROG series, and we also get it here. Due to the way it works, it requests a speed test to begin and then asks which workload is a priority:
This implements a predefined hierarchy for various common programs, but allows users to add their own.
With the recent launch of large memory kits, such as those from G.Skill and Corsair using 16GB modules for a peak total of 128GB in an X99 system, now would be the best time to bring up the concept of RAMDisks. For those new to the term, a RAMDisk is a section of DRAM that can be used like a storage device. It offers lightning fast access times, but the downside is that the contents are purged when the system is rebooted (and you are also limited by space). RAMDisks can help when it comes to temporary file generation for these reasons. There are a variety of RAMDisk software in the market, most of them are not free ($30+) or have limitations (e.g. 4GB max), but ASUS bundles some with ROG motherboards.
The software determines the maximum memory in the system (in this case 16GB), how much is currently in use, and how much is free. The user can then select a drive letter, how much memory to allocate, and then off you go. In the screenshot above, we created the Q: drive with 8GB of storage. There is a small danger that using a RAMDisk will deplete available memory for the system, and as a result ASUS has an option for dynamic memory allocation which will adjust the size of the RAMDisk if you are hitting limits.
It is worth noting that it takes some time for RAMDisks to be enabled. When launching the program a warning pops up, stating that if RAMDisks are loaded when the machine is turned on, it can delay startup time by 2 minutes for a 16GB RAMDisk, so keep this in mind.
ASUS also offers a tool to create symbolic links between directories in the drive and the RAMDisk, which is how temp file arrangement would happen. The software would dump the temp file into the regular spot, but the symbolic link causes it to be redirected automatically (without the program knowing) into the RAMDisk. As mentioned previously, contents are wiped when the system is restarted.
Sonic Radar II is the next iteration of the tool that ASUS has bundled that allows for an onscreen display of localized audio. It half sounds complicated, but what this means is that during a game, if someone is walking down a path to your right, the onscreen display would show that the noise you hear is coming from your right. For people involved in twitch type gaming (such as first person shooters) who do not have a directional audio setup, it might aid reaction times as long as the display is not a distraction. With SR2, the visual implementation can be adjusted in size/transparency, but also the response can be altered.
Sonic Radar can be optimized for different frequency ranges depending on the game, as shown above. It is worth noting that some of this requires numerical transformation of audio signals from the time domain to the frequency domain, and as a result might take some CPU cycles.
AI Suite
The main software package is AI Suite. This first section is part of ASUS’ 5 Way Optimization, giving five tools to help with power, performance and control. There are several presets up the top, or the user can manipulate each setting as required.
TPU is first, standing for ‘Turbo Processing Unit’, and is the heart of the overclocking options. A lot of what we see here is similar to the list we saw in the BIOS, perhaps focusing on slightly fewer options that are higher priority. The beauty here is that with software we should be able to represent these values in a more graphical and aesthetically pleasing way, which is somewhat achieved. It is worth noticing that it was more graphical on the Z87 variants of this software.
The fan options are also part of AI Suite, giving presets or the ability to adjust each fan group manually. The option in the bottom left here does some fan testing to allow each graph to tune for the characteristics of the fan.
Here we see a fan that has no response below 20%, and only hits the stride until 40%. ASUS lists the controllable range as 34%-100%, and we can see from the graph that the curve is non-linear.
With this information at hand, the manual fan options show the user that the red area is the ‘dead zone’ with little effect from the fan spinning if it spins at all. As noted in the BIOS, the graph axis here just says ‘%’, not indicating if it is fan power or a % of fan RPM, but based on the testing on the right hand side it is clear that we have the y-axis as fan power.
Another element to AI Suite is the digital power management, and much like the BIOS we have options here for power phase control, thermal control, switching frequencies and load-line calibration. These options all have detailed explanations on the right hand side but are also represented slightly graphically to make them easier to see.
A newer element to AI Suite is Turbo App which implements overclocks based on software priority. Much in the same way that GameFirst prioritizes network traffic, TurboApp finds the program currently running with the highest priority and implements an overclock or priority setting appropriately. The purpose for this is mainly older games that focus on single core speed rather than overall overclock.
For example here we can select the overclock for a program, but also determine the Audio effect, the network priority and the fan profile to implement, integrating many features at once. If anything, even without overclocking, it allows the user to run different network and fan profiles for gaming and non-gaming.
The EPU, or Energy Processing Unit, runs a series of sensors around the motherboard to monitor efficiency and allows the user to focus on several areas that might improve power usage such as disabling ports when not in use.
Also as part of the 5-Way Optimization ethos, AI Suite has an automatic overclock mode which uses the five programs above to hit various overclocks. We list our results on the next page in the overclock section.
AI Suite also comes with several more options by clicking the link in the top right of the software. We’ve been over these extensively in previous reviews, though a quick rundown on each:
AI Charger: Allows quick charging on BC1.1 compliant devices on certain USB ports.
USB 3.1 Boost: For suitable devices, implements a newer USB protocol to improve USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 speed.
EZ Update: Connect to the web to download updates. I’ve never had it work though.
System Information: Breakdown of the hardware specifications for motherboard, CPU and DRAM.
USB BIOS Flashback: Prepare a USB with a BIOS for updating, or save the current BIOS.
USB Charger: Allows for fast charging while in sleep/hibernate on certain ports only.
Push Notice: Setup a messaging system to another device in case of system errors.

ASUS Rampage V Extreme In The Box

For the products that attempt to encompass both gaming and overclocking in one big mental Venn diagram, the box contents should be aptly scrutinized. Any extra has to be suitable to both parties in order to optimize the value of the product, but also the extras have to introduce a community feeling should users want to take that route. Perhaps ASUS could sell a plain packaged Rampage V Extreme and it would sell just as well, but for buying the big bundle we get the following:
Driver CD
Manuals
Rear IO Panel
ROG OC Panel + ODD Bay Adapter
ROG Door Hanger
WiFi Antenna
Three Thermistors
Ten SATA Cables
Flexi-SLI Bridge
Flexi-CFX Bridge
Rigid 2-way SLI Bridge
Rigid 3-way SLI Bridge
Being a multi-GPU gaming motherboard, it would have been a little naughty to not include 3 or 4-way bridges, but they are included. I’m surprised by the ten SATA cables, but then again as a high end motherboard you might expect the most and more of it.  ASUS is pushing the thermal control by bundling three thermistor cables, otherwise users would have to source them elsewhere. Notice that there is no longer any ROG Connect cable bundled.

Many thanks to...

We must thank the following companies for kindly providing hardware for our test bed:
Thank you to AMD for providing us with the R9 290X 4GB GPUs.
Thank you to ASUS for providing us with GTX 980 Strix GPUs and the R7 240 DDR3 GPU.
Thank you to ASRock and ASUS for providing us with some IO testing kit.
Thank you to Cooler Master for providing us with Nepton 140XL CLCs.
Thank you to Corsair for providing us with an AX1200i PSU.
Thank you to Crucial for providing us with MX200 SSDs.
Thank you to G.Skill and Corsair for providing us with memory.
Thank you to MSI for providing us with the GTX 770 Lightning GPUs.
Thank you to OCZ for providing us with PSUs.
Thank you to Rosewill for providing us with PSUs and RK-9100 keyboards.
For our 2015 testing, I must give shout-outs to a couple of companies for providing us with test bed equipment.
First up is ASUS, who sourced us three of their GTX 980 Strix 4GB cards. The GTX 980 sits second in the NVIDIA graphics card stack below the Titan X, but each card is designed to push gaming to the maximum settings in single monitor scenarios. Specifically with the Strix, ASUS is targeting it more along their mainstream line, compared to some of the highly overclocked cards, but the feature I like is the fact that the fans do not spin until some serious graphics rendering is required. Sitting on the test bed it almost seems odd to be doing most of the desktop oriented benchmarks and have the fans for the graphics card not spinning. Two fans per card and large heatpipes help with heat distribution, and the GTX 980 Strix can be picked up at Amazon or Newegg for around $550 a piece.
Since I started reviewing as the Senior Editor for AnandTech back in 2011, some of the first samples I received were SSDs from OCZ for our testbeds. These have been rocksteady since then, but due to our new gaming regimen, 128GB for an OS drive and 128GB for a benchmark drive started becoming too little. After meeting with Crucial at CES this year, they volunteered four of their highest capacity 1TB MX200 SSDs which we partition into 250GB/750GB segments. This suits our 300GB gaming suite just great, as well as room for expansion in the future. The MX200 builds on the success of the MX100, with Kristian’s recent reviewhighlighting its features. The drives currently retail for around $110 for 250GB$200 for 500GB and $427 for the 1TB model.

Test Setup

Test Setup
ProcessorIntel Core i7-5960X ES 
8 Cores, 16 Threads, 3.0 GHz (3.5 GHz Turbo)
MotherboardsASUS Rampage V Extreme (X99)
CoolingCooler Master Nepton 140XL
Power SupplyOCZ 1250W Gold ZX Series 
Corsair AX1200i Platinum PSU
MemoryCorsair DDR4-2133 C15 4x8 GB 1.2V or 
G.Skill Ripjaws 4 DDR4-2133 C15 4x8 GB 1.2V
Memory SettingsJEDEC @ 2133
Video CardsMSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB (1150/1202 Boost) 
ASUS R7 240 2GB
Hard DriveCrucial MX200 1TB
Optical DriveLG GH22NS50
CaseOpen Test Bed
Operating SystemWindows 7 64-bit SP1

ASUS Rampage V Extreme Overclocking



Experience with ASUS Rampage V Extreme


The Extreme has always been about overclocking, and thus for the casual gamer ASUS provides both the Turbo Processing Unit (TPU) physically on the motherboard and CPU Level Up in software for an easier method to get to 4.0-4.4 GHz.
Options are expanded in software for enthusiasts, though for the meat of the pie you have to go into the BIOS. With LN2 mode enabled, sub-zero and competitive coolers should be satisfied with the level of options. Here's where we perform our manual overclocking tests. Extreme users can also equip the OC Panel which allows for voltage, multiplier and base frequency adjustments on the fly.
On the whole, our experience with the Extreme was reasonable in auto overclocking but manual settings somehow gave our mediocre CPU a not-so-impressive result. I double checked with both of our processors which are almost as bad as each other, but I wasn't able to gain anything secret through the system. We are using the Extreme in our DDR4 memory reviews (keep an eye out for those) and we've already seen DDR4-2133 at CL9 and some other modules at DDR4-3333, meaning it can stretch its legs in that regard.

Methodology

Our standard overclocking methodology is as follows. We select the automatic overclock options and test for stability with PovRay and OCCT to simulate high-end workloads. These stability tests aim to catch any immediate causes for memory or CPU errors.
For manual overclocks, based on the information gathered from previous testing, starts off at a nominal voltage and CPU multiplier, and the multiplier is increased until the stability tests are failed. The CPU voltage is increased gradually until the stability tests are passed, and the process repeated until the motherboard reduces the multiplier automatically (due to safety protocol) or the CPU temperature reaches a stupidly high level (100ºC+). Our test bed is not in a case, which should push overclocks higher with fresher (cooler) air.

Overclock Results

Since we have started reviewing X99 motherboards, I have had three i7-5960X CPUs. The first one, CPU1, was our better overclocking sample but has gone the way of the dodo and lives in some version of a silicon afterlife. I think it went where all the calculators go. The second CPU, CPU2, is a really bad overclocker so we use that for mildly overclocked DRAM testing. When CPU1 went belly up, we immediately sourced a third CPU. After testing CPU3 on a number of motherboards, it wasn’t much better than CPU2. But with the Rampage V Extreme, we tested CPU3 first:
Performance wasn’t anything spectacular, by virtue of the poor CPU, but my initial response was for at least 4.4 GHz. I also thought I had put in the wrong CPU to test, but I then put in CPU2 and got worse:
This isn’t a knock at the Rampage V Extreme, but my CPUs are pretty bad. In most boards CPU3 gets 4.3-4.4 GHz, so we can only point to the fact that our voltage was a little higher in the RVE than other boards, resulting in an overheat/BSOD during our high CPU stability test. Perhaps I should build a cold box, or move to Canada/Finland – it might be worth a few MHz here and there.


System Performance

Power Consumption

Power consumption was tested on the system while in a single MSI GTX 770 Lightning GPU configuration with a wall meter connected to the OCZ 1250W power supply. This power supply is Gold rated, and as I am in the UK on a 230-240 V supply, leads to ~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.
Power Consumption: Long Idle with GTX 770
Power Consumption: Idle with GTX 770
Power Consumption: OCCT Load with GTX 770
Power Consumption for X99 seems to hover around three points in our test – 200W, 220W and 240W. This puts the Rampage V Extreme in the middle, with similarly placed idle and long idle results.

Windows 7 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 7 starts loading. (We discount Windows loading as it is highly variable given Windows specific features.) 
Windows 7 POST Time - Default
Windows 7 POST Time - Stripped
Typically the more hardware features we have, the longer the time to post. In this circumstance the Extreme does well, and the holy grail of 20 seconds for X99 is not too far away. One of the big issues with X99, as we mentioned earlier in the review, is that DRAM training can take up to 50% of this time but is a necessary part in order to ensure stability.

Rightmark Audio Analyzer 6.2.5

Rightmark:AA indicates how well the sound system is built and isolated from electrical interference (either internally or externally). For this test we connect the Line Out to the Line In using a short six inch 3.5mm to 3.5mm high-quality jack, turn the OS speaker volume to 100%, and run the Rightmark default test suite at 192 kHz, 24-bit. The OS is tuned to 192 kHz/24-bit input and output, and the Line-In volume is adjusted until we have the best RMAA value in the mini-pretest. We look specifically at the Dynamic Range of the audio codec used on board, as well as the Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise.
Rightmark: AA, Dynamic Range, 24-bit / 192 kHz
Rightmark: AA, THD+N, 24-bit / 192 kHz
Similar to the X99 Deluxe, the Extreme performs very well here.

USB Backup

For this benchmark, we transfer a set size of files from the SSD to the USB drive using DiskBench, which monitors the time taken to transfer. The files transferred are a 1.52 GB set of 2867 files across 320 folders – 95% of these files are small typical website files, and the rest (90% of the size) are small 30 second HD videos. In an update to pre-Z87 testing, we also run MaxCPU to load up one of the threads during the test which improves general performance up to 15% by causing all the internal pathways to run at full speed.
USB 2.0 Copy TimesUSB 3.0 Copy Times
All of our USB 3.0 results have hovered between 11.4 and 12.0 with a couple of outliers, so it is good to see an 11.4 second result.

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.
DPC Latency
Under 100 microseconds. Tick.



CPU Performance

Readers of our motherboard review section will have noted the trend in modern motherboards to implement a form of MultiCore Enhancement / Acceleration / Turbo (read our report here) on their motherboards. This does several things, including better benchmark results at stock settings (not entirely needed if overclocking is an end-user goal) at the expense of heat and temperature. It also gives in essence an automatic overclock which may be against what the user wants. Our testing methodology is ‘out-of-the-box’, with the latest public BIOS installed and XMP enabled, and thus subject to the whims of this feature. It is ultimately up to the motherboard manufacturer to take this risk – and manufacturers taking risks in the setup is something they do on every product (think C-state settings, USB priority, DPC Latency / monitoring priority, memory subtimings at JEDEC). Processor speed change is part of that risk, and ultimately if no overclocking is planned, some motherboards will affect how fast that shiny new processor goes and can be an important factor in the system build.
For reference, the ASUS X99 Rampage V Extreme does implement MultiCore Turbo.

Video Conversion – Handbrake v0.9.9: link

Handbrake is a media conversion tool that was initially designed to help DVD ISOs and Video CDs into more common video formats. The principle today is still the same, primarily as an output for H.264 + AAC/MP3 audio within an MKV container. In our test we use the same videos as in the Xilisoft test, and results are given in frames per second.
HandBrake v0.9.9 LQ Film
HandBrake v0.9.9 2x4K

Rendering – PovRay 3.7: link

The Persistence of Vision RayTracer, or PovRay, is a freeware package for as the name suggests, ray tracing. It is a pure renderer, rather than modeling software, but the latest beta version contains a handy benchmark for stressing all processing threads on a platform. We have been using this test in motherboard reviews to test memory stability at various CPU speeds to good effect – if it passes the test, the IMC in the CPU is stable for a given CPU speed. As a CPU test, it runs for approximately 2-3 minutes on high end platforms.
POV-Ray 3.7 Beta RC4

Point Calculations – 3D Movement Algorithm Test: link

3DPM is a self-penned benchmark, taking basic 3D movement algorithms used in Brownian Motion simulations and testing them for speed. High floating point performance, MHz and IPC wins in the single thread version, whereas the multithread version has to handle the threads and loves more cores. For a brief explanation of the platform agnostic coding behind this benchmark, see my forum post here.
3D Particle Movement: Single Threaded
3D Particle Movement: MultiThreaded

Compression – WinRAR 5.0.1: link

Our WinRAR test from 2013 is updated to the latest version of WinRAR at the start of 2014. We compress a set of 2867 files across 320 folders totaling 1.52 GB in size – 95% of these files are small typical website files, and the rest (90% of the size) are small 30 second 720p videos.
WinRAR 5.01, 2867 files, 1.52 GB

Image Manipulation – FastStone Image Viewer 4.9: link

Similarly to WinRAR, the FastStone test us updated for 2014 to the latest version. FastStone is the program I use to perform quick or bulk actions on images, such as resizing, adjusting for color and cropping. In our test we take a series of 170 images in various sizes and formats and convert them all into 640x480 .gif files, maintaining the aspect ratio. FastStone does not use multithreading for this test, and thus single threaded performance is often the winner.
FastStone Image Viewer 4.9

Synthetic – 7-Zip 9.2: link

As an open source compression tool, 7-Zip is a popular tool for making sets of files easier to handle and transfer. The software offers up its own benchmark, to which we report the result.
7-zip Benchmark



Gaming Performance 2014 on GTX 770

F1 2013

First up is F1 2013 by Codemasters. I am a big Formula 1 fan in my spare time, and nothing makes me happier than carving up the field in a Caterham, waving to the Red Bulls as I drive by (because I play on easy and take shortcuts). F1 2013 uses the EGO Engine, and like other Codemasters games ends up being very playable on old hardware quite easily. In order to beef up the benchmark a bit, we devised the following scenario for the benchmark mode: one lap of Spa-Francorchamps in the heavy wet, the benchmark follows Jenson Button in the McLaren who starts on the grid in 22nd place, with the field made up of 11 Williams cars, 5 Marussia and 5 Caterham in that order. This puts emphasis on the CPU to handle the AI in the wet, and allows for a good amount of overtaking during the automated benchmark. We test at 1920x1080 on Ultra graphical settings.
F1 2013 Single GPU, Average FPS
F1 2013 Single GPU, Minimum FPS
F1 2013 SLI, Average FPS
F1 2013 SLI, Minimum FPS

Bioshock Infinite

Bioshock Infinite was Zero Punctuation’s Game of the Year for 2013, uses the Unreal Engine 3, and is designed to scale with both cores and graphical prowess. We test the benchmark using the Adrenaline benchmark tool and the Xtreme (1920x1080, Maximum) performance setting, noting down the average frame rates and the minimum frame rates.
Bioshock Infinite Single GPU, Average FPS
Bioshock Infinite Single GPU, Minimum FPS
Bioshock Infinite SLI, Average FPS
Bioshock Infinite SLI, Minimum FPS

Tomb Raider

The next benchmark in our test is Tomb Raider. Tomb Raider is an AMD optimized game, lauded for its use of TressFX creating dynamic hair to increase the immersion in game. Tomb Raider uses a modified version of the Crystal Engine, and enjoys raw horsepower. We test the benchmark using the Adrenaline benchmark tool and the Xtreme (1920x1080, Maximum) performance setting, noting down the average frame rates and the minimum frame rates.
Tomb Raider Single GPU, Average FPS
Tomb Raider Single GPU, Minimum FPS
Tomb Raider SLI, Average FPS
Tomb Raider SLI, Minimum FPS

Sleeping Dogs

Sleeping Dogs is a benchmarking wet dream – a highly complex benchmark that can bring the toughest setup and high resolutions down into single figures. Having an extreme SSAO setting can do that, but at the right settings Sleeping Dogs is highly playable and enjoyable. We run the basic benchmark program laid out in the Adrenaline benchmark tool, and the Xtreme (1920x1080, Maximum) performance setting, noting down the average frame rates and the minimum frame rates.
Sleeping Dogs Single GPU, Average FPS
Sleeping Dogs Single GPU, Minimum FPS
Sleeping Dogs SLI, Average FPS
Sleeping Dogs SLI, Minimum FPS

Gaming Performance 2015

As we have not tested our mid-2015 suite on many products yet, we have relatively few results and these are included here for completeness. I've included a few CPU based results as well, to see perspective.

Alien: Isolation

If first person survival mixed with horror is your sort of thing, then Alien: Isolation, based off of the Alien franchise, should be an interesting title. Developed by The Creative Assembly and released in October 2014, Alien: Isolation has won numerous awards from Game Of The Year to several top 10s/25s and Best Horror titles, ratcheting up over a million sales by February 2015. Alien: Isolation uses a custom built engine which includes dynamic sound effects and should be fully multi-core enabled.
For low end graphics, we test at 720p with Ultra settings, whereas for mid and high range graphics we bump this up to 1080p, taking the average frame rate as our marker with a scripted version of the built-in benchmark.
Alien Isolation on ASUS R7 240 DDR3 2GB ($70)
Alien Isolation on MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB ($245)
Alien Isolation on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560)

Total War: Attila

The Total War franchise moves on to Attila, another The Creative Assembly development, and is a stand-alone strategy title set in 395AD where the main story line lets the gamer take control of the leader of the Huns in order to conquer parts of the world. Graphically the game can render hundreds/thousands of units on screen at once, all with their individual actions and can put some of the big cards to task.
For low end graphics, we test at 720p with performance settings, recording the average frame rate. With mid and high range graphics, we test at 1080p with the quality setting. In both circumstances, unlimited video memory is enabled and the in-game scripted benchmark is used.
Total War: Attila on ASUS R7 240 DDR3 2GB ($70)
Total War: Attila on MSI GTX 770 Lightning 2GB ($245)
Total War: Attila on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560)

GRID: Autosport

No graphics tests are complete without some input from Codemasters and the EGO engine, which means for this round of testing we point towards GRID: Autosport, the next iteration in the GRID and racing genre. As with our previous racing testing, each update to the engine aims to add in effects, reflections, detail and realism, with Codemasters making ‘authenticity’ a main focal point for this version.
GRID’s benchmark mode is very flexible, and as a result we created a test race using a shortened version of the Red Bull Ring with twelve cars doing two laps. The car is focus starts last and is quite fast, but usually finishes second or third. For low end graphics we test at 1080p medium settings, whereas mid and high end graphics get the full 1080p maximum. Both the average and minimum frame rates are recorded.
GRID: Autosport on ASUS R7 240 DDR3 2GB ($70)
GRID: Autosport on ASUS R7 240 DDR3 2GB ($70) [Minimum FPS]
GRID: Autosport on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560)
GRID: Autosport on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560) [Minimum FPS]

Middle-Earth: Shadows of Mordor

The final title in our testing is another battle of system performance with the open world action-adventure title, Shadows of Mordor. Produced by Monolith using the LithTech Jupiter EX engine and numerous detail add-ons, SoM goes for detail and complexity to a large extent, despite having to be cut down from the original plans. The main story itself was written by the same writer as Red Dead Redemption, and it received Zero Punctuation’s Game of The Year in 2014.
For testing purposes, SoM gives a dynamic screen resolution setting, allowing us to render at high resolutions that are then scaled down to the monitor. As a result, we get several tests using the in-game benchmark. For low end graphics we examine at 720p with low settings, whereas mid and high end graphics get 1080p Ultra. The top graphics test is also redone at 3840x2160, also with Ultra settings, and we also test two cards at 4K where possible.
Shadows of Mordor on ASUS R7 240 DDR3 2GB ($70)
Shadows of Mordor on ASUS R7 240 DDR3 2GB ($70) [Minimum FPS]
Shadows of Mordor on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560)
Shadows of Mordor on ASUS GTX 980 Strix 4GB ($560) [Minimum FPS]


Conclusion

Having used the last two Extreme versions of the top of the ROG line, the Rampage IV Extreme and the Rampage IV Black Edition, it subsequently occurs perhaps the Rampage V Extreme comes across as a little underwhelming. If you've been there, seen that, it's hard to get as pumped up as the first time. The Extreme is a very good motherboard, and comes across as well engineered and with some fun stuff to play with that new users will enjoy. If you were happy with the X79 Extreme and need a comparable hardware option for X99 then the Extreme is ready to take that place. My fear is that it the Rampage V Extreme isn't as breathtaking as the X79 was.
The measure of breathtaking-ness isn't the defining feature of a motherboard however. In terms of kit we get ASUS' enhanced OC socket at the front and center, which reportedly gives better overclocking margins as well as high end memory support which we covered in our initial X99 coverage as it also featured on the X99 Deluxe. Another big feature is the use of three-stream dual band 802.11ac Wi-Fi which will aid throughput and beam forming for routers that are capable. ASUS is using tri-stream as a defining feature on the top end of its product stack, which means it is also on the Deluxe as well. To complete the trifecta, the OC Panel allows gamers to get hardware information and implement fan controls at the touch of a button while extreme overclockers can adjust voltages and frequencies on the fly.
Other features in play include eight fan headers with DC and PWM support, with four extra headers on the OC Panel, SupremeFX audio via an upgraded ALC1150 solution (PCB separation, extended EMI shield, upgraded filter caps, headphone impedance detection) as well as SoundStage and Keybot. Storage comes from the 10 SATA ports provided by the chipset as well as two more from an ASMedia controller and two SATA Express ports therein. An M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 slot is also here for 2260, 2280 and 22110 drives, but shares bandwidth with the bottom PCIe 3.0 port in red. This has implications when multiple graphics cards are in play and SLI limitations, but the subset of M.2 users and 4-way SLI users should actually be fairly small. A total of 14 USB 3.0 ports populate the board, two from headers and ten on the rear panel from ASMedia controllers/hubs.
The BIOS and Software packages from ASUS still continue to be on the better side of interactive and informative, with the ROG packages aiming for something a little bit more than the standard. Due to the overclocking nature of the Extreme, there is the potential to get bogged down in all the overclocking options for new users. To this end there are several automatic overclocking options, both in the BIOS and software, as well as assistance through the ROG forums. Our overclocking performance showed that a mediocre CPU is still a mediocre CPU, whichever way you slice it, but good luck to those who scored nice silicon. We’ve tested the X99 Extreme up to DDR4-3333 on the latest BIOS as of testing, although our contacts at ASUS have stated that they are working on the new higher-end kits (3400 and up) to add to the QVL.
Whatever the X-Factor (or Y-Factor, or Z-Factor) is, I’m not getting the same feeling as I did from the X79 Extreme. In the words of James May of ex-Top Gear fame, there’s no fizzing root here. Part of that may be the saturation of high-end boards in the market, always going for halo, or the lack of a 4.7+ GHz overclocking CPU architecture when testing as was the case with Sandy Bridge-E and X79, but I’m not sure. It will be interesting to see the sales numbers this time around, and whether ASUS can hold that high end lead. Overall, the Rampage V Extreme continues the trend of the ROG Extreme halo series and builds on the nicely designed X99 Deluxe with an ROG garnish. For users looking for that direct, high-end upgrade from X58 or X79, it will have to be in the list for consideration.
It is also worth noting that since we received this sample, ASUS has released a USB 3.1 edition with a bundled USB 3.1 card in preparation for when the appropriate devices hit the market.

Source: Anandtech com