Overclocked performance, and power-draw
Power-draw| Power consumption - idle | |
|---|---|
| Foxconn Renaissance X58 | ASUS Rampage II GENE X58 mATX |
| 151 | 155 |
| Power consumption - load (2D) | |
|---|---|
| Foxconn Renaissance X58 | ASUS Rampage II GENE X58 mATX |
| 232 | 244 |
Having all BIOS options at their default settings and turning all the features on, we observe that the GENE mATX, when evaluated as a system, is a little power-hungrier than the full-ATX Foxconn board. ASUS makes a point of its energy-saving technologies yet they don't seem to have a positive effect here.
Overclocked performance
| Highest stable (Core i7) reference clock | |
|---|---|
| Foxconn Renaissance X58 | ASUS Rampage II GENE X58 mATX |
| 195 | 195 |
The similarities continue with the overclocking results, as each board hits 195MHz BCLK with rock-solid stability. A 200MHz-plus clocking is achievable with greater attention paid to chassis airflow, we reckon, knowing the passively-cooled nature of the board.
To see what kind of performance the board delivers when user-overclocked, we decided to use fairly conservative settings of 175MHz BCLK, 20x multiplier, leading to an overall frequency of 3.5GHz. DDR3 memory was forced to 1,066MHz. We then re-ran the HEXUS.PiFast, DivX, and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars 1,680x1,050 tests.
| Mobo OC: HEXUS.PiFast | |
|---|---|
| Foxconn Renaissance X58 | ASUS Rampage II GENE X58 mATX |
| 25 | 24.57 |
HEXUS.PiFast performance continues to be better on the GENE
| Mobo OC: DivX encoding | |
|---|---|
| Foxconn Renaissance X58 | ASUS Rampage II GENE X58 mATX |
| 161 | 164 |
But DivX performance shoots up on the comparison Foxconn board
| Mobo OC: ET: QW - 1,024x768 | |
|---|---|
| Foxconn Renaissance X58 | ASUS Rampage II GENE X58 mATX |
| 205.1 | 181.65 |
And we continue to see sub-optimal frame-rates - if you can call 182fps sub-optimal - in the low-detail graphics test.