Asrock X99 Professional

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 121%
UFO
Desktop
Desktop 94%
Nuclear submarine
Workstation
Workstation 109%
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 typical workstation, and even moderate server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 89.6%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is very good.
Graphics131% 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 Drive272% 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)
Memory13.5 GB free of 16 GB @ 2.7 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20180605
Uptime0.1 Days
Run DateApr 22 '21 at 10:08
Run Duration191 Seconds
Run User SVN-User
Background CPU5%

 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 way above expectations (98th percentile)
89.6% Excellent
Memory 93.7
1-Core 114
2-Core 216
81% 141 Pts
4-Core 460
8-Core 756
74% 608 Pts
64-Core 943
58% 943 Pts
Poor: 68%
This bench: 89.6%
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 (92nd percentile)
131% Outstanding
Lighting 182
Reflection 194
Parallax 188
148% 188 fps
MRender 138
Gravity 186
Splatting 127
121% 150 fps
Poor: 109%
This bench: 131%
Great: 133%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVMe PCIe M.2 500GB-$69
214GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 2B2Q Max speed: PCIe 16,000 MB/s
SusWrite @10s intervals: 1114 855 846 854 849 843 MB/s
Performing as expected (44th percentile)
272% Outstanding
Read 2,342
Write 2,112
Mixed 1,672
SusWrite 894
393% 1,755 MB/s
4K Read 60.8
4K Write 157
4K Mixed 84.6
284% 101 MB/s
DQ Read 888
DQ Write 715
DQ Mixed 794
596% 799 MB/s
Poor: 178%
This bench: 272%
Great: 355%
WD Green 1TB (2011)-$109
71GB free
Firmware: 51.0AB51
SusWrite @10s intervals: 66 66 66 67 67 67 MB/s
Performing below expectations (35th percentile)
46.5% Average
Read 95
Write 88.2
Mixed 87.2
SusWrite 66.6
63% 84.2 MB/s
4K Read 0.8
4K Write 2
4K Mixed 0.6
137% 1.13 MB/s
Poor: 28%
This bench: 46.5%
Great: 69%
WD Blue 2.5" 1TB (2004)-$46
156GB free
Firmware: 01.01A01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 85 85 86 86 88 89 MB/s
Performing as expected (51st percentile)
44.7% Average
Read 69.1
Write 69.6
Mixed 42.9
SusWrite 86.4
49% 67 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 2
4K Mixed 0.7
136% 1.07 MB/s
Poor: 23%
This bench: 44.7%
Great: 62%
Toshiba MK5055GSX 500GB-$33
10GB free
Firmware: FG001M
SusWrite @10s intervals: 36 36 37 38 36 37 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (16th percentile)
21% Poor
Read 36.4
Write 34.6
Mixed 23.2
SusWrite 36.7
24% 32.7 MB/s
4K Read 0.4
4K Write 1.1
4K Mixed 0.4
82% 0.63 MB/s
Poor: 14%
This bench: 21%
Great: 42%
Hitachi HTS545050B9A300 500GB-$71
229GB free
Firmware: PB4OCA1G
SusWrite @10s intervals: 80 80 81 81 82 82 MB/s
Performing as expected (55th percentile)
34.6% Below average
Read 39.4
Write 40.1
Mixed 23.5
SusWrite 81
34% 46 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 1.1
4K Mixed 0.7
119% 0.77 MB/s
Poor: 11%
This bench: 34.6%
Great: 45%
Maxtor STM3250820AS 250GB
11GB free
Firmware: 3.AAE
SusWrite @10s intervals: 43 42 43 44 44 44 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (14th percentile)
24.8% Poor
Read 42.9
Write 16.9
Mixed 29.7
SusWrite 43.2
25% 33.2 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.3
4K Mixed 0.8
142% 0.93 MB/s
Poor: 20%
This bench: 24.8%
Great: 44%
WD Black 640GB (2008)-$25
335GB free
Firmware: 01.03B01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 94 94 94 94 95 93 MB/s
Performing above expectations (79th percentile)
57.4% Above average
Read 106
Write 95.7
Mixed 63.9
SusWrite 93.9
66% 89.8 MB/s
4K Read 0.8
4K Write 2.3
4K Mixed 1
187% 1.37 MB/s
Poor: 32%
This bench: 57.4%
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 42.3
MC Write 43.7
MC Mixed 39.8
120% 41.9 GB/s
SC Read 17.6
SC Write 21.7
SC Mixed 23.1
59% 20.8 GB/s
Latency 60.5
66% 60.5 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