Asrock X99 Professional

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 104%
UFO
Desktop
Desktop 85%
Aircraft carrier
Workstation
Workstation 94%
Nuclear submarine
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (51st percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 49 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
ProcessorWith a good single core score, this CPU can easily handle the majority of general computing tasks. Additionally this processor can handle light workstation, and even some light server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 75.4%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is good.
Graphics132% 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 Drive268% 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)
Memory12.7 GB free of 16 GB @ 2.1 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20180605
Uptime0 Days
Run DateMar 16 '21 at 11:28
Run Duration192 Seconds
Run User SVN-User
Background CPU1%

 PC Performing as expected (51st 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 3.4 GHz (avg)
Performing as expected (45th percentile)
75.4% Very good
Memory 81.5
1-Core 98.3
2-Core 194
72% 125 Pts
4-Core 373
8-Core 634
61% 503 Pts
64-Core 797
49% 797 Pts
Poor: 68%
This bench: 75.4%
Great: 88%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 1080-Ti-$485
CLim: 1999 MHz, MLim: 2752 MHz, Ram: 11GB, Driver: 461.40
Performing way above expectations (96th percentile)
132% Outstanding
Lighting 184
Reflection 194
Parallax 188
150% 189 fps
MRender 138
Gravity 186
Splatting 128
122% 151 fps
Poor: 109%
This bench: 132%
Great: 133%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVMe PCIe M.2 500GB-$69
226GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 2B2Q Max speed: PCIe 16,000 MB/s
SusWrite @10s intervals: 1264 856 855 865 856 864 MB/s
Performing as expected (42nd percentile)
268% Outstanding
Read 2,274
Write 2,100
Mixed 1,647
SusWrite 927
389% 1,737 MB/s
4K Read 57.5
4K Write 161
4K Mixed 83.1
279% 101 MB/s
DQ Read 844
DQ Write 672
DQ Mixed 739
558% 752 MB/s
Poor: 178%
This bench: 268%
Great: 355%
WD Green 1TB (2011)-$109
71GB free
Firmware: 51.0AB51
SusWrite @10s intervals: 65 67 67 67 67 68 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (19th percentile)
39.7% Below average
Read 71.4
Write 64.6
Mixed 79.1
SusWrite 66.9
53% 70.5 MB/s
4K Read 0.9
4K Write 1.1
4K Mixed 0.6
124% 0.87 MB/s
Poor: 28%
This bench: 39.7%
Great: 69%
WD Blue 2.5" 1TB (2004)-$46
193GB free
Firmware: 01.01A01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 99 105 107 106 106 105 MB/s
Performing above expectations (75th percentile)
54.2% Above average
Read 84.3
Write 78.4
Mixed 49.9
SusWrite 104
58% 79.3 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 2
4K Mixed 0.7
136% 1.07 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)
21.7% Poor
Read 38.1
Write 34.5
Mixed 22
SusWrite 37.2
24% 33 MB/s
4K Read 0.4
4K Write 1.1
4K Mixed 0.5
93% 0.67 MB/s
Poor: 14%
This bench: 21.7%
Great: 42%
Hitachi HTS545050B9A300 500GB-$71
229GB free
Firmware: PB4OCA1G
SusWrite @10s intervals: 75 80 82 80 83 81 MB/s
Performing above expectations (62nd percentile)
36.9% Below average
Read 48.3
Write 49
Mixed 27.6
SusWrite 80.2
38% 51.3 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 1.2
4K Mixed 0.7
121% 0.8 MB/s
Poor: 11%
This bench: 36.9%
Great: 45%
Maxtor STM3250820AS 250GB
11GB free
Firmware: 3.AAE
SusWrite @10s intervals: 41 43 44 44 44 44 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (14th percentile)
24.7% Poor
Read 42.8
Write 15.7
Mixed 30.2
SusWrite 43.1
24% 32.9 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.2
4K Mixed 0.8
140% 0.9 MB/s
Poor: 20%
This bench: 24.7%
Great: 44%
WD Black 640GB (2008)-$25
349GB free
Firmware: 01.03B01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 86 97 98 98 98 97 MB/s
Performing above expectations (78th percentile)
56.6% Above average
Read 101
Write 97.4
Mixed 70.5
SusWrite 95.8
67% 91.2 MB/s
4K Read 0.8
4K Write 2
4K Mixed 0.9
170% 1.23 MB/s
Poor: 32%
This bench: 56.6%
Great: 65%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Kingston HyperX DDR4 3000 C15 4x4GB
4 of 8 slots used
16GB DIMM DDR4 clocked @ 2133 MHz
Performing as expected (58th percentile)
94.3% Outstanding
MC Read 36.7
MC Write 38.8
MC Mixed 34
104% 36.5 GB/s
SC Read 14.1
SC Write 18.7
SC Mixed 18.9
49% 17.2 GB/s
Latency 77.7
52% 77.7 ns
Poor: 68%
This bench: 94.3%
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