Avoid expensive bottlenecks with balanced builds.

EFps Game Benchmarks

Average Fps
0.1% Low(Avg)
0.1% Low(Max)
1% Low(Avg)
1% Low(Max)
2060S 9600K Source
09 Sep '19 Driver:436.2
5700-XT 9600K Source
12 Nov '19 Driver:19.9.1
Stutters & Frame Drops
The graph shows lowest Fps (slowest frame) in one second buckets.

Watch Gameplay


An AMD Ryzen 3700X bottlenecks a 2070S: 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

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, SOTTR 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 influencers 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. As a result, publishers are openly accused of bias for reporting real world performance data. 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 losing 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 compromising on performance.

Nvidia vs AMD

AMD’s Vega (56, 64) and Navi (5000) series GPUs deliver great performance in specific games with specific hardware/software configurations. Unfortunately, following the initial surge in sales fueled by AMD's marketing masterclass, many users discovered that they also exhibit widespread stability and compatibility issues (blue/black screens and driver resets). The cards are engineered to shine in benchmarks, often at the expense of real world performance and hair dryer levels of noise. For example, the reference 5700 XT has its stock clocks set so high that it overheats and stutters in popular games. Expert users, that are happy to tinker with BIOS updates and voltage curves 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.
Intel Core i5-9600K $195Nvidia GTX 1660S (Super) $230Crucial MX500 250GB $45
Intel Core i5-9400F $140Nvidia GTX 1650S (Super) $170Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $78
Intel Core i7-9700K $290Nvidia RTX 2070S (Super) $505Samsung 860 Evo 250GB $42
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $43Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $69SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $32Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $65SanDisk Extreme 32GB $30
Seagate Barracuda 3TB (2016) $85G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $649SanDisk Extreme 16GB $28
Today's hottest deals
About  •  User Guide  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer  •  YouTube Feedback