Unlike most of our other motherboard reviews, this one isn’t going to compare the X99-Ultra Gaming to a similar motherboard from GIGABYTE’s own lineup, or even a competitor’s. That’s simply because this is likely to be our only X99 (v2) look, as what’s sure to have more interest going forward are boards updated for Intel’s Kaby Lake lineup (eg: Z270).
That said, without a comparison to a similar motherboard, I’ve opted to compare GIGABYTE’s X99-Ultra Gaming when equipped with a 10-core Core i7-6950X against ASUS’ first-gen X99-DELUXE, equipped with the 8-core i7-5960X.
Given this odd route we’re taking, this testing is clearly not apples-to-apples; it’s more of a way to show the differences between these two high-end platforms, with the ultimate goal being that we can see GIGABYTE’s board hold up, and deliver the results we’d expect.
|
Test Systems |
Processor |
Intel Core i7-5960X – Eight-Core, 3.00GHz (3.5GHz Turbo)
Intel Core i7-6950X – Ten-Core, 3.00GHz (3.5GHz Turbo) |
Motherboard |
ASUS X99-DELUXE (i7-5960X; BIOS: 3101)
GIGABYTE X99-Ultra Gaming (i7-6950X; BIOS: F5) |
Memory |
4GB x 8 Kingston HyperX Fury @ DDR4-2133 15-15-15-36
8GB x 4 G.SKILL Trident Z @ DDR4-2133 15-15-15-36 |
Graphics |
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (GeForce 373.06 Driver) |
Audio |
Onboard |
Storage |
Kingston HyperX 3K 480GB SSD |
Power Supply |
Corsair AX1200 |
Chassis |
Corsair Obsidian 800D Full-Tower |
Cooling |
Corsair H100i v2 (i7-6950X)
Thermaltake WATER3.0 Extreme (i7-5960X) |
Et cetera |
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit |
One way vendors could improve their performance positioning is by giving their BCLK a small, seemingly insignificant boost. No such thing is done across these two boards. The memory is even run at the exact same speeds, automatically.
|
BCLK Values |
Memory Speed |
Memory Timings |
ASUS X99-DELUXE |
99.94 MHz |
DDR4-2133 |
15-15-15-36 |
GIGABYTE X99-Ultra Gaming |
99.98 MHz |
DDR4-2133 |
15-15-15-36 |
With that validated, let’s get into some test results.
General System Performance
To take a look at the “overall” performance of our PC configuration, we rely on dual Futuremark suites: PCMark 8 and 3DMark (2013), as well as dual SPEC suites, SPECwpc and SPECviewperf, and also Unigine’s Heaven.
SPECwpc 2.0 |
Media |
Financial |
Development |
Energy |
Sciences |
General |
ASUS X99-DELUXE 1 |
2.81 |
2.05 |
2.11 |
3.19 |
2.74 |
0.95 |
GIGABYTE X99-Ultra Gaming 2 |
3.45 |
2.91 |
2.34 |
3.82 |
3.19 |
0.92 |
SPECviewperf 12 |
CATIA |
Creo |
Energy |
Maya |
Medical |
Showcase |
SNX |
SW |
ASUS X99-DELUXE 1 |
51.40 |
33.84 |
6.14 |
102.35 |
31.81 |
60.13 |
5.91 |
45.06 |
GIGABYTE X99-Ultra Gaming 2 |
51.43 |
34.19 |
6.14 |
102.34 |
31.65 |
56.82 |
5.94 |
45.33 |
SPECapc 3ds Max 2015 |
CPU |
GPU |
Large Model |
ASUS X99-DELUXE 1 |
5.68 |
4.36 |
4.32 |
GIGABYTE X99-Ultra Gaming 2 |
6.41 |
4.50 |
4.47 |
PCMark 8 Suite Scores |
Home |
Work |
Creative |
ASUS X99-DELUXE 1 |
5105 |
5515 |
7837 |
GIGABYTE X99-Ultra Gaming 2 |
5173 |
5619 |
7692 |
3DMark (2013) |
3DMark |
Graphics |
Physics |
ASUS X99-DELUXE 1 |
11387 |
13128 |
15912 |
GIGABYTE X99-Ultra Gaming 2 |
11617 |
13039 |
20523 |
Unigine Heaven 4.0 |
1920×1080 |
2560×1440 |
ASUS X99-DELUXE 1 |
100 FPS |
56 FPS |
GIGABYTE X99-Ultra Gaming 2 |
99 FPS |
57 FPS |
Considering the fact that the i7-6950X offers 25% more cores over the i7-5960X, we can use that as a performance ballpark. That’s a safe bet, although in some cases, it doesn’t quite live up, whereas in other cases, it exceeds what we’d expect. In SPECwpc’s Financial test, for example, the 10-core proves 40% faster. In most others, though, the average gain is around 20%.
There’s a slight improvement in 3DMark to be seen, although it’s likely largely to do with the multi-core capable physics test. In Unigine, both chips are identical in performance.
Rendering & Image Manipulation
Writing files to disk or reading a website doesn’t do much to exercise our CPU, so for that, we turn to a few common scenarios – image editing, video rendering, music conversion, and 3D rendering.
Adobe Lightroom CC (2015.7) |
Result |
ASUS X99-DELUXE 1 |
234 s |
GIGABYTE X99-Ultra Gaming 2 |
214 s |
Adobe Premiere Pro CC |
4K Encode |
Music Video |
PPBM9 |
ASUS X99-DELUXE 1 |
99 s |
123 s |
77 s |
GIGABYTE X99-Ultra Gaming 2 |
100 s |
103 s |
68 s |
Autodesk 3ds Max 2017 |
Naomi Render |
iray Render |
ASUS X99-DELUXE 1 |
731 s |
1395 s |
GIGABYTE X99-Ultra Gaming 2 |
619 s |
1021 s |
Cinebench R15 |
OpenGL |
CPU |
ASUS X99-DELUXE 1 |
156.35 FPS |
1328 cb |
GIGABYTE X99-Ultra Gaming 2 |
161.58 FPS |
1791 cb |
dBpoweramp R15 |
FLAC to MP3 |
ASUS X99-DELUXE 1 |
137 s |
GIGABYTE X99-Ultra Gaming 2 |
111 s |
HandBrake 0.10.5.0 |
H.265 Encode |
H.264 Encode |
ASUS X99-DELUXE 1 |
532 s |
90 s |
GIGABYTE X99-Ultra Gaming 2 |
414 s |
74 s |
POV-Ray |
Single-Thread |
Multi-Thread |
ASUS X99-DELUXE 1 |
328.53 |
2694.18 |
GIGABYTE X99-Ultra Gaming 2 |
348.85 |
3563.82 |
GIGABYTE’s X99-Ultra Gaming holds up well when containing the beast that is the 10-core i7-6950X. The differences between the 8- and 10-core are not enormous – especially not to warrant a $600 premium over the 8-core, but when you need to have the best, you can expect to see solid gains across most workloads.
Sub-system Performance
For memory and CPU testing, we utilize SiSoftware’s Sandra 2016 SP3.
Sandra 2016 SP3 (Memory) |
Bandwidth |
Latency |
ASUS X99-DELUXE 1 |
47.91 GB/s |
30.2 ns |
GIGABYTE X99-Ultra Gaming 2 |
44.91 GB/s |
29.8 ns |
Sandra 2016 SP3 (Arithmetic) |
Dhrystone (Integer AVX2) |
Whetstone (Single Float) |
ASUS X99-DELUXE 1 |
206 GIPS |
175 GFLOPS |
GIGABYTE X99-Ultra Gaming 2 |
267 GIPS |
240 GFLOPS |
Sandra 2016 SP3 (Multi-Media) |
Integer |
Single-float |
ASUS X99-DELUXE 1 |
696 MPix/s |
650 MPix/s |
GIGABYTE X99-Ultra Gaming 2 |
793 MPix/s |
804 MPix/s |
Interestingly, the memory bandwidth result saw a decline on the i7-6950X, although it might possibly have something to do with the fact that 8 DIMMs were used instead of 4. Nonetheless, this memory bandwidth is huge, so it’s incredibly unlikely that anyone would notice the difference in the real-world, outside of server workloads.
In the arithmetic tests, the i7-6950X performed better than an increase of 25%, thanks to architectural enhancements. Smaller gains were seen in the multi-media tests, though.
Final Thoughts
There’s not too much to dislike about GIGABYTE’s X99-Ultra Gaming, and in fact, I’m having a hard time coming up with a major complaint. It’s not hard to find things to like, though, and with what’s provided, the board’s suggested price of about ~$250 is almost impressive – this thing is packed.
At the forefront, the X99-Ultra Gaming doesn’t hold anything back with regards to the functionality. It includes 10x 6Gbps SATA ports, SATA Express, M.2 for storage and Wi-Fi, as well as U.2. It also includes 6x USB 3.0 ports at the back, as well as 3.1 Type-A and Type-C ports, with further expansion provided through internal connectors.
A note on Thunderbolt: support will have to be added with an add-in card, and as it happens, GIGABYTE makes one. However, I couldn’t find that card in stock anywhere but one website that was selling it for nearly $70. My recommendation: if you require a Thunderbolt port, look at motherboards that are certified for Thunderbolt 3.0 out-of-the-box. If Thunderbolt isn’t needed, the USB 3.1 Type-A and Type-C ports should suffice, offering up to 10Gbps of bandwidth each. That’s a lot of breathing room.
Beyond things like connectivity, GIGABYTE’s X99-Ultra Gaming includes a solid EFI (though I think some improvements would be nice – a mouse should never be needed!) and software stack, and packs the board to the gills with bling. The biggest part of that is with the customizable LEDs: changing their color to better match the rest of your build is only a couple of mouse clicks away.
Other nice features include the Killer E2400 networking chip, along with its related software, “Armor” for the memory DIMM and PCIe slots, a headphone amplifier, dual “Hybrid Fan Headers” (able to control pump and fan separate), and what I’d consider a great board design. The only thing I’d personally complain about lacking is the BIOS LED readout, which is useful for debugging (sometimes, anyway).
Overall, I am left extremely impressed with GIGABYTE’s X99-Ultra Gaming, and given its price point and all of it offers, I can easily recommend it to anyone looking to build a new X99-based build.
Pros
- Lots of SATA and USB, includes USB 3.1 Type-A and Type-C.
- Includes M.2 for storage and Wi-Fi, as well as U.2.
- Onboard customizable LEDs are a great touch.
- Includes dual LAN solutions: Intel and Killer.
- EFI and software stack are well-designed and useful.
- Great board layout / design.
- Well-priced.
Cons
- No LED BIOS code readout.
- No onboard power/reset buttons.
- EFI leaves a bit to be desired. PC Health screen doesn’t show temperatures.
GIGABYTE X99-Ultra Gaming Motherboard