Asrock X99 Professional

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 113%
UFO
Desktop
Desktop 91%
Nuclear submarine
Workstation
Workstation 104%
UFO
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (58th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 42 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 82.1%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is very good.
Graphics133% 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 Drive281% 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)
Memory13.3 GB free of 16 GB @ 2.7 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20180605
Uptime0.1 Days
Run DateMar 09 '21 at 00:13
Run Duration193 Seconds
Run User SVN-User
Background CPU3%

 PC Performing as expected (58th 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 above expectations (83rd percentile)
82.1% Excellent
Memory 93.5
1-Core 116
2-Core 181
78% 130 Pts
4-Core 382
8-Core 702
65% 542 Pts
64-Core 947
59% 947 Pts
Poor: 68%
This bench: 82.1%
Great: 88%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 1080-Ti-$485
CLim: 1999 MHz, MLim: 2752 MHz, Ram: 11GB, Driver: 461.72
Performing way above expectations (96th percentile)
133% Outstanding
Lighting 184
Reflection 196
Parallax 190
150% 190 fps
MRender 138
Gravity 188
Splatting 129
122% 152 fps
Poor: 109%
This bench: 133%
Great: 133%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVMe PCIe M.2 500GB-$69
234GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 2B2Q Max speed: PCIe 16,000 MB/s
SusWrite @10s intervals: 2112 852 779 781 781 785 MB/s
Performing as expected (50th percentile)
281% Outstanding
Read 2,250
Write 2,054
Mixed 1,660
SusWrite 1,015
391% 1,745 MB/s
4K Read 62.1
4K Write 170
4K Mixed 85.7
294% 106 MB/s
DQ Read 936
DQ Write 751
DQ Mixed 828
624% 838 MB/s
Poor: 178%
This bench: 281%
Great: 355%
WD Green 1TB (2011)-$109
71GB free
Firmware: 51.0AB51
SusWrite @10s intervals: 66 67 68 67 67 67 MB/s
Performing below expectations (21st percentile)
40.3% Average
Read 73.6
Write 61.3
Mixed 77.8
SusWrite 66.9
52% 69.9 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 1.2
4K Mixed 0.6
110% 0.77 MB/s
Poor: 28%
This bench: 40.3%
Great: 69%
WD Blue 2.5" 1TB (2004)-$46
244GB free
Firmware: 01.01A01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 101 105 107 106 106 107 MB/s
Performing above expectations (75th percentile)
54.2% Above average
Read 83.3
Write 82.6
Mixed 52.1
SusWrite 106
59% 80.9 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 1.9
4K Mixed 0.7
134% 1.03 MB/s
Poor: 23%
This bench: 54.2%
Great: 62%
Toshiba MK5055GSX 500GB-$33
13GB free
Firmware: FG001M
SusWrite @10s intervals: 36 37 38 38 38 38 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (19th percentile)
21.8% Poor
Read 38.6
Write 36
Mixed 23.1
SusWrite 37.2
25% 33.7 MB/s
4K Read 0.4
4K Write 1
4K Mixed 0.5
91% 0.63 MB/s
Poor: 14%
This bench: 21.8%
Great: 42%
Hitachi HTS545050B9A300 500GB-$71
402GB free
Firmware: PB4OCA1G
SusWrite @10s intervals: 77 80 82 83 84 85 MB/s
Performing above expectations (62nd percentile)
37.1% Below average
Read 47.3
Write 43.3
Mixed 19.7
SusWrite 81.8
35% 48 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 1.3
4K Mixed 0.7
123% 0.83 MB/s
Poor: 11%
This bench: 37.1%
Great: 45%
Maxtor STM3250820AS 250GB
11GB free
Firmware: 3.AAE
SusWrite @10s intervals: 42 43 44 44 44 44 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (14th percentile)
25% Poor
Read 43.5
Write 15.7
Mixed 30.2
SusWrite 43.3
25% 33.2 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1.3
4K Mixed 0.8
138% 0.9 MB/s
Poor: 20%
This bench: 25%
Great: 44%
WD Black 640GB (2008)-$25
422GB free
Firmware: 01.03B01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 86 96 99 100 100 100 MB/s
Performing above expectations (72nd percentile)
55.3% Above average
Read 95.2
Write 96.9
Mixed 75.7
SusWrite 97
67% 91.2 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 2.4
4K Mixed 0.9
169% 1.3 MB/s
Poor: 32%
This bench: 55.3%
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)
109% Outstanding
MC Read 42.7
MC Write 43.6
MC Mixed 39.9
120% 42.1 GB/s
SC Read 17.4
SC Write 21.4
SC Mixed 22.5
58% 20.4 GB/s
Latency 61.1
66% 61.1 ns
Poor: 68%
This bench: 109%
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 challenges their narrative so they attack our reputation with a co-ordinated charade.
Why don’t PC brands endorse UserBenchmark?
PC brands make a lot of profit on 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 pay youtubers, so they don't praise us. Moreover, UserBenchmark's data exposes the youtubers that promote overpriced/inferior products.
Why does UserBenchmark have negative trustpilot reviews?
The 200+ reviews on trustpilot are mostly written by virgin marketing accounts. Real users aren't incentivized to back brands.
Why is UserBenchmark popular with users?
Instead of chasing sponsorship with billion-dollar PC brands, we've dedicated 13 years to publishing real-world data which collectively saves our users millions.
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