Asrock X99 WS-E

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 50%
Yacht
Desktop
Desktop 79%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 62%
Destroyer
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (46th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 54 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 typical workstation, and even moderate server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 74.1%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is good.
Graphics57.3% 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)
Boot Drive101% is a very good SSD score. This drive is suitable for moderate workstation use, it will facilitate fast boots, responsive applications and ensure minimum IO wait times.
Memory128GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's far more than any current game requires. 128GB will also allow for large file and system caches, virtual machine hosting, software development, video editing and batch multimedia processing.
OS VersionAlthough Windows 7 is still a viable option, it's now 14 years and 11 months old. This system should be upgraded to Windows 10 which is generally faster and has an improved set of core utilities including better versions of explorer and task manager.
MotherboardAsrock X99 WS-E  (all builds)
Memory99.6 GB free of 128 GB @ 2.4 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors, 3840 x 2160 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 7
BIOS Date20160816
Uptime0.5 Days
Run DateApr 18 '18 at 01:32
Run Duration182 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU0%
Watch Gameplay: 1060-6GB + 9600K How to compare your gameplay

 PC Performing as expected (46th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Xeon E5-2696 v4
CPUSocket, 1 CPU, 22 cores, 44 threads
Base clock 2.2 GHz
Performing as expected (44th percentile)
74.1% Very good
Memory 80.1
1-Core 92.2
2-Core 184
68% 119 Pts
4-Core 366
8-Core 734
65% 550 Pts
64-Core 2,560
158% 2,560 Pts
Poor: 65%
This bench: 74.1%
Great: 84%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 1060-6GB-$117
CLim: 1961 MHz, MLim: 2002 MHz, Ram: 6GB, Driver: 388.71
Performing below potential (73rd percentile) - GPU OC Guide
57.3% Above average
Lighting 70.4
Reflection 77.3
Parallax 75.4
57% 74.4 fps
MRender 67.3
Gravity 71.3
Splatting 70.3
57% 69.6 fps
Poor: 51%
This bench: 57.3%
Great: 60%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung 850 Evo 1TB-$110
587GB free (System drive)
Firmware: EMT02B6Q Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s
Performing below expectations (26th percentile)
101% Outstanding
Read 511
Write 395
Mixed 174
79% 360 MB/s
4K Read 42.8
4K Write 77.9
4K Mixed 37.9
155% 52.9 MB/s
DQ Read 226
DQ Write 193
DQ Mixed 96.4
103% 172 MB/s
Poor: 80%
This bench: 101%
Great: 133%
Intel Raid 5 Volume 32TB
17.5TB free
Firmware: 1.0.
Relative performance n/a - RAM cached drive detected
Poor: 12% Great: 160%
WD Red 8TB (2017)-$235
4.5TB free
Firmware: 83.H
Performing as expected (41st percentile)
81.7% Excellent
Read 134
Write 150
Mixed 149
109% 144 MB/s
4K Read 0.93
4K Write 4.68
4K Mixed 0.47
177% 2.02 MB/s
Poor: 56%
This bench: 81.7%
Great: 110%
H/W RAID50 16TB
3.5TB free
Firmware: 0958 Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
71.5% Very good
Read 153
Write 96.5
Mixed 37.2
70% 95.5 MB/s
4K Read 1.16
4K Write 0.54
4K Mixed 0.14
74% 0.61 MB/s
Poor: 71%
This bench: 71.5%
Great: 121%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown 9905625-074.A00G 9905625-075.A00G 9905625-074.A00G 9905625-075.A00G 9905625-074.A00G 9905625-075.A00G 9905625-074.A00G 9905625-075.A00G 128GB
2400, 2400, 2400, 2400, 2400, 2400, 2400, 2400 MHz
16384, 16384, 16384, 16384, 16384, 16384, 16384, 16384 MB
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
137% Outstanding
MC Read 62.9
MC Write 55.4
MC Mixed 51
161% 56.4 GB/s
SC Read 10.5
SC Write 15.2
SC Mixed 15.3
39% 13.7 GB/s
Latency 80.4
50% 80.4 ns
Poor: 135%
This bench: 137%
Great: 138%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical X99 WS-E Builds (Compare 27 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 106%
UFO
Desktop
Desktop 91%
Nuclear submarine
Workstation
Workstation 97%
Nuclear submarine

Motherboard: Asrock X99 WS-E

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 74% - Very good Total price: $653
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketers operate thousands of reddit accounts. Our benchmarks expose their spiel so they attack our reputation.
Why don’t PC brands endorse UserBenchmark?
Brands make boatloads on flagships like the 4090 and 14900KS. We help users get similar real-world performance for less money.
Why don’t youtubers promote UserBenchmark?
We don't pay youtubers, so they don't praise us. Moreover, our data obstructs youtubers who promote overpriced or inferior products.
Why does UserBenchmark have negative trustpilot reviews?
The 200+ trustpilot reviews are mostly written by virgin marketing accounts. Real users don't give a monkey's about big brands.
Why is UserBenchmark popular with users?
Instead of pursuing brands for sponsorship, we've spent 13 years publishing real-world data for users.
The Best
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $160Nvidia RTX 4060 $290WD Black SN850X M.2 2TB $160
Intel Core i5-13600K $249Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385WD Black SN850X M.2 1TB $79
Intel Core i5-12400F $110Nvidia RTX 4070 $520Crucial T700 M.2 4TB $363
Today's hottest deals
If you buy something via a price link, UserBenchmark may earn a commission
About  •  User Guide  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer  •  YouTube Feedback