Avoid expensive bottlenecks with balanced builds.

EFps Gaming Bottlenecks

An AMD Ryzen 3700X bottlenecks an Nvidia 2070 Super: the 3700X costs 40% more money for 11% less performance. The lost performance is similar to downgrading from a 2070S to a 2060S. Publishing EFps data puts UserBenchmark in conflict with the marketing from billion dollar corporations, but it also helps our users to build faster PCs by dodging marketing traps. Users can verify EFps figures with Afterburner
123
140
75
80
93
100
PUBG EFps
Average Fps
0.1% Low(Avg)
0.1% Low(Max)
1% Low(Avg)
1% Low(Max)
123
140
75
80
93
100
2060S 9400F Source
02 Oct '19 Driver:436.2
2060S 9400F Source
02 Oct '19 Driver:436.2
Stutters & Frame Drops
The graph shows lowest Fps (slowest frame) in one second buckets.

Source Video

 

Source Video

We do

  • Focus on user verifiable facts and figures.
  • Buy all of our hardware from mainstream shops: no golden "free" samples here.
  • Provide PC details, driver versions, game settings and source video for our EFps figures.
  • Pick games that most of our users actually play. (ACO, BFV etc. are relatively unpopular)

We don't

  • Put lipstick on pigs for sponsorship fees, our users are our only sponsors.
  • Care for brands: red, green or blue. PC hardware isn’t a fashion show, performance comes first.
  • Test at 1440p or 4K: these resolutions are rarely optimal for gaming (refresh rate > size >> resolution).
  • Get fooled by the corporate army of anonymous forum and reddit advisors that prey on first time buyers.

So that

Intel vs AMD

Intel continues to offer better CPUs at lower prices but they also appear oblivious to social media marketing (forums, reddit, youtube etc.). Since the launch of Ryzen, AMD have carved 50 billion dollars off Intel’s bottom line. After failing to grasp new-age marketing, and consequently loosing significant market share, Intel is finally motivated to deliver material CPU improvements. The dynamic between the two companies is a blessing for well informed users who can save money without having to compromise on performance.

Nvidia vs AMD

AMD’s Vega (56, 64) and Navi (5000) series GPUs deliver solid performance in specific games with specific hardware/software configurations. Unfortunately, as many users discovered, they also exhibit widespread stability/compatibility issues: blue/black screens and driver resets. The cards are engineered to shine in benchmarks, often at the expense of real world performance. For example, the reference 5700 XT had its stock clocks set so high that it overheated and stuttered in popular games. Expert users that are happy to tinker with BIOS updates, voltage curves and fan settings can sometimes extract excellent price/performance but many users end up getting a refund instead. By comparison, Nvidia’s cards have better compatibility, lower return rates and rock solid stability. That said, above the 2060S-2070S tier, where there is no competition from AMD, Nvidia’s pricing remains completely unchecked.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-9600K $190Nvidia GTX 1660S (Super) $230Crucial MX500 250GB $47
Intel Core i5-9400F $150Nvidia GTX 1650S (Super) $170Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $78
Intel Core i7-9700K $349Nvidia RTX 2070S (Super) $510Samsung 850 Pro 512GB $249
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $42Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $67SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $40Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $75SanDisk Extreme 32GB $46
Seagate Barracuda 3TB (2016) $85G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $681SanDisk Extreme 16GB $24
Today's hottest deals
About  •  User Guide  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer  •  YouTube Feedback