Asrock X299 Taichi XE

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 (49th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 51 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 86.3%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is very good.
Graphics47.1% is a reasonable 3D score (RTX 2060S = 100%). This GPU can handle the majority of recent games but it will struggle with resolutions greater than 1080p at ultra detail levels. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Memory32GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's far more than any current game requires. 32GB 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 (37%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
MotherboardAsrock X299 Taichi XE  (all builds)
Memory23 GB free of 32 GB @ 3.2 GHz
Display3840 x 2160 - 32 Bit Farben
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20191128
Uptime7.1 Days
Run DateSep 24 '21 at 11:29
Run Duration204 Seconds
Run User DEU-User
Background CPU 37%
Watch Gameplay: 580 + 9600K How to compare your gameplay

 PC Performing as expected (49th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i9-7900X-$393
CPUSocket, 1 CPU, 10 cores, 20 threads
Base clock 3.3 GHz, turbo 4.2 GHz (avg)
Performing above expectations (79th percentile)
86.3% Excellent
Memory 75.6
1-Core 134
2-Core 266
86% 159 Pts
4-Core 519
8-Core 982
89% 750 Pts
64-Core 1,814
112% 1,814 Pts
Poor: 72%
This bench: 86.3%
Great: 92%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD RX 580-$130
AMD(1002 0B37) ≥ 4GB
CLim: 1340 MHz, MLim: 2000 MHz, Ram: 8GB, Driver: 20.10.35.02
Performing below potential (13th percentile) - GPU OC Guide
47.1% Average
Lighting 57.8
Reflection 62.7
Parallax 86.2
47% 68.9 fps
MRender 64.1
Gravity 67.2
Splatting 46.4
47% 59.2 fps
Poor: 46%
This bench: 47.1%
Great: 56%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung 970 Pro NVMe PCIe M.2 512GB-$170
190GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 1B2QEXP7 Max speed: PCIe 16,000 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 2,407
Write 2,149
Mixed 1,031
412% 1,862 MB/s
4K Read 34.1
4K Write 197
4K Mixed 77.6
255% 103 MB/s
DQ Read 1,249
DQ Write 929
DQ Mixed 1,114
826% 1,097 MB/s
Poor: 195% Great: 393%
Samsung 960 Evo NVMe PCIe M.2 250GB-$45
34GB free
Firmware: 3B7QCXE7 Max speed: PCIe 16,000 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 1904
Write 1,443
Mixed 515
283% 1,288 MB/s
4K Read 40.3
4K Write 151
4K Mixed 50.4
206% 80.7 MB/s
DQ Read 1,023
DQ Write 1,010
DQ Mixed 733
629% 922 MB/s
Poor: 142% Great: 236%
WD Red 3TB (2012)-$100
53GB free
Firmware: 82.00A82
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 116
Write 113
Mixed 78.7
76% 102 MB/s
4K Read 0.9
4K Write 2
4K Mixed 1
186% 1.3 MB/s
Poor: 42% Great: 88%
WD Red 3TB (2012)-$100
56GB free
Firmware: 82.00A82
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 135
Write 131
Mixed 78.6
85% 115 MB/s
4K Read 0.9
4K Write 2.5
4K Mixed 0.9
184% 1.43 MB/s
Poor: 42% Great: 88%
USB Flash Disk 1GB
1GB free, PID 6025
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 7.7
Write 1.2
Mixed 2.5
4% 3.8 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 0
4K Mixed 0
3% 0.23 MB/s
Poor: 2% Great: 4%
SDXC Card 128GB
94GB free, PID null
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 88
Write 59.9
Mixed 64.5
86% 70.8 MB/s
4K Read 7.8
4K Write 3
4K Mixed 4
267% 4.93 MB/s
Poor: 8% Great: 45%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown 4x8GB
4 of 8 slots used
32GB DIMM DDR4 clocked @ 3200 MHz
Performing as expected (53rd percentile)
65.8% Good
MC Read 21.5
MC Write 33.2
MC Mixed 19.6
71% 24.8 GB/s
SC Read 8.3
SC Write 22.3
SC Mixed 11.2
40% 13.9 GB/s
Latency 89.2
45% 89.2 ns
Poor: 36%
This bench: 65.8%
Great: 115%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

 SkillBench Score 0: 0R 0G 0B (High Scores)

Measures user input accuracy relative to the given hardware

Score Hit Rate Shots EFps 0.1% Low Refresh Rate Screen Resolution Monitor
0% 0% 0 9 7 60 27" 1280 720 ACI27B3 ROG PG27AQ
Typical X299 Taichi XE Builds (Compare 108 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 168%
UFO
Desktop
Desktop 89%
Aircraft carrier
Workstation
Workstation 181%
UFO

Motherboard: Asrock X299 Taichi XE

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 49% - Average Total price: $1,761
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketing teams operate large numbers of reddit accounts. Because UserBenchmark’s data often contradicts their marketing spiel, they systematically attack our reputation.
Why don’t large PC brands support UserBenchmark?
PC brands make a lot of money on flagship hardware sales: 4090, 14900KS, 7950X3D etc. We help consumers get comparable real-world performance at a fraction of the cost.
Why don’t any youtubers promote UserBenchmark?
We don't sponsor youtubers, so they have no incentive to praise us. Additionally, brands spend more on marketing weaker products which puts their youtubers at odds with UserBenchmark.
Why does UserBenchmark have so many negative trustpilot reviews?
Trustpilot hosts user-generated reviews in an online community. 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 the last 13 years to providing comprehensive and accurate data to our users. As a result, most of our users return over and over again and collectively save millions every year.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170Nvidia 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 $550Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $45
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $37Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $39Corsair 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