MSI MAG X570S TOMAHAWK MAX WIFI (MS-7D54)

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 200%
UFO
Desktop
Desktop 108%
UFO
Workstation
Workstation 199%
UFO
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (45th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 55 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 109%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is outstanding.
Graphics187% 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.
Memory64GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's far more than any current game requires. 64GB 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.
Very high background CPU (39%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
SystemMicro-Star MS-7D54
MotherboardMSI MAG X570S TOMAHAWK MAX WIFI (MS-7D54)  (all builds)
Memory56.4 GB free of 64 GB @ 3.9 GHz
Display2560 x 1440 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 11
BIOS Date20230429
Uptime0.5 Days
Run DateMay 10 '24 at 10:29
Run Duration203 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU 39%

 PC Performing as expected (45th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D-$328
AM4, 1 CPU, 8 cores, 16 threads
Base clock 3.4 GHz, turbo 4.35 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (91st percentile)
109% Outstanding
Memory 97
1-Core 167
2-Core 324
107% 196 Pts
4-Core 646
8-Core 1,222
111% 934 Pts
64-Core 1,519
94% 1,519 Pts
Poor: 92%
This bench: 109%
Great: 111%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia RTX 4080-S (Super)-$977
CLim: 3120 MHz, MLim: 5750 MHz, Ram: 16GB, Driver: 552.44
Relative performance (0th percentile) - Disable monitor sync before benchmarking (255 fps cap detected)
187% Outstanding
Lighting 255
Reflection 255
Parallax 255
208% 255 fps
MRender 255
Gravity 255
Splatting 255
209% 255 fps
Poor: 279%
This bench: 187%
Great: 314%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung PM830 512GB
212GB free
Firmware: CXM03D1Q
SusWrite @10s intervals: 251 225 249 267 256 271 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (11th percentile)
55.4% Above average
Read 316
Write 166
Mixed 213
SusWrite 253
53% 237 MB/s
4K Read 17
4K Write 32.3
4K Mixed 19.9
68% 23.1 MB/s
DQ Read 204
DQ Write 68.3
DQ Mixed 101
84% 125 MB/s
Poor: 51%
This bench: 55.4%
Great: 82%
Samsung 980 Pro NVMe PCIe M.2 1TB-$107
152GB free
Firmware: 5B2QGXA7 Max speed: PCIe 16,000 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 2,546
Write 2,862
Mixed 2,684
605% 2,697 MB/s
4K Read 71
4K Write 175
4K Mixed 101
330% 116 MB/s
DQ Read 1,200
DQ Write 958
DQ Mixed 1,050
794% 1,070 MB/s
Poor: 274% Great: 488%
Predator GM3500 1TB
134GB free
Firmware: 42AAT8KA
SusWrite @10s intervals: 1209 637 593 211 728 615 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (11th percentile)
179% Outstanding
Read 2,054
Write 927
Mixed 168
SusWrite 666
208% 954 MB/s
4K Read 30.9
4K Write 59.9
4K Mixed 41.7
132% 44.2 MB/s
DQ Read 590
DQ Write 93.9
DQ Mixed 174
170% 286 MB/s
Poor: 166%
This bench: 179%
Great: 381%
Spcc Solid State Disk 256GB
58GB free (System drive)
Firmware: SBFM61.5
SusWrite @10s intervals: 188 155 100 83 54 50 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - RAM cached drive detected
Poor: 11% Great: 59%
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016)-$62
409GB free
Firmware: CC26
SusWrite @10s intervals: 2.7 4.2 12 13 7 14 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - RAM cached drive detected
Poor: 63% Great: 114%
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016)-$62
211GB free
Firmware: CC26
SusWrite @10s intervals: 152 156 158 158 161 162 MB/s
Performing below expectations (34th percentile)
85.5% Excellent
Read 140
Write 89.4
Mixed 76.7
SusWrite 158
85% 116 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.6
4K Mixed 0.8
148% 1.03 MB/s
Poor: 63%
This bench: 85.5%
Great: 114%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
G.SKILL Ripjaws V DDR4 4000 C18 4x16GB
4 of 4 slots used
64GB DIMM DDR4 clocked @ 3866 MHz
Performing above expectations (76th percentile)
124% Outstanding
MC Read 59.9
MC Write 29
MC Mixed 46.2
129% 45 GB/s
SC Read 33.4
SC Write 27.5
SC Mixed 42.6
99% 34.5 GB/s
Latency 52
77% 52 ns
Poor: 72%
This bench: 124%
Great: 140%

 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 66 52 165 31.5" 1280 720 GBT3206 G32QC A
Typical MAG X570S TOMAHAWK MAX WIFI (MS-7D54) Builds (Compare 2,091 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 182%
UFO
Desktop
Desktop 103%
UFO
Workstation
Workstation 200%
UFO

Motherboard: MSI MAG X570S TOMAHAWK MAX WIFI (MS-7D54)

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 114% - Outstanding Total price: $870
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 large proportion lot of their profit from flagship hardware sales (4090, 14900KS, 7950X3D etc.). UserBenchmark's data helps 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. In addition, 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