Asrock X99 Professional

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 116%
UFO
Desktop
Desktop 87%
Aircraft carrier
Workstation
Workstation 103%
UFO
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (54th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 46 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 89.6%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is very good.
Graphics130% 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.
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 @ 2.7 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20180605
Uptime0 Days
Run DateApr 25 '21 at 21:14
Run Duration190 Seconds
Run User SVN-User
Background CPU1%

 PC Performing as expected (54th 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 93.3
1-Core 117
2-Core 231
84% 147 Pts
4-Core 462
8-Core 733
74% 598 Pts
64-Core 944
58% 944 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 (87th percentile)
130% Outstanding
Lighting 180
Reflection 193
Parallax 186
147% 186 fps
MRender 138
Gravity 184
Splatting 127
121% 150 fps
Poor: 109%
This bench: 130%
Great: 133%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVMe PCIe M.2 500GB-$69
100GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 2B2Q Max speed: PCIe 16,000 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 2,301
Write 2062
Mixed 1,748
454% 2,037 MB/s
4K Read 58.8
4K Write 144
4K Mixed 80.8
269% 94.6 MB/s
DQ Read 873
DQ Write 710
DQ Mixed 781
587% 788 MB/s
Poor: 178% Great: 355%
WD Green 1TB (2011)-$109
71GB free
Firmware: 51.0AB51
SusWrite @10s intervals: 65 67 68 68 67 67 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (16th percentile)
37.4% Below average
Read 63
Write 64.1
Mixed 70.3
SusWrite 66.9
49% 66.1 MB/s
4K Read 1
4K Write 1.4
4K Mixed 0.7
145% 1.03 MB/s
Poor: 28%
This bench: 37.4%
Great: 69%
WD Blue 2.5" 1TB (2004)-$46
170GB free
Firmware: 01.01A01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 94 103 104 104 104 104 MB/s
Performing above expectations (73rd percentile)
53.1% Above average
Read 82.7
Write 81.5
Mixed 51.4
SusWrite 102
58% 79.5 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 2
4K Mixed 0.7
136% 1.07 MB/s
Poor: 23%
This bench: 53.1%
Great: 62%
Toshiba MK5055GSX 500GB-$33
6GB free
Firmware: FG001M
SusWrite @10s intervals: 34 36 36 36 36 36 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (16th percentile)
20.7% Poor
Read 36.1
Write 36.3
Mixed 23.5
SusWrite 35.7
24% 32.9 MB/s
4K Read 0.4
4K Write 1
4K Mixed 0.4
80% 0.6 MB/s
Poor: 14%
This bench: 20.7%
Great: 42%
Hitachi HTS545050B9A300 500GB-$71
229GB free
Firmware: PB4OCA1G
SusWrite @10s intervals: 74 81 82 82 82 82 MB/s
Performing as expected (55th percentile)
35.1% Below average
Read 41.6
Write 38
Mixed 23.5
SusWrite 80.7
34% 45.9 MB/s
4K Read 0.4
4K Write 1.2
4K Mixed 0.6
106% 0.73 MB/s
Poor: 11%
This bench: 35.1%
Great: 45%
Maxtor STM3250820AS 250GB
11GB free
Firmware: 3.AAE
SusWrite @10s intervals: 43 42 44 44 44 44 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (14th percentile)
24.7% Poor
Read 42.6
Write 15.7
Mixed 30.2
SusWrite 43.2
24% 32.9 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1.3
4K Mixed 0.8
138% 0.9 MB/s
Poor: 20%
This bench: 24.7%
Great: 44%
WD Black 640GB (2008)-$25
318GB free
Firmware: 01.03B01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 104 104 103 106 105 106 MB/s
Performing below expectations (39th percentile)
45.8% Average
Read 54.6
Write 53.9
Mixed 53.8
SusWrite 105
49% 66.8 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 2.3
4K Mixed 0.8
156% 1.23 MB/s
Poor: 32%
This bench: 45.8%
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 39.7
120% 41.9 GB/s
SC Read 17.3
SC Write 22
SC Mixed 22.7
59% 20.7 GB/s
Latency 61.4
65% 61.4 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’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