Test Setup

BIOSTAR Z590I VALKYRIE Motherboard Test Systems Table

Peformance Testing & Methodology

For general performance testing, we use the same basic test setup for both CPU and motherboard evaluation making the results comparable. Each test is run multiple times to ensure accuracy. The middle result is used in each case. The following system configurations were used for all benchmarks and general testing.

Operating System Notes

Due to potential scheduler improvements with Windows 10 that have happened over time as well as other tweaks we are using the latest build available at the time of this writing. For reference, the current Windows 10 build is 2004. We are using Windows 10 Professional for reference. All the latest patches have been applied and the driver versions are noted in the specifications. These are not necessarily the newest as we want the game performance to be more consistent across a broader sample of system configurations. We will update these periodically and retest as needed.

All systems were freshly formatted, and all the latest drivers and OS patches were used. All the systems were updated to their latest BIOS revisions. Finally, for the Intel system, I did install the CPU microcode updates relevant to that CPU. It’s important to note that build 1909 does contain improved mitigations for several security flaws on Intel processors. However, I did not go out of my way to download any additional or optional mitigation patches. Hyperthreading (SMT for AMD) also remained enabled for all testing.

We are using the performance power plan on all our test configurations. Essentially, we created a “best case” scenario for each system outside of the hardware configurations. For the hardware, it was impossible to use the same memory modules on all the test systems due to the nature of memory compatibility on different motherboards. That said, we were able to use common frequencies and keep the timings relatively close for the most part. The memory timings and the speeds we used are referenced in the specification tables above.

One thing to keep in mind is that performance is largely determined by CPU and memory configuration, or that of the graphics card rather than the motherboard itself. The benchmarks here ensure that the motherboard was able to hold up to the testing and that there were no problems with firmware, thermals, or power delivery, which caused performance to drop off. It’s also worth noting that overclocked results are provided to not only showcase what the motherboard can do when pushed but that it was able to sustain the necessary power delivery to make it through the torture testing another time with greater demand placed on it than that of stock operation.

Stock vs. Overclocked – Definitions

Finally, systems were run at stock and overclocked values. For clarification: “Stock” settings are their automatic or default values in BIOS which allows the CPU’s tested to operate using their default base and boost clocks. Unfortunately, this does allow for things like ASUS’ multicore enhancement to “cheat” in the benchmarks but we feel it’s important to showcase the typical out of box experience users will face and what they can expect from that.

Overclocked values provided are all core overclocks unless otherwise noted. These clock speeds are the maximum 24/7 stable overclock we could achieve for each configuration. AVX offsets are not used unless stated. Results, where clock speeds are not explicitly shown, are “stock” values. These are checked to ensure that boost clock behavior is normal and that temperatures are in the correct ranges to avoid throttling and performance anomalies as much as possible.

Don’t Miss Out on More FPS Review Content!

Our weekly newsletter includes a recap of our reviews and a run down of the most popular tech news that we published.

Join the Conversation

8 Comments

  1. Another good review of the mobo by FPS.

    Personally tho, my experience with Biostar from back in the day make me shudder still
    It’s good to see they can produce a decent board these days.
    I however would be hard pressed to spend $350 on a Biostar when there are better to be found.

    Of course, this is all personal preference on my part.

  2. BIOSTAR has actually been making good motherboards for close to ten years now. That being said, I’ve always reviewed their higher end or more enthusiast centric options. I haven’t worked with their bargain basement stuff since the early 2000’s. My experiences with that stuff were few and far between and not really all that bad to tell you the truth.

    When I think of cheap, shitty motherboards I think of ECS, FIC, or PC Chips. There are also many others that died off like M-Tech, Soyo, and QDI. Not to say that those were all terrible, they weren’t necessarily. Although, they all did have some awful models. Soyo being the exception out of that list as it generally had good PR and absolutely horrendous motherboards.

    EDIT: It seems PCChips died off sometime around the socket 478 / S754 era. FIC actually left the PC business entirely and transitioned to making electronics for the automotive industry. I think Soyo, M-Tech and QDI flat died off the same way ABIT did.

    1. PC Chips merged with ECS, who still does ODM work. I think their last notable consumer board was NZXT’s Z370.

  3. Nice review. I have used a few Biostar motherboards in budget builds with no issues. I remember Soyo back in the day, with their Dragon series motherboards being the most popular. I was mostly into ABIT and Epox boards back then, but found the Epox quality lacking after a while.

  4. [QUOTE=”Niner51, post: 38402, member: 106″]
    Nice review. I have used a few Biostar motherboards in budget builds with no issues. I remember Soyo back in the day, with their Dragon series motherboards being the most popular. I was mostly into ABIT and Epox boards back then, but found the Epox quality lacking after a while.
    [/QUOTE]

    Epox quality was lackluster to start with. ABIT at that time had their own issues but they straightened them out. Unfortunately, by the end of their run as a company their motherboards were mediocre at best. The Soyo’s were always popular, and I can’t understand why. I saw a lot of failures on those.

  5. [QUOTE=”Dan_D, post: 38405, member: 6″]
    The Soyo’s were always popular, and I can’t understand why.
    [/QUOTE]

    I honestly think it was mostly their name and color scheme back then (black and purple). I remember all those jumpers on their boards as well. A past friend of mine loved those boards, but he would have all types of issues at LAN parties. Epox had cap bursting issues which I experienced. Never really had an issue with Abit besides one NF2 board dying on me, but that was overclocking a 2500+ to a 3200+ which was popular back in the day. Thanks for the trip down memory lane Dan..(y)

  6. [QUOTE=”AKBrian, post: 38765, member: 120″]
    PC Chips merged with ECS, who still does ODM work. I think their last notable consumer board was NZXT’s Z370.
    [/QUOTE]

    I didn’t know that. Although, I do know the NZXT Z490 boards are made by ASRock.

  7. I have a B550 Biostar board with a 3900x, no issues and one of the few board I’ve ever owned that has zero problems going to sleep and back. Now the VRMs on that board I would say is shaky but I am not OCing. With two (one super cheap and the other kinda cheap) Biostar boards, they purred with no real issues plus actually had frequent bios updates for a long period of time.

    Very nice review Dan, to me the price seems high but today everything seems to be way high.

Leave a comment