Asrock X99 Professional

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 117%
UFO
Desktop
Desktop 94%
Nuclear submarine
Workstation
Workstation 106%
UFO
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing above expectations (61st percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 39 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 moderate workstation, and even light server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 88.9%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is very good.
Graphics128% is an outstanding 3D score, it's the bee's knees. This GPU can handle almost all 3D games at very high resolutions and ultra detail levels.
Boot Drive294% is an exceptional SSD score. This drive is suitable for heavy workstation use, it will facilitate fast boots, responsive applications and allow for fast transfers of multi-gigabyte files.
Memory16GB 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 VersionAlthough Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
Run History
3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago. (Only the first run influences device rankings)
MotherboardAsrock X99 Professional  (all builds)
Memory12.9 GB free of 16 GB @ 2.7 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20180605
Uptime0 Days
Run DateDec 18 '20 at 04:13
Run Duration253 Seconds
Run User SVN-User
Background CPU3%

 PC Performing above expectations (61st percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i7-5820K-$130
CPUSocket, 1 CPU, 6 cores, 12 threads
Base clock 3.3 GHz, turbo 4 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (97th percentile)
88.9% Excellent
Memory 93.3
1-Core 115
2-Core 198
80% 135 Pts
4-Core 455
8-Core 761
74% 608 Pts
64-Core 940
58% 940 Pts
Poor: 68%
This bench: 88.9%
Great: 88%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 1080-Ti-$485
CLim: 1999 MHz, MLim: 2752 MHz, Ram: 11GB, Driver: 442.74
Performing below potential (76th percentile) - GPU OC Guide
128% Outstanding
Lighting 175
Reflection 190
Parallax 182
142% 182 fps
MRender 135
Gravity 182
Splatting 126
119% 148 fps
Poor: 109%
This bench: 128%
Great: 133%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVMe PCIe M.2 500GB-$69
254GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 2B2Q Max speed: PCIe 16,000 MB/s
SusWrite @10s intervals: 2314 779 778 781 785 786 MB/s
Performing above expectations (61st percentile)
294% Outstanding
Read 2,339
Write 2,177
Mixed 1,691
SusWrite 1,037
406% 1,811 MB/s
4K Read 67.4
4K Write 187
4K Mixed 91.6
318% 115 MB/s
DQ Read 973
DQ Write 778
DQ Mixed 867
651% 873 MB/s
Poor: 178%
This bench: 294%
Great: 355%
WD Green 1TB (2011)-$109
160GB free
Firmware: 51.0AB51
SusWrite @10s intervals: 102 104 105 105 105 106 MB/s
Performing above expectations (72nd percentile)
59% Above average
Read 101
Write 88.4
Mixed 83.2
SusWrite 104
70% 94.3 MB/s
4K Read 0.8
4K Write 2
4K Mixed 0.7
148% 1.17 MB/s
Poor: 28%
This bench: 59%
Great: 69%
WD Blue 2.5" 1TB (2004)-$46
24GB free
Firmware: 01.01A01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 52 52 53 53 54 53 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (15th percentile)
31.8% Below average
Read 57.6
Write 59
Mixed 40
SusWrite 52.8
38% 52.4 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 1.9
4K Mixed 0.7
134% 1.03 MB/s
Poor: 23%
This bench: 31.8%
Great: 62%
Toshiba MK5055GSX 500GB-$33
21GB free
Firmware: FG001M
SusWrite @10s intervals: 39 38 39 40 40 40 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (19th percentile)
22% Poor
Read 37.1
Write 34.9
Mixed 21.9
SusWrite 39.3
24% 33.3 MB/s
4K Read 0.4
4K Write 1.1
4K Mixed 0.4
82% 0.63 MB/s
Poor: 14%
This bench: 22%
Great: 42%
Hitachi HTS545050B9A300 500GB-$71
70GB free
Firmware: PB4OCA1G
SusWrite @10s intervals: 47 46 48 48 48 48 MB/s
Performing below expectations (30th percentile)
28% Poor
Read 50.1
Write 44.8
Mixed 28.6
SusWrite 47.3
31% 42.7 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 1.2
4K Mixed 0.7
121% 0.8 MB/s
Poor: 11%
This bench: 28%
Great: 45%
Maxtor STM3250820AS 250GB
120GB free
Firmware: 3.AAE
SusWrite @10s intervals: 65 67 68 68 68 68 MB/s
Performing above expectations (64th percentile)
38.1% Below average
Read 65.5
Write 32.3
Mixed 40.4
SusWrite 67.1
38% 51.3 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.4
4K Mixed 0.8
144% 0.97 MB/s
Poor: 20%
This bench: 38.1%
Great: 44%
WD Black 640GB (2008)-$25
596GB free
Firmware: 01.03B01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 104 107 106 107 107 104 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (86th percentile)
59.6% Above average
Read 102
Write 101
Mixed 78.7
SusWrite 106
72% 96.8 MB/s
4K Read 0.8
4K Write 2
4K Mixed 0.9
170% 1.23 MB/s
Poor: 32%
This bench: 59.6%
Great: 65%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Kingston HyperX DDR4 3000 C15 4x4GB
4 of 8 slots used
16GB DIMM DDR4 clocked @ 2666 MHz
Performing way above expectations (91st percentile)
110% Outstanding
MC Read 42.5
MC Write 43.7
MC Mixed 39.9
120% 42 GB/s
SC Read 17.7
SC Write 22
SC Mixed 23.2
60% 21 GB/s
Latency 61.5
65% 61.5 ns
Poor: 68%
This bench: 110%
Great: 117%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical X99 Professional Builds (Compare 34 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 52%
Yacht
Desktop
Desktop 82%
Aircraft carrier
Workstation
Workstation 46%
Yacht

Motherboard: Asrock X99 Professional

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 37% - Below average Total price: $829
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketers operate countless reddit accounts. UserBenchmark’s data exposes their marketing charade so they attack our reputation.
Why don’t PC brands endorse UserBenchmark?
PC brands profit a lot from flagships like the 4090, 14900KS, and 7950X3D. We help users get similar real-world performance for less money.
Why don’t youtubers promote UserBenchmark?
We don't sponsor youtubers, so they've no incentive to praise us. Moreover, brands pay youtubers extra to market inferior products. UserBenchmark's data challenges the marketing and exposes the youtubers' biases.
Why does UserBenchmark have negative trustpilot reviews?
Trustpilot hosts user-generated online reviews. The 200+ UserBenchmark reviews, are mostly written by virgin marketing accounts. Real users aren't interested in promoting billon-dollar brands.
Why is UserBenchmark popular with users?
Instead of chasing lucrative sponsorships with billion-dollar PC brands, we've dedicated 13 years to publishing accurate real-world data which saves our users millions every year.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $176Nvidia RTX 4060 $293Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $120Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-13600K $260Nvidia RTX 4070 $549Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $44
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $37Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $28Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $48SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $62G.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