Asus TUF Z270 MARK 2

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 34%
Sail boat
Desktop
Desktop 87%
Aircraft carrier
Workstation
Workstation 30%
Sail boat
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (44th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 56 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
ProcessorWith a brilliant single core score, this CPU is the business: It demolishes everyday tasks such as web browsing, office apps and audio/video playback. Additionally this processor can handle light workstation, and even some light server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 83.1%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is very good.
Graphics34.2% 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 Drive109% 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.
Memory40GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's far more than any current game requires. 40GB will also allow for large file and system caches, virtual machine hosting, software development, video editing and batch multimedia processing.
OS VersionAlthough Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
High background CPU (27%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
MotherboardAsus TUF Z270 MARK 2  (all builds)
Memory36.5 GB free of 40 GB @ 2.1 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20161108
Uptime2.6 Days
Run DateMay 11 '18 at 09:47
Run Duration236 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU 27%
Watch Gameplay: 1050-Ti + 9600K How to compare your gameplay

 PC Performing as expected (44th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i7-6700-$180
LGA1151, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 8 threads
Base clock 3.4 GHz, turbo 3.75 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (99th percentile)
83.1% Excellent
Memory 90.1
1-Core 121
2-Core 216
82% 142 Pts
4-Core 410
8-Core 653
65% 532 Pts
64-Core 658
41% 658 Pts
Poor: 60%
This bench: 83.1%
Great: 80%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 1050-Ti-$59
CLim: 1949 MHz, MLim: 1752 MHz, Ram: 4GB, Driver: 384.76
Performing way above expectations (99th percentile)
34.2% Below average
Lighting 43.6
Reflection 29.3
Parallax 30.5
36% 34.5 fps
MRender 38.1
Gravity 41.8
Splatting 36.6
32% 38.8 fps
Poor: 27%
This bench: 34.2%
Great: 33%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
WD Black NVMe PCIe M.2 512GB (2017)-$154
131GB free (System drive)
Firmware: B35500WD Max speed: PCIe 16,000 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (19th percentile)
109% Outstanding
Read 1,324
Write 388
Mixed 422
154% 711 MB/s
4K Read 28.6
4K Write 31.7
4K Mixed 19.5
85% 26.6 MB/s
DQ Read 282
DQ Write 31.7
DQ Mixed 48.1
63% 121 MB/s
Poor: 84%
This bench: 109%
Great: 155%
Seagate Desktop SSHD 2TB-$50
1TB free
Firmware: CC41 Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s
Performing below expectations (28th percentile)
73.1% Very good
Read 95.1
Write 159
Mixed 110
91% 121 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 5.19
4K Mixed 0.75
208% 2.21 MB/s
Poor: 43%
This bench: 73.1%
Great: 108%
WD Green 2TB (2011)-$70
1TB free
Firmware: 51.0AB51 Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s
Performing as expected (46th percentile)
50.4% Above average
Read 83.2
Write 92.3
Mixed 80.2
64% 85.2 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.48
4K Mixed 0.22
81% 0.8 MB/s
Poor: 31%
This bench: 50.4%
Great: 67%
Hitachi HTS545050B9A300 500GB-$71
91GB free
Firmware: PB4OC64G Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s
Performing below expectations (28th percentile)
26.9% Poor
Read 44.2
Write 49.6
Mixed 47.8
36% 47.2 MB/s
4K Read 0.29
4K Write 1
4K Mixed 0.23
57% 0.51 MB/s
Poor: 11%
This bench: 26.9%
Great: 45%
WD WD10EAVS-00D7B1 1TB
70GB free
Firmware: 01.01A01 Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (12th percentile)
29.6% Poor
Read 51.3
Write 51.6
Mixed 46.4
37% 49.7 MB/s
4K Read 0.48
4K Write 1.7
4K Mixed 0.41
97% 0.86 MB/s
Poor: 26%
This bench: 29.6%
Great: 51%
ST3000DM 003-1F216N 3TB
98GB free, PID 2773
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
Performing way below expectations (16th percentile)
35.4% Below average
Read 88.5
Write 79.6
Mixed 81.7
106% 83.3 MB/s
4K Read 0.64
4K Write 1.64
4K Mixed 0.18
64% 0.82 MB/s
Poor: 10%
This bench: 35.4%
Great: 59%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Hynix HMA41GU6AFR8N-TF Crucial BLS16G4D240FSE.16FBR Crucial BLS16G4D240FSE.16FBR 40GB
2133, 2400, 2400 MHz
8192, 16384, 16384 MB
Performing as expected (45th percentile)
73.3% Very good
MC Read 26.8
MC Write 27.5
MC Mixed 23.5
74% 25.9 GB/s
SC Read 14.9
SC Write 27.6
SC Mixed 23.2
63% 21.9 GB/s
Latency 67.1
60% 67.1 ns
Poor: 57%
This bench: 73.3%
Great: 81%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical TUF Z270 MARK 2 Builds (Compare 1,902 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 71%
Battleship
Desktop
Desktop 90%
Aircraft carrier
Workstation
Workstation 61%
Destroyer

Motherboard: Asus TUF Z270 MARK 2 - $129

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 94% - Outstanding Total price: $655
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-13600K $273Nvidia RTX 4060 $295Crucial MX500 250GB $40
Intel Core i5-12400F $133Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-12600K $177Nvidia RTX 4070 $539Samsung 860 Evo 250GB $52
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $39Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $37Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $43SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $51G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $351SanDisk Ultra Fit 32GB $16
If you make a purchase via one of these links, our site may earn a commission
Today's hottest deals
About  •  User Guide  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer  •  YouTube Feedback