Asus TUF Z370-PLUS GAMING

Performance Results


Gaming 37% Jet ski	Desktop 96% Nuclear submarine	Workstation 35% Jet ski


PC Status	Overall this PC is performing as expected (51st percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 49 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
Processor	With an outstanding single core score, this CPU is the cat's whiskers: It demolishes everyday tasks such as web browsing, office apps and audio/video playback. Additionally this processor can handle typical workstation, and even moderate server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 95.3%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is excellent.
Graphics	31.7% is a below average 3D score (RTX 2060S = 100%). This GPU can handle older games but it will struggle to render recent games at resolutions greater than 1080p. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive	83.8% is a very good SSD score. This drive is suitable for moderate workstation use, it will facilitate fast boots, responsive applications and ensure minimum IO wait times.
Memory	16GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's more than sufficient for nearly all games. 16GB also allows for very large file and system caches, software development and batch photo editing/processing.
OS Version	Although Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.

Run History

6 years ago, 6 years ago.

Motherboard	Asus TUF Z370-PLUS GAMING (all builds)
Memory	13 GB free of 16 GB @ 2.4 GHz
Display	1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit Farben
OS	Windows 10
BIOS Date	20171212
Uptime	0.3 Days
Run Date	Mar 09 '18 at 14:37
Run Duration	171 Seconds
Run User	DEU-User
Background CPU	1%

Watch Gameplay: 1050-Ti + 9600K How to compare your gameplay

PC Performing as expected (51^st percentile)

Actual performance vs. expectations. The graphs show user score (x) vs user score frequency (y).

Processor	Bench	Normal	Heavy	Server
Intel Core i7-8700K-$186 746,287 User benchmarks, average bench 88% LGA1151, 1 CPU, 6 cores, 12 threads Base clock 3.7 GHz, turbo 4.3 GHz (avg) Performing way above expectations (89^th percentile)	95.3% Outstanding	Memory 92.9 1-Core 137 2-Core 276 93% 169 Pts	4-Core 524 8-Core 905 87% 715 Pts	64-Core 1,150 71% 1,150 Pts
Poor: 76% ↑ This bench: 95.3% Great: 100%

Graphics Card	Bench	3D DX9	3D DX10	3D DX11
Nvidia GTX 1050-Ti-$59 946,701 User benchmarks, average bench 29% Nvidia(10DE 1C82) ≥ 4GB CLim: 1911 MHz, MLim: 1752 MHz, Ram: 4GB, Driver: 391.1 Performing way above expectations (91^st percentile)	31.7% Below average	Lighting 39.7 Reflection 30.8 Parallax 37.4 32% 35.9 fps	MRender 38.9 Gravity 37.3 Splatting 35.6 30% 37.3 fps
Poor: 27% ↑ This bench: 31.7% Great: 33%

Drives	Bench	Sequential	Random 4k	Deep queue 4k
Samsung 850 Pro 1TB-$210 25,365 User benchmarks, average bench 105% 843GB free (System drive) Firmware: EXM04B6Q Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s Performing way below expectations (11^th percentile) (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (05) Reallocated sector count 100 1 0 (09) Power-on hours count 99 99 3996 (0C) Power cycle count 99 99 410 (B1) Unknown 99 1 27 (B3) Unknown 100 100 0 (B5) Unknown 100 1 0 (B6) Unknown 100 99 0 (B7) Unknown 100 1 0 (BB) vendor-specific 100 100 0 (BE) vendor-specific 68 52 32 (C3) Hardware ECC recovered 200 200 0 (C7) UDMA CRC error rate 99 99 47 (EB) Unknown 99 99 236 (F1) Unknown 99 99 17523675533	83.8% Excellent	Read 524 Write 288 Mixed 314 83% 375 MB/s	4K Read 35.7 4K Write 93.2 4K Mixed 25.6 136% 51.5 MB/s	DQ Read 36.8 DQ Write 186 DQ Mixed 25.3 45% 82.7 MB/s
Poor: 77% ↑ This bench: 83.8% Great: 124%
Samsung 850 Evo 1TB-$130 154,399 User benchmarks, average bench 110% 16GB free Firmware: EMT02B6Q Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s Performing below expectations (34^th percentile) (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (05) Reallocated sector count 100 100 0 (09) Power-on hours count 99 99 798 (0C) Power cycle count 99 99 302 (B1) Unknown 99 99 5 (B3) Unknown 100 100 0 (B5) Unknown 100 100 0 (B6) Unknown 100 100 0 (B7) Unknown 100 100 0 (BB) vendor-specific 100 100 0 (BE) vendor-specific 74 50 26 (C3) Hardware ECC recovered 200 200 0 (C7) UDMA CRC error rate 99 99 13 (EB) Unknown 99 99 57 (F1) Unknown 99 99 11136548543	105% Outstanding	Read 506 Write 409 Mixed 422 99% 445 MB/s	4K Read 44.7 4K Write 86 4K Mixed 47.5 174% 59.4 MB/s	DQ Read 46 DQ Write 246 DQ Mixed 29.7 57% 107 MB/s
Poor: 80% ↑ This bench: 105% Great: 133%
WD Green 2TB (2011)-$70 212,471 User benchmarks, average bench 51% 105GB free Firmware: 51.0AB51 Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s Performing way below expectations (16^th percentile) (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (01) Raw read error rate 200 200 0 (03) Spinup time 174 165 6266 (04) Start/Stop count 98 98 2262 (05) Reallocated sector count 200 200 0 (07) Seek error rate 200 200 0 (09) Power-on hours count 91 91 6757 (0A) Spinup retry count 100 100 0 (0B) Calibration retry count 100 100 0 (0C) Power cycle count 100 100 602 (C0) Power-off retract count 200 200 110 (C1) Load/Unload cycle count 195 195 16636 (C2) HDA temperature 120 103 30 (C4) Reallocation count 200 200 0 (C5) Current pending sector count 200 200 0 (C6) Offline scan uncorrectable count 200 200 0 (C7) UDMA CRC error rate 200 200 0 (C8) Write error rate 200 200 0	38% Below average	Read 65.7 Write 66.7 Mixed 63.7 49% 65.4 MB/s	4K Read 0.58 4K Write 1.33 4K Mixed 0.12 62% 0.68 MB/s
Poor: 31% ↑ This bench: 38% Great: 67%
TOSHIBA External USB 3.0 2TB 9,084 User benchmarks, average bench 35% 316GB free, PID a202 Operating at USB 3.0 Speed Performing below expectations (40^th percentile)	34.3% Below average	Read 82.8 Write 78 Mixed 66.6 96% 75.8 MB/s	4K Read 0.43 4K Write 1.67 4K Mixed 0.16 64% 0.75 MB/s
Poor: 15% ↑ This bench: 34.3% Great: 49%

Memory Kit	Bench	Multi core	Single core	Latency
Crucial BLS8G4D240FSB.16FBD2 2x8GB 16,539 User benchmarks, average bench 78% 2 of 4 slots used 16GB DIMM DDR4 clocked @ 2400 MHz Performing above expectations (76^th percentile)	82.6% Excellent	MC Read 30.2 MC Write 31 MC Mixed 26 83% 29.1 GB/s	SC Read 19.3 SC Write 32.6 SC Mixed 25.6 74% 25.8 GB/s	Latency 62.3 64% 62.3 ns
Poor: 45% ↑ This bench: 82.6% Great: 91%

Take a copy of your results

System Memory Latency Ladder

L1/L2/L3 CPU cache and main memory (DIMM) access latencies in nano seconds

Custom PC Builder (Explore upgrades for this PC) Build your perfect PC: compare component prices, popularity, speed and value for money

CHOOSE AN UPGRADE:

CPU

GPU

SSD

HDD

RAM

MBD

Typical TUF Z370-PLUS GAMING Builds (Compare 4,302 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings

Gaming 93%

Nuclear submarine

Desktop 91%

Nuclear submarine

Workstation 85%

Aircraft carrier

Motherboard: Asus TUF Z370-PLUS GAMING - $135

CPU
Core i7-8700KIntel $186Bench 88%, 746,287 samples	1,511x
Core i5-8600KIntel $173Bench 91%, 264,837 samples	832x
Core i7-8700Intel $200Bench 87%, 349,567 samples	573x

GPU
GTX 1080Nvidia $400Bench 102%, 1,082,454 samples	401x
GTX 1080-TiNvidia $485Bench 124%, 840,268 samples	346x
GTX 1060-6GBNvidia $117Bench 56%, 1,368,019 samples	338x

SSD
860 Evo 500GBSamsung $80Bench 105%, 762,998 samples	115x
970 Evo Plus NVMe PCIe M.2 1TBSamsung $95Bench 310%, 455,997 samples	105x
970 Evo NVMe PCIe M.2 500GBSamsung $43Bench 273%, 381,216 samples	97x

RAM
Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GBCorsair $43Bench 82%, 606,405 samples	145x
DDR4 3000 2OZ 2x8GBAdataBench 87%, 25,457 samples	90x
Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GBCorsair $40Bench 85%, 653,654 samples	83x

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER

Value: 73% - Very good

Total price: $844

CPU	GPU	SSD
Intel Core i5-13600K $279	Nvidia RTX 4060 $300	Crucial MX500 250GB $40
Intel Core i5-12400F $133	Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385	Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-12600K $182	Nvidia RTX 4070 $409	Samsung 860 Evo 250GB $52

HDD	RAM	USB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $39	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40	SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $30	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $43	SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $51	G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $351	SanDisk Ultra Fit 32GB $16