Asus TUF GAMING X670E-PLUS WIFI

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 209%
UFO
Desktop
Desktop 122%
UFO
Workstation
Workstation 215%
UFO
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing above expectations (63rd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 37 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
ProcessorWith an outstanding single core score, this CPU is the cat's whiskers: It demolishes everyday tasks such as web browsing, office apps and audio/video playback. Additionally this processor can handle intensive workstation, and even full-fledged server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 124%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is outstanding.
Graphics172% is a record breaking 3D score, it's almost off the scale. This GPU can handle all 3D games at very high resolutions and ultra detail levels.
Boot Drive585% 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.
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 VersionWindows 11 is the most recent version of Windows.
Run History
MotherboardAsus TUF GAMING X670E-PLUS WIFI  (all builds)
Memory16.3 GB free of 32 GB @ 4.8 GHz
Display3840 x 2160 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 11
BIOS Date20221023
Uptime10 Days
Run DateMay 09 '24 at 19:49
Run Duration262 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU4%
Watch Gameplay: 6800-XT + 9600K How to compare your gameplay

 PC Performing above expectations (63rd percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD Ryzen 7 7700X-$234
AM5, 1 CPU, 8 cores, 16 threads
Base clock 4.5 GHz, turbo 5.5 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (99th percentile)
124% Outstanding
Memory 84.1
1-Core 221
2-Core 440
128% 248 Pts
4-Core 872
8-Core 1,443
141% 1,157 Pts
64-Core 2,003
124% 2,003 Pts
Poor: 97%
This bench: 124%
Great: 122%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD RX 6800-XT-$650
XFX(1EAE 6701) ≥ 4GB
Ram: 16GB, Driver: 24.3.1
Performing below potential (74th percentile) - GPU OC Guide
172% Outstanding
Lighting 202
Reflection 248
Parallax 447
165% 299 fps
MRender 390
Gravity 165
Splatting 316
238% 290 fps
Poor: 165%
This bench: 172%
Great: 178%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
WDS100T1X0E-00AFY0 1TB
717GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 614600WD
SusWrite @10s intervals: 4811 4821 4832 2900 1123 1022 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (96th percentile)
585% Outstanding
Read 4,272
Write 4,468
Mixed 3,346
SusWrite 3,251
863% 3,834 MB/s
4K Read 82.8
4K Write 280
4K Mixed 111
416% 158 MB/s
DQ Read 2,179
DQ Write 1,776
DQ Mixed 1977
1,480% 1,977 MB/s
Poor: 264%
This bench: 585%
Great: 573%
Kingston SNVS2000G 2TB
1.5TB free
Firmware: S8442105
SusWrite @10s intervals: 1277 1291 1286 1295 1294 1296 MB/s
Performing above expectations (83rd percentile)
227% Outstanding
Read 1,326
Write 1,303
Mixed 939
SusWrite 1,290
274% 1,215 MB/s
4K Read 46.7
4K Write 179
4K Mixed 25.5
198% 83.6 MB/s
DQ Read 870
DQ Write 865
DQ Mixed 485
470% 740 MB/s
Poor: 120%
This bench: 227%
Great: 255%
Kingston SFYRD2000G 2TB
70GB free
Firmware: EIFK31.6
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 1,400
Write 3,799
Mixed 1,386
498% 2,195 MB/s
4K Read 49
4K Write 316
4K Mixed 83.7
349% 149 MB/s
DQ Read 2,147
DQ Write 1,712
DQ Mixed 1,578
1,277% 1,812 MB/s
Poor: 274% Great: 614%
WD WD40EFZX-68AWUN0 4TB
41GB free
Firmware: 81.00B81
SusWrite @10s intervals: 107 124 121 112 121 105 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (10th percentile)
63.9% Good
Read 107
Write 103
Mixed 97.5
SusWrite 115
78% 106 MB/s
4K Read 1
4K Write 3.4
4K Mixed 0.9
205% 1.77 MB/s
Poor: 57%
This bench: 63.9%
Great: 116%
3TB free
Firmware: 010A
SusWrite @10s intervals: 391 393 393 393 393 393 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - RAM cached drive detected
Poor: 15% Great: 101%
Kingston DataTraveler 2.0 1GB
1GB free, PID 1d00
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 4.8 5.8 5.8 5.5 5.5 5.6 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - benchmarks incomplete
Read 52.6
Write 5.7
Mixed 3.7
SusWrite 5.5
15% 16.9 MB/s
4K Read 55.2
4K Mixed 0
307% 27.6 MB/s
Poor: 3% Great: 5%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown F5-6000J3038F16G 2x16GB
2 of 4 slots used
32GB DIMM 22h 4800 MHz clocked @ 6000 MHz
Performing below potential (14th percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
156% Outstanding
MC Read 48.1
MC Write 64.3
MC Mixed 55.1
160% 55.8 GB/s
SC Read 45.3
SC Write 65.8
SC Mixed 50.1
154% 53.7 GB/s
Latency 70.3
57% 70.3 ns
Poor: 146%
This bench: 156%
Great: 238%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

 SkillBench Score 0: 0P 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 69 57 120 31.5" 1280 720 SAM7232 Odyssey G7
Typical TUF GAMING X670E-PLUS WIFI Builds (Compare 369 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 412%
UFO
Desktop
Desktop 117%
UFO
Workstation
Workstation 418%
UFO

Motherboard: Asus TUF GAMING X670E-PLUS WIFI

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 68% - Good Total price: $2,240
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketing teams operate large numbers of reddit accounts. When UserBenchmark’s data contradicts their marketing spiel, they deflect by systematically attacking our reputation.
Why don’t large PC brands support UserBenchmark?
PC brands make a lot of their profit from flagship hardware sales: 4090, 14900KS, 7950X3D etc. We help consumers to choose hardware that offers similar 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 make positive content about us. Additionally, the brands with weaker products tend to spend more on youtube marketing, 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 that's open and accessible to all. Looking at its 200+ UserBenchmark reviews, which are mostly written by virgin accounts, it is glaringly obvious that they were created by a marketing team. Real users don’t have any time or interest to promote one brand over another.
Why is UserBenchmark so popular with users?
Instead of trying to win lucrative sponsorship deals with billion dollar PC brands, we have spent the last 13 years 100% focussed on providing comprehensive, accurate and relevant information for our users. As a result, most of our users return over and over again because collectively they save millions of dollars every year.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $159Nvidia RTX 4060 $280Crucial 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