Here is where we dig out the FutureMark tests.
For overall system performance we use PCMark Vantage. This is run in both x86 and x64 mode to give the best indication of performance.
Well, it looks like for general computing the G1.Assassin is not at the top of the list. Don't get me wrong; this is still one fast board, but we really expected more from it.
For synthetic gaming tests we used the industry standard and overlockers bragging tool 3DMark 11. This is a test that strives to mimic the impact modern games have on a system. Futuremark went a long way to change from the early days of graphics driven tests to a broader approach including physics, AI and more advanced graphics simulations. 3DMark v11 uses the DX11 API in addition to having support for CPU based Physics. Gone are the days of the PhysX inclusion giving you inflated scores.
For a gaming motherboard the G1.Assassin was not where we expected it to be. We would have thought that the 3DMark scores would be well up there. However, they are more towards the middle of the pack. True, all of the scores are very close here, but still
Cinebench R11. x64
Cinebench is a synthetic rendering tool developed by Maxon. Maxon is the same company that developed Cinema4D, another industry leading 3D Animation application. Cinebench R11.5 tests your systems ability to render across a single and multiple CPU cores. It also tests your systems ability to process OpenGL information.
The G1.Assassin falls in the middle of the pack for Cinebench performance. At least it does at stock speeds. When you overclocked it we saw the performance jump up to the top of the list.