MSI X99A GAMING 7 (MS-7885)

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 0%
Incomplete
Desktop
Desktop 0%
Incomplete
Workstation
Workstation 0%
Incomplete
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (56th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 44 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 70.5%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is good.
Graphics93.3% is a very good 3D score, it's the business. This GPU can handle recent 3D games at high resolutions and ultra detail levels.
Memory48GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's far more than any current game requires. 48GB will also allow for large file and system caches, virtual machine hosting, software development, video editing and batch multimedia processing.
OS VersionAlthough Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
Very high background CPU (36%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
SystemMSI MS-7885
MotherboardMSI X99A GAMING 7 (MS-7885)  (all builds)
Memory34.8 GB free of 48 GB @ 2.1 GHz
Display2560 x 1080 - 32 Bit Farben
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20151102
Uptime0.4 Days
Run DateMay 29 '21 at 02:11
Run Duration279 Seconds
Run User DEU-User
Background CPU 36%
Watch Gameplay: 2060 + 9600K How to compare your gameplay

 PC Performing as expected (56th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i7-5820K-$130
SOCKET 0, 1 CPU, 6 cores, 12 threads
Base clock 3.3 GHz, turbo 3.4 GHz (avg)
Performing way below expectations (17th percentile)
70.5% Very good
Memory 78.7
1-Core 92.5
2-Core 179
68% 117 Pts
4-Core 336
8-Core 551
54% 443 Pts
64-Core 717
44% 717 Pts
Poor: 68%
This bench: 70.5%
Great: 88%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia RTX 2060-$287
CLim: 2160 MHz, MLim: 3500 MHz, Ram: 6GB, Driver: 456.71
Performing above expectations (80th percentile)
93.3% Outstanding
Lighting 118
Reflection 101
Parallax 108
96% 109 fps
MRender 134
Gravity 100
Splatting 91.7
87% 109 fps
Poor: 80%
This bench: 93.3%
Great: 97%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung 860 Evo 500GB-$76
39GB free (System drive)
Firmware: RVT03B6Q
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 457
Write 274
Mixed 267
73% 333 MB/s
4K Read 26.6
4K Write 70.7
4K Mixed 32.9
120% 43.4 MB/s
DQ Read 373
DQ Write 294
DQ Mixed 242
206% 303 MB/s
Poor: 74% Great: 129%
Samsung 850 Evo 500GB-$76
42GB free
Firmware: EMT02B6Q
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 457
Write 414
Mixed 378
93% 416 MB/s
4K Read 32.4
4K Write 66.9
4K Mixed 42.4
139% 47.2 MB/s
DQ Read 381
DQ Write 332
DQ Mixed 351
265% 355 MB/s
Poor: 80% Great: 134%
WD Red 2TB (2012)-$82
389GB free
Firmware: 82.00A82
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 73
Write 73.2
Mixed 59.5
51% 68.6 MB/s
4K Read 0.8
4K Write 2.1
4K Mixed 1
183% 1.3 MB/s
Poor: 45% Great: 86%
JetFlash Transcend 4GB
4GB free, PID 1000
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
Relative performance n/a - benchmarks incomplete
Read 18
Write 6
Mixed 3.7
9% 9.23 MB/s
4K Read 4.7
4K Write 0
26% 2.35 MB/s
Poor: 3% Great: 8%
USB3.0 4TB
1.5TB free, PID 0562
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
Read 139
Write 140
Mixed 108
163% 129 MB/s
4K Read 1
4K Write 2.7
4K Mixed 1
130% 1.57 MB/s
Poor: 21% Great: 62%
USB3.0 1TB
73GB free, PID 0562
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 351
Write 366
Mixed 357
466% 358 MB/s
4K Read 18.2
4K Write 19
4K Mixed 17.4
1,306% 18.2 MB/s
DQ Read 23.6
DQ Write 35.8
DQ Mixed 28.2
2,264% 29.2 MB/s
Poor: 11% Great: 191%
USB DISK 3.0 32GB
8GB free, PID 5100
Operating at USB 2.1 Speed
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 14.3
Write 12.5
Mixed 9.2
15% 12 MB/s
4K Read 2.2
4K Write 0.1
4K Mixed 0
12% 0.77 MB/s
Poor: 8% Great: 23%
General UDisk 2GB
2GB free, PID null
SusWrite @10s intervals: 12 10 12 12 9 9.2 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (96th percentile)
9.14% Terrible
Read 29.2
Write 17.2
Mixed 9
SusWrite 10.6
20% 16.5 MB/s
4K Read 11
4K Write 0
4K Mixed 0
41% 3.67 MB/s
Poor: 3%
This bench: 9.14%
Great: 9%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Kingston HyperX DDR4 2133 C14 6x8GB
6 of 8 slots used
48GB DIMM 2133 MHz clocked @ 2134 MHz
Performing below expectations (32nd percentile)
87.1% Excellent
MC Read 35.9
MC Write 32.5
MC Mixed 31.8
96% 33.4 GB/s
SC Read 14.3
SC Write 18.2
SC Mixed 19.5
50% 17.3 GB/s
Latency 83
48% 83 ns
Poor: 40%
This bench: 87.1%
Great: 109%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical X99A GAMING 7 (MS-7885) Builds (Compare 706 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 78%
Battleship
Desktop
Desktop 80%
Aircraft carrier
Workstation
Workstation 69%
Battle cruiser

Motherboard: MSI X99A GAMING 7 (MS-7885)

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 97% - Outstanding Total price: $401
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketers operate countless reddit accounts. UserBenchmark’s data exposes their marketing charade so they systematically attack our reputation.
Why don’t large 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 any youtubers promote UserBenchmark?
We don't sponsor youtubers, so they have no incentive to praise us. Moreover, brands pay youtubers extra to promote inferior products but UserBenchmark’s data exposes them.
Why does UserBenchmark have so many negative trustpilot reviews?
Trustpilot hosts user-generated online reviews. It's obvious that the 200+ UserBenchmark reviews, are mostly written by virgin marketing accounts. Real users aren't interested in promoting billon-dollar brands.
Why is UserBenchmark so popular with users?
Instead of pursuing lucrative sponsorships with billion-dollar PC brands, we have dedicated 13 years to publishing accurate real-world data. As a result, our users save millions every year so they keep returning.
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