# Highly controversial userbenchmark competition



## storm-chaser

*This one is just for fun.* I know userbenchmark gets a bad rap from within the tech community, in favoring Intel, but I still think it still holds some comedic value and plus it doesn't take a long time to download and run.

So to be clear, we will not be taking this as seriously, however I will still use your scores (percentile rank relative to similar hardware) to determine your placing on the leaderboard. Remember, you are not competing directly against other forum members here. You are competing against OTHER identical hardware in the userbenchmark sample pool.

Go here to download userbenchmark:
Home - UserBenchmark

Run the test and then take a snip and post it here, with your percentile rank with like hardware, and any other details you might want to include.

Please also post a direct link to your results in your submission (not mine).
Asus ROG MAXIMUS X FORMULA Performance Results - UserBenchmark

Current leaderboard


----------



## Ichirou

UserBenchmark is fine so long as you aren't comparing between Intel and AMD and only amongst your own pieces of hardware.
It's useful in finding out how much above stock you are managing to achieve, or whether you're being bottlenecked for some reason.



MSI MPG Z690 EDGE WIFI DDR4 Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## storm-chaser

Ichirou said:


> UserBenchmark is fine so long as you aren't comparing between Intel and AMD and only amongst your own pieces of hardware.
> It's useful in finding out how much above stock you are managing to achieve, or whether you're being bottlenecked for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> MSI MPG Z690 EDGE WIFI DDR4 Performance Results - UserBenchmark


Yes, could not have said it better myself.

I have found with these competitions you almost need to bash userbenchmark in order to get participation otherwise you will lose all credibility. But, yeah I agree with you completely.


----------



## storm-chaser

I found the run from my 9600KF (but I cannot find the link)









*Edited July 7 by Storm-Chaser*


----------



## Raphie

Here is my old 12900k with ddr4
top dog 



MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4 Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## Raphie

I’ll post my KS later today, nbr1 spot in the g-skill 6400 ddr5 chart


----------



## storm-chaser

I generally update the leaderboard with a new post to measure where I left off, so I don't miss any submissions. 

I will also go back and update the original post as well.


----------



## braincracking

My god these guys are cancer:


----------



## braincracking

Anyway:



















My PC has a custom loop, unfortunately, it appears they fudged up my SSD performance...











LINK: Gigabyte X570 AORUS MASTER Performance Results - UserBenchmark

Crystaldiskmark results to show I'm not insane:

Samsung PM981A 2TB nvme pcie4:










Galax HA1K1000N 1TB nvme pcie4:


----------



## 8800GT

Apparently my 850 evo is long in the tooth. Or ready for the bin 🤷‍♂️. This is obviously with no raid and my mediocre 5600x.


----------



## Avacado

Raphie said:


> Here is my old 12900k with ddr4
> top dog
> 
> 
> 
> MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4 Performance Results - UserBenchmark


Measly 85th percentile. Pffft. J/K  Good run.


----------



## Avacado

8800GT said:


> Apparently my 850 evo is long in the tooth. Or ready for the bin 🤷‍♂️. This is obviously with no raid and my mediocre 5600x.
> 
> View attachment 2567114


Looks like there is a more recent firmware update for that drive. Might be worth a look.


----------



## Raphie

Avacado said:


> Measly 85th percentile. Pffft. J/K  Good run.


Yeah.. CPU being stock, look at the other components


----------



## Raphie

watch the memory MSI MEG Z690 UNIFY-X (MS-7D28) Performance Results - UserBenchmark

don't mind the SSD's haven't got the samsung drivers installed


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Here's mine...

EVGA Z690 DARK KINGPIN Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## Avacado

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Here's mine...
> 
> EVGA Z690 DARK KINGPIN Performance Results - UserBenchmark


Even worse than Raphie's. 100th percentile is weaksauce.  J/K, you have a beast.


----------



## Raphie

Ehhmm UserBenchmark: G Skill Intl F5-6400J3239G162x16GB 
that’s me


----------



## Avacado

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Here's mine...
> 
> EVGA Z690 DARK KINGPIN Performance Results - UserBenchmark


P.S. That Corsair kit at 7000 with 50 latency is tits.


----------



## Avacado

Raphie said:


> Ehhmm UserBenchmark: G Skill Intl F5-6400J3239G162x16GB
> that’s me


1st? Is that the best you can come up with?


----------



## Raphie

2nd to none, I know….
Maybe a bit under the weather, It’s cheeks looking a bit pale…


----------



## storm-chaser

@Arctucas 
where u at bro


----------



## Avacado

storm-chaser said:


> @Arctucas
> where u at bro


Yea. Lets see that godly 9900k results.


----------



## Neo_Morpheus

You got me fiddling a little with the ram, but 100th percentile on the 12600k with the cheapest crap feast Z690 board there is, all too easy..










Gigabyte GA-Z690M AORUS ELITE DDR4 Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## Avacado

Neo_Morpheus said:


> You got me fiddling a little with the ram, but 100th percentile on the 12600k with the cheapest crap feast Z690 board there is, all too easy..
> 
> View attachment 2567121
> 
> 
> Gigabyte GA-Z690M AORUS ELITE DDR4 Performance Results - UserBenchmark


You may have found it easy, but your CPU most certainly didn't...


----------



## storm-chaser

Avacado said:


> You may have found it easy, but your CPU most certainly didn't...
> 
> View attachment 2567122


CPU be like when is this gonna end?


----------



## bscool

Avacado said:


> You may have found it easy, but your CPU most certainly didn't...
> 
> View attachment 2567122


It must be something with Windows 11 I notice many running Win11 show much higher CPU usuage in the userbenchmark results.

Edit like @Raphie and @MrTOOSHORT are really high also.


----------



## storm-chaser

I think thats everyone so far...


----------



## Ichirou

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Here's mine...
> 
> EVGA Z690 DARK KINGPIN Performance Results - UserBenchmark


Is Optane worth it for system drive? Or largely bloat?


storm-chaser said:


> I think thats everyone so far...
> 
> View attachment 2567128


I care more about my RAM being the top position than the 12900KF with a half-decent overclock, lol


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO Performance Results - UserBenchmark



DANG..


----------



## dagget3450

braincracking said:


> My god these guys are cancer:
> View attachment 2567098


This is why I refuse to run their crap. I brought this up in an old thread. Hence why it was labeled controversial. Honestly it uses really old methods to check performance esp GPU. For instance they talked a big game about rdna2/RTX 3xxx ray tracing which was partially true. However the benchmark doesn't even have ray tracing in it. So basically it's a marketing tool.


----------



## storm-chaser

dagget3450 said:


> This is why I refuse to run their crap. I brought this up in an old thread. Hence why it was labeled controversial. Honestly it uses really old methods to check performance esp GPU. For instance they talked a big game about rdna2/RTX 3xxx ray tracing which was partially true. However the benchmark doesn't even have ray tracing in it. So basically it's a marketing tool.


No doubt it's flawed which is why we should take these results with a grain of sand. I'm getting bored over here so I thought we could try to get some movement on this with a friendly competition. Remember not to compare dissimilar hardware, their metrics are not easily translatable to straight AMD vs Intel comparisons. Whether they are a marketing tool or not, is debatable, as the same can be said about hwbot.org


----------



## Ichirou

dagget3450 said:


> This is why I refuse to run their crap. I brought this up in an old thread. Hence why it was labeled controversial. Honestly it uses really old methods to check performance esp GPU. For instance they talked a big game about rdna2/RTX 3xxx ray tracing which was partially true. However the benchmark doesn't even have ray tracing in it. So basically it's a marketing tool.


It's only useful amongst the same pieces of hardware. Not across full system configurations.
If you have a 6900XT and a dozen others have one as well, you can compare your overclocking results to theirs to see where you lie.

Of course, 3DMark can do the same thing, too. But that costs money, which not all people can afford.


----------



## Death Dealer

8800GT said:


> Apparently my 850 evo is long in the tooth. Or ready for the bin 🤷‍♂️. This is obviously with no raid and my mediocre 5600x.
> 
> View attachment 2567114


The amount the drive is filled, and the interface, PCI NVME have very high bandwidth, a SATA III SSD is bottleneck by the 6GBps interface, a PCIe 3.0 X16 interface offers a total bandwidth of 16 GBps and PCIe 4.0 X16 at 32GBps.


----------



## storm-chaser

Ichirou said:


> Is Optane worth it for system drive? Or largely bloat?
> 
> I care more about my RAM being the top position than the 12900KF with a half-decent overclock, lol


Ill update that for the next time. lol

Please remember to put a short list of mods or OC specs along with your submission so we can get all the info needed for the leaderboard.


----------



## dagget3450

storm-chaser said:


> No doubt it's flawed which is why we should take these results with a grain of sand. I'm getting bored over here so I thought we could try to get some movement on this with a friendly competition. Remember not to compare dissimilar hardware, their metrics are not easily translatable to straight AMD vs Intel comparisons. Whether they are a marketing tool or not, is debatable, as the same can be said about hwbot.org





Ichirou said:


> It's only useful amongst the same pieces of hardware. Not across full system configurations.
> If you have a 6900XT and a dozen others have one as well, you can compare your overclocking results to theirs to see where you lie.
> 
> Of course, 3DMark can do the same thing, too. But that costs money, which not all people can afford.


Totally understand the idea for fun. Hwbot and 3dmark have their issues, but I don't see them openly writing such nonsense as if it was fact. Also I'm sure hwbot and others try to find a balance which userbenchmark obviously doesn't care.

I used to have top spot for my SR2 and x5650s or x5675 can't recall which.


----------



## storm-chaser

dagget3450 said:


> but I don't see them openly writing such nonsense as if it was fact. Also I'm sure hwbot and others try to find a balance which userbenchmark obviously doesn't care.


They do go a little overboard sometimes, and some of the sample pools are very small. Us overclockers are used to seeing higher clocks which makes it easy to score in the upper 90s in CPU percentile.


----------



## Jpmboy

Some fish just can't resist any bait thrown in the water. Base (compute settings) 10980XE/R6EO

Asus ROG RAMPAGE VI EXTREME OMEGA Performance Results - UserBenchmark

Will post a few other rigs... 

Edit: when they remove the disk benchmarks, or let the user deselect the drive benchmarks and Skill modules, Userbench is way more "friendly". This was one of the Bot reasons as I recall.


----------



## storm-chaser

kairi_zeroblade said:


> Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO Performance Results - UserBenchmark
> 
> 
> 
> DANG..


Nice result but unfortunately, I can't use it. You need to make sure the benchmark runs to full completion. 

And this goes for everyone participating as well, if you really want to improve your scores go ahead and disconnect everything that may be a hindrance, such as extra SSD drives.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

storm-chaser said:


> Nice result but unfortunately, I can't use it. You need to make sure the benchmark runs to full completion.
> 
> And this goes for everyone participating as well, if you really want to improve your scores go ahead and disconnect everything that may be a hindrance, such as extra SSD drives.



there's nothing missing in my PC..I just don't get it why this indeed "Controversial" benchmark doesn't want to bench the GPU..lol

I reran it again now and still the same..despite nothing is "missing"



Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO Performance Results - UserBenchmark



My PC won't have a display if my GPU is not connected..we don't have IGPU's like Intel and the AMD APU's do..lol


----------



## storm-chaser

kairi_zeroblade said:


> there's nothing missing in my PC..I just don't get it why this indeed "Controversial" benchmark doesn't want to bench the GPU..lol
> 
> I reran it again now and still the same..despite nothing is "missing"
> 
> 
> 
> Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO Performance Results - UserBenchmark
> 
> 
> 
> My PC won't have a display if my GPU is not connected..we don't have IGPU's like Intel and the AMD APU's do..lol


Okay well I will add you to the leaderboard tomorrow when I update the thread. Strange, not sure what's going on there but we will get you added back soon.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Ichirou said:


> Is Optane worth it for system drive? Or largely bloat?


Worth it is subjective. To me its worth it. I do feel the system has a more snappy feel compared to regular nvme. I would have got the z690i unify instead of the dark to save money and shipping time. Unify local here. But the one pci-e slot killed it for me. Needed two to get the 905p going.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

storm-chaser said:


> Okay well I will add you to the leaderboard tomorrow when I update the thread. Strange, not sure what's going on there but we will get you added back soon.


Will check on it as well as to what is my issue..


----------



## cssorkinman

Asus CROSSHAIR V FORMULA-Z Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## dagget3450

Jpmboy said:


> Some fish just can't resist any bait thrown in the water. Base (compute settings) 10980XE/R6EO
> 
> Asus ROG RAMPAGE VI EXTREME OMEGA Performance Results - UserBenchmark
> 
> Will post a few other rigs...
> 
> Edit: when they remove the disk benchmarks, or let the user deselect the drive benchmarks and Skill modules, Userbench is way more "friendly". This was one of the Bot reasons as I recall.


So it no longer has malware in it?


----------



## RockThePylon

WD Black on the chipset slot draggin' me down!





MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4 Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## storm-chaser

RockThePylon said:


> WD Black on the chipset slot draggin' me down!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4 Performance Results - UserBenchmark


Can u disable that WD SSD for the benchmark run (so it doesn't kill your average)? Because otherwise your score would likely be in the high 90s....


----------



## braincracking

Thing is, why the hell is it messing up so many disk benchmarks... I can't go and remove my nvme's and tear down my hard loop for this half arsed benchmark.


----------



## storm-chaser

braincracking said:


> Thing is, why the hell is it messing up so many disk benchmarks... I can't go and remove my nvme's and tear down my hard loop for this half arsed benchmark.


I cannot argue with that. It would have been nice if userbenchmark allowed you to choose what hardware you wanted to bench instead of running EVERYTHING.


----------



## domdtxdissar

storm-chaser said:


> I cannot argue with that. It would have been nice if userbenchmark allowed you to choose what hardware you wanted to bench instead of running EVERYTHING.


Thats one of the many problems with this benchmark.. I have 2x NVMe drives + 1x sata SSD + 5x sata HDD + 1x USB SSD
I'm doomed to low percentile because these bias intel marketing guys cant even make a proper harddisk benchmark.. And i wont reconfigure my whole computer to run this junk software


----------



## dagget3450

I want to take a moment and thank you folks for the effort of getting some benchmark comps for fun. I know I sound like a sour grape on the benchmark itself but don't want to throw a stick into the fun wheel spokes.

Just sucks we are so limited on benchmarking options these days...


----------



## storm-chaser

dagget3450 said:


> Just sucks we are so limited on benchmarking options these days...


Slim pickins for sure. I find benchmate to be the most comprehensive benchmark "engine" available to us OC enthusiasts at the moment, so if you are into hwbot, that's a plus because as you probably know, you can upload your results directly to the online database. But other than that what do we really have? seriously, some of these software giants could create more of a market in the OC world if they just catered to us a little more.

And then we have AIDA64, which has potentially as many flaws as userbenchmark (okay, maybe not quite as many lol), but we are forced to use it because there is really nothing else out there that measures your rigs memory performance or latency. Then you have the age old intel vs AMD question and from what I gather from (@J7SC ) and (@cstkl1 ) AIDA64 is not an accurate test to make comparisons like this.

And geekbench is annoying as well because they actually want you to pay money for the full version. 

In any event I get you on the potential downsides of this benchmark, so I'm thinking of changing the leaderboard to look more like this, and perhaps give us a better look at the hardware potential without having to disconnect/remove NVme SSDs and whatnot. but it's almost not worth it at the end of the day...


----------



## Neo_Morpheus

Don't let them put you down storm-chaser. It's an interesting thread we can read through the results to help us improve on our O.C anyway, like Raphie's low latency Patriot's just made me have another go and I've dropped my latency another couple of percentage. And mrTOOSHORT is an amazing result I was expecting from how he's always carefully upgrading, that 2080ti is insanely fast and I've seen a few other results that perform closer to my 3070. Get in here, we don't care if the scores are brought down with other things..


----------



## bscool

kairi_zeroblade said:


> there's nothing missing in my PC..I just don't get it why this indeed "Controversial" benchmark doesn't want to bench the GPU..lol
> 
> I reran it again now and still the same..despite nothing is "missing"
> 
> 
> 
> Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO Performance Results - UserBenchmark
> 
> 
> 
> My PC won't have a display if my GPU is not connected..we don't have IGPU's like Intel and the AMD APU's do..lol


Not sure if it is the same issue but in the past I had were it wouildnt score the gpu and it was an Asus sound driver/app running that caused no score for the GPU.

"I find the Solution for my PC. The Sonic Radar 3 was the Problem.

Switch off is not enough, deinstall the app (which comes within Asus Support and Realtek Audio Driver)"


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/d3clfw/_/fdnkxn0


----------



## storm-chaser

cssorkinman said:


> View attachment 2567156
> 
> Asus CROSSHAIR V FORMULA-Z Performance Results - UserBenchmark


Nice to see someone still rocking the venerable Phenom II X6. How are you overclocking this processor? looks like a golden sample you have there.

I had my 960T X6 rig operational until last year. I will see If I have any old screenshots of userbenchmark with a thuban processor.


----------



## storm-chaser

Updated leaderboard










edit: @Raphie I didn't forget about your #1 result in memory performance, I will update later today.


----------



## storm-chaser

Raphie said:


> 2nd to none, I know….
> Maybe a bit under the weather, It’s cheeks looking a bit pale…


White case FTW. So underrated.

My next white build will have these memory modules:


----------



## 8800GT

storm-chaser said:


> White case FTW. So underrated.
> 
> My next white build will have these memory modules:
> View attachment 2567192


Doesn't it seem like teamgroup just came out of nowhere 🤔. I swear it was like 3 or 4 years ago and their products just showed up one day, and then they were everywhere. Off-topic, but just something I always wondered.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

bscool said:


> Not sure if it is the same issue but in the past I had were it wouildnt score the gpu and it was an Asus sound driver/app running that caused no score for the GPU.
> 
> "I find the Solution for my PC. The Sonic Radar 3 was the Problem.
> 
> Switch off is not enough, deinstall the app (which comes within Asus Support and Realtek Audio Driver)"
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/d3clfw/_/fdnkxn0


Thanks for the tip..yeah seems this is the case, I have sonic studio and radar installed from the driver package for my motherboard..


----------



## cssorkinman

storm-chaser said:


> Nice to see someone still rocking the venerable Phenom II X6. How are you overclocking this processor? looks like a golden sample you have there.
> 
> I had my 960T X6 rig operational until last year. I will see If I have any old screenshots of userbenchmark with a thuban processor.


Seems like an unlocked processor might be the best chance an AMD has considering the particulars of this competition. . I gave it a pretty good wringing out with a very good accompanying cast of hardware- CHV-Z, Mushkin cl6 1600 mushkins, 910w pc power and cooling psu with a decent quality ups behind that, 380A block, 480mm rad . It has more to give as it was at 20C . A little cold air would have helped I'm sure. I have had 5 Thuban/Zosmas of this particular batch - all but one have have been outstanding. I happened across a 955 with the same batch just yesterday and couldn't let it get away - I'll give it a whirl and let you know if it's of similar quality . 
Here's the same chip with better settings.


----------



## Avacado

I'll go ahead and claim the last spot on the leaderboard with my Federal Laptop. They spend 30k on toilet seats in the White House, but I can't get a decent laptop. 

HP EliteBook 745 G6 Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## Gadfly

My old 100th percentile 1800X; made just after 1st gen Ryzen launch, it is still the #1 1800X run.

Asus CROSSHAIR VI HERO Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## storm-chaser

cssorkinman said:


> Seems like an unlocked processor might be the best chance an AMD has considering the particulars of this competition. . I gave it a pretty good wringing out with a very good accompanying cast of hardware- CHV-Z, Mushkin cl6 1600 mushkins, 910w pc power and cooling psu with a decent quality ups behind that, 380A block, 480mm rad . It has more to give as it was at 20C . A little cold air would have helped I'm sure. I have had 5 Thuban/Zosmas of this particular batch - all but one have have been outstanding. I happened across a 955 with the same batch just yesterday and couldn't let it get away - I'll give it a whirl and let you know if it's of similar quality .
> Here's the same chip with better settings.


Interested to know what batch you are going after here, might just have to try my hand with one of those as well since you seem to have good luck with them.

First Phenom II I ordered was a 970 BE OEM from China, had that overclocked for nearly a decade. Ran cool, quiet and performed all basic tasks as quick as newer technology. In some cases faster. This is a thuban (zosma, with two cores disabled as I'm sure you are aware). Quite a thrill when you get two extra cores at no extra cost. After that, I used to buy 960Ts in bulk and measure % of successful unlocking, seems to be right around 50% of the time they would unlock and remain stable. I was never able to find OEM 970s after that, so my last resort was using the more prevalent 960Ts to achieve the same goals. 

This was my best tune for memory / nb overclocking with the 970 BE OEM. CPU was most happy around 4.0GHz, but the memory performance was insane on this Biostar TA880GU3+ motherboard which people told me was a really bad idea, but hey it worked just fine for 10 years.... especially with the secondary timings dialed in. I have a screenshot with this identical config running 33.9ns, if I can find it I will post it. 










This was basically maxed out on clock speed..


----------



## storm-chaser

8800GT said:


> Doesn't it seem like teamgroup just came out of nowhere 🤔. I swear it was like 3 or 4 years ago and their products just showed up one day, and then they were everywhere. Off-topic, but just something I always wondered.


Yeah they came out of thin air to make some of the best looking memory money can buy. I've had great luck with their kits and have no problems recommending them to anyone. T-Force is always a good choice, especially if the aesthetics match.


----------



## Fluxmaven

Avacado said:


> I'll go ahead and claim the last spot on the leaderboard with my Federal Laptop.


Dang, and I thought my work laptop sucked.

Dell Inspiron 7786 Performance Results - UserBenchmark 










I'll try and remember to get a real result from one of my legit rigs sometime this weekend.


----------



## Dagamus NM

Oh why not, lets check a few benches.

UserBenchmarks: Game 147%, Desk 104%, Work 193%
CPU: Intel Core i9-10980XE - *100.7%*
GPU: Nvidia Titan X Pascal - *145.1%*
SSD: Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVMe PCIe M.2 2TB - *366.4%*
SSD: Intel SSDPEDMW800G4 800GB - *208.5%*
SSD: Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVMe PCIe M.2 2TB - *369.7%*
RAM: G.SKILL F4 DDR4 3200 C14 8x16GB - *148.8%*
MBD: Asus ROG RAMPAGE VI EXTREME ENCORE


I had to fiddle with this benchmark a bit. Kept crashing my system. Turns out it really doesn't like SLI. So if you have SLI on, turn it off, if not then no worries.

Now to test my other machines.


----------



## domdtxdissar

domdtxdissar said:


> Thats one of the many problems with this benchmark.. I have 2x NVMe drives + 1x sata SSD + 5x sata HDD + 1x USB SSD
> I'm doomed to low percentile because these bias intel marketing guys cant even make a proper harddisk benchmark.. And i wont reconfigure my whole computer to run this junk software


Seems like i found one of my old scores, but just like expected SSD's are dragging my score down.. A couple 100th percentile otherwise


Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## storm-chaser

Avacado said:


> I'll go ahead and claim the last spot on the leaderboard with my Federal Laptop. They spend 30k on toilet seats in the White House, but I can't get a decent laptop.
> 
> HP EliteBook 745 G6 Performance Results - UserBenchmark
> 
> View attachment 2567196


And we all know that federal laptops such as this are responsible for the ongoing VA sluggishness problems. Supposing we help this poor fella out, all pitch in and get him a few upgrades for his laptop? I don't want to see anything ranked "terrible" here again. plus I don't see the federal government stepping up to the plate anytime soon lol

And any software methods to OCing that ryzen chip? ie. windows based?


----------



## gabeomatic

domdtxdissar said:


> Seems like i found one of my old scores, but just like expected SSD's are dragging my score down.. A couple 100th percentile otherwise
> 
> 
> Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) Performance Results - UserBenchmark
> 
> 
> View attachment 2567222


what ram is that? I'm trying to tune my gskill CJRs 2x16gb dual rank 3600mhz 16-19-19-39s on intel


----------



## cssorkinman

storm-chaser said:


> Interested to know what batch you are going after here, might just have to try my hand with one of those as well since you seem to have good luck with them.


1207 = godlike  I'm still collecting them if you happen across cpu's of that batch that you aren't interested in - I'd appreciate a head's up.


----------



## Dagamus NM

storm-chaser said:


> And we all know that federal laptops such as this are responsible for the ongoing VA sluggishness problems. Supposing we help this poor fella out, all pitch in and get him a few upgrades for his laptop? I don't want to see anything ranked "terrible" here again. plus I don't see the federal government stepping up to the plate anytime soon lol
> 
> And any software methods to OCing that ryzen chip? ie. windows based?


Pretty sure that modifying gov property is a no no.


----------



## Avacado

storm-chaser said:


> And we all know that federal laptops such as this are responsible for the ongoing VA sluggishness problems. Supposing we help this poor fella out, all pitch in and get him a few upgrades for his laptop? I don't want to see anything ranked "terrible" here again. plus I don't see the federal government stepping up to the plate anytime soon lol
> 
> And any software methods to OCing that ryzen chip? ie. windows based?


God no. You can't install anything on a government PC/Laptop. It's locked down completely.


----------



## Avacado

Dagamus NM said:


> Pretty sure that modifying gov property is a no no.


^ This.


----------



## Dagamus NM

Here is my living room PC, the one I actually game on.

UserBenchmarks: Game 250%, Desk 93%, Work 307%
CPU: Intel Core i9-7940X - *88%*
GPU: Nvidia RTX 3090-Ti - *292.5%*
SSD: Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVMe PCIe M.2 2TB - *358.1%*
SSD: Intel Raid 0 Volume 2TB - *203.6%*
SSD: Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVMe PCIe M.2 2TB - *399.3%*
HDD: WD Black 6TB (2015) - *108.8%*
RAM: G.SKILL F4 DDR4 3200 C14 8x16GB - *133.1%*
MBD: Asus ROG RAMPAGE VI EXTREME OMEGA


----------



## storm-chaser

domdtxdissar said:


> Seems like i found one of my old scores, but just like expected SSD's are dragging my score down.. A couple 100th percentile otherwise
> 
> 
> Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO (WI-FI) Performance Results - UserBenchmark
> 
> 
> View attachment 2567222


Thanks for the participation one and all. 

I will get the leaderboard updated daily around 7pm, so watch for that.


----------



## domdtxdissar

storm-chaser said:


> Thanks for the participation one and all.
> 
> I will get the leaderboard updated daily around 7pm, so watch for that.


As expected, i could not keep away when i started to post in this thread and had to do a new run 😆

100th percentile on everything except my god damn 92% boot NVMe which are pulling my score down to a overall 98th percentile score.

UserBenchmarks: Game 314%, Desk 116%, Work 402%
CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X - 114.5%
GPU: Nvidia RTX 3090 - 285%
SSD: Force MP600 500GB - 357.7%
SSD: Corsair Force MP600 NVMe PCIe M.2 1TB - 527%
RAM: G.SKILL F4 DDR4 4000 C14 2x16GB - 160.8%
MBD: MSI MEG X570S UNIFY-X MAX (MS-7D51)

Note:100% on everything except boot NVMe | 5950x PBO CO | RTX 3090 (custom water) | 32gigs 1900fclk:3800MT/s CL13 | Samsung 32" G8 4k @ 240hz



MSI MEG X570S UNIFY-X MAX (MS-7D51) Performance Results - UserBenchmark













gabeomatic said:


> what ram is that? I'm trying to tune my gskill CJRs 2x16gb dual rank 3600mhz 16-19-19-39s on intel


That was my old gskill b-die 4x8GB SR 3600MT/s CL16 memory, now iam using gskill b-die 2x16GB DR 4000MT/s CL14 (highest binned b-die, not for sale anymore)


----------



## storm-chaser

Avacado said:


> God no. You can't install anything on a government PC/Laptop. It's locked down completely.


Two words:
*StorageCraft ShadowProtect.* Though that probably wouldn't be enough to get around secure boot and bit locker or TPM for that matter.

Here is my daily driver z840 workstation. GPU is only temporary.



























Numba won in memory throughput...


----------



## storm-chaser

Leaderboard Updated. I made a bunch of changes so if you see anything out of place pm me and I'll fix it.


----------



## 8800GT

Gigabyte GA-AX370-Gaming 3-CF Performance Results - UserBenchmark



My server just rotting away. I don't think I've touched this thing since this benchmark (march lol).


----------



## cssorkinman

Blue team 2EZ


----------



## Avacado

Time to start the slow leaderboard. Get rekt.


----------



## storm-chaser

Avacado said:


> Time to start the slow leaderboard. Get rekt.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2567271
> 
> 
> View attachment 2567272


lol

I've got a contender for the slow motion leaderboard. Ill fire it up tomorrow and see what it brings to the table (after the 10 minute boot process completes)


----------



## storm-chaser

Avacado said:


> Time to start the slow leaderboard. Get rekt.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2567271
> 
> 
> View attachment 2567272


Only one problem. This isn't a CPUz benchmark, it's a *"userbenchmark" competition.* Get your benchmarks straight and come back when you can successfully complete those tests because that's the real focus here. Okay, you probably get this now...


----------



## Avacado

storm-chaser said:


> Only one problem. This isn't a CPUz benchmark, it's a *"userbenchmark" competition.* Get your benchmarks straight and come back when you can successfully complete those tests because that's the real focus here. Okay, you probably get this now...
> 
> View attachment 2567278


I know. I just wanted some attention. I tried to run userbenchmark, but it lacks win XP support.


----------



## mirzet1976

Asus ROG STRIX B550-F GAMING Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## cssorkinman

Gaver her a little kick in the butt.


----------



## storm-chaser

Avacado said:


> I know. I just wanted some attention. I tried to run userbenchmark, but it lacks win XP support.
> 
> View attachment 2567320


Doubt this will work. If it doesn't, you might try resetting your system clock back to 2014, because it's detecting its an old version and shutting down in my testing. Otherwise, you are probably SOL.

Download UserBenchMark v2.6 (freeware) - AfterDawn: Software downloads

Alternatively, you might try disabling your internet connection and then attempting, as it might be connecting online to the userbenchmark server for data / time authentication.


----------



## storm-chaser

Leaderboard Updated


----------



## Fluxmaven

Gave it a go on my main rig. I can get GPU to 100th percentile but it tanks my CPU percentile score. I need to drop back down to 32gb of RAM and get them up to 3800+. I fiddled with it for a bit, but I couldn't get higher frequencies stable on 4 DIMMs and decided to just run 3400cl14.



MSI MEG X570 ACE (MS-7C35) Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## Imglidinhere

I'll add my laptop to the run, why not? 












Eluktronics MAX-17 Performance Results - UserBenchmark



*105w power limit*


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## tubs2x4




----------



## dagget3450

Spoiler






tubs2x4 said:


> View attachment 2567522
> 
> View attachment 2567521
> 
> View attachment 2567519






Out of curiosity, what is the "watch Gameplay: 1070+9600k" button supposed to do? They still appear to be pushing the 9600k heavily.. lol

Makes me think someone who works there uses a 9600k and thinks its the best?

NM, lol its just a youtube video, i guess its a way to get some clicks... lol uses titles almost esports i guess


----------



## storm-chaser

dagget3450 said:


> Out of curiosity, what is the "watch Gameplay: 1070+9600k" button supposed to do? They still appear to be pushing the 9600k heavily.. lol
> 
> Makes me think someone who works there uses a 9600k and thinks its the best?
> 
> NM, lol its just a youtube video, i guess its a way to get some clicks... lol uses titles almost esports i guess


Yeah the sun has been down on the 9600K for quite some time now. Although I still consider it "current" tech in some respects, due to 5000+MHz memory support and pretty good overclockablity. But it's far from the best, I think everyone knows that. 

And no, I do not work for userbenchmark. I just do this once every couple of years for fun.


----------



## Avacado

storm-chaser said:


> And no, I do not work for userbenchmark.


Liar.


----------



## storm-chaser

Avacado said:


> Liar.


  

I can see why, with the way I promote it in the face of total damnation it might look like that. lol

But if we can have a competition and laugh about it at the same time I've done my job.


----------



## Avacado

storm-chaser said:


> I can see why, with the way I promote it in the face of total damnation it might look like that. lol
> 
> But if we can have a competition and laugh about it at the same time I've done my job.


We have a lot more laughs on our OC streams on Discord, but someone _Cough_ is never on it....


----------



## storm-chaser

Avacado said:


> We have a lot more laughs on our OC streams on Discord, but someone _Cough_ is never on it....


I just happen to have downloaded the windows app for it yesterday. Expect much more discord in the future!


----------



## 8800GT

storm-chaser said:


> I just happen to have downloaded the windows app for it yesterday. Expect much more discord in the future!


Discord or Discourse? We shall see, Mr. Userbenchmark.


----------



## storm-chaser

8800GT said:


> Discord or Discourse? We shall see, Mr. Userbenchmark.


By _Discord_ I mean _Discourse_, naturally. With a couple of laughs thrown in for good measure. I've always liked the idea of a real time chat for these forums and others like hwextreme.net. Any discord that arises from that is just a bonus lol.


----------



## Jpmboy

Brand new Razer Blade 15. Terrible thermal management with the CPU. Has 2 hot cores... may have to upgrade the TIM? But it's actually pretty snappy (and thin!).


Razer Blade 15 (2022) - RZ09-0421 Performance Results - UserBenchmark











I have a 5950X rig here (asus x570 creator mb) i hope to get to...
every other rig here gets dragged down by the disk tests. The CPU and GPU tests are decent (tho the video barely loads GPUs).
Enjoy!


----------



## Mahigan

braincracking said:


> My god these guys are cancer:
> View attachment 2567098


 Or they could have simply written the truth...

The Ryzen 7 5800X3D is the best gaming CPU available. Period.


----------



## storm-chaser

Leaderboard Updated


----------



## storm-chaser

Mahigan said:


> Or they could have simply written the truth...
> 
> The Ryzen 7 5800X3D is the best gaming CPU available. Period.


I agree with that in most games but lets not open a can of worms here. We've already opened a few and it's difficult to get back on track.


----------



## dagget3450

Mahigan said:


> Or they could have simply written the truth...
> 
> The Ryzen 7 5800X3D is the best gaming CPU available. Period.


Naw da 9600k is da bestest gaming CPU evah made brah! Just look at them Utube videoz!

Of course I kid. Really though the video they have about standing against brands and representing the gamers is hilarious considering the reviews and bias scoring they do....


----------



## Neo_Morpheus

Mahigan said:


> Or they could have simply written the truth...
> 
> The Ryzen 7 5800X3D is the best gaming CPU available. Period.


Exactly, have you seen the results in the Shadow of the Tomb Raider benchmark thread, all the top scores are with the 5800X3D even with average ram timings and a 6800XT. 

Maybe if everyone complains more about the e cores (I heard Intel got annoyed by people switching them off) and AMD release some more stacked L3 cache chips, Intel will release a gaming CPU, fill the whole thing up with L3 and 8 cores leveled out so it can get a higher core frequency, that would sell.

Also nice laptop Jpmboy, good to see how many cores they are getting upto as well as that DDR5 is interesting. 

I might make a test later for the lowest scores on my bedside touch screen HP Elitebook 1040 G3, i5-6300, probably better than that government issued one though lol. They don't have a replaceable battery slot because they want the business of reissuing them.


----------



## 8800GT

Neo_Morpheus said:


> Exactly, have you seen the results in the Shadow of the Tomb Raider benchmark thread, all the top scores are with the 5800X3D even with average ram timings and a 6800XT.
> 
> Maybe if everyone complains more about the e cores (I heard Intel got annoyed by people switching them off) and AMD release some more stacked L3 cache chips, Intel will release a gaming CPU, fill the whole thing up with L3 and 8 cores leveled out so it can get a higher core frequency, that would sell.
> 
> Also nice laptop Jpmboy, good to see how many cores they are getting upto as well as that DDR5 is interesting.
> 
> I might make a test later for the lowest scores on my bedside touch screen HP Elitebook 1040 G3, i5-6300, probably better than that government issued one though lol. They don't have a replaceable battery slot because they want the business of reissuing them.


Yeah, they also don't really speak kindly of the 6900 xt either. In fact, in their 3090 description, they crap all over amd lol. I still like using it to benchmark because benchmarking is fun. But userbench is so blatantly bribed to the point that it's so unfunny, it circles back to being funny again.


----------



## storm-chaser

8800GT said:


> so blatantly bribed to the point that it's so unfunny, it circles back to being funny again.


nailed it.


----------



## storm-chaser

And guys, at the end of the day, remember, you are competing against LIKE hardware, so in this respect there can be NO BIAS. Your hardware is identical and running the same test as everyone else.


----------



## Avacado

storm-chaser said:


> And guys, at the end of the day, remember, you are competing against LIKE hardware, so in this respect there can be NO BIAS. Your hardware is identical and running the same test as everyone else.


We will be benching tonight, you betta be there.


----------



## storm-chaser

Just gotta find the power button


----------



## domdtxdissar

what the hell 

AMD Ryzen 5 7600X 6-core/12-thread Raphael CPU leaked performance in userbenchmark











> Userbenchmark may not be an ideal software for AMD tests, yet compared to the 5600X SKU, this engineering sample has 56% higher single-core performance and up to 49% in quad-core.





> In fact, the single-core performance of 243 points is already even higher than Alder Lake Core i9-12900K CPU by 22%. Obviously, Raphael CPU is outclassed in multi-threaded tests due to the limited number of cores, after all it’s a comparison between 12 threads and 24.


Knowing userbenchmark history, how long until they change the benchmark weighting to keep Alderlake and soon to be Raptorlake on top again ? 
(as we know, they have already done it before 😆)

_edit_
Added link


Default N7-B65XT Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## storm-chaser

domdtxdissar said:


> what the hell
> 
> AMD Ryzen 5 7600X 6-core/12-thread Raphael CPU leaked performance in userbenchmark
> View attachment 2567788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing userbenchmark history, how long until they change the benchmark weighting to keep Alderlake and soon to be Raptorlake on top again ?
> (as we know, they have already done it before 😆)


Nice contribution  I'm interested.

RE: which is why I said you should only compare against LIKE hardware (i.e. not AMD vs Intel). This un-biases the whole thing. Maybe I will create a benchmark of my own and call it UN-BIAS-BASH
PS: your link no work


----------



## storm-chaser

rly proud of this one

Lenovo 80LX Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## 8800GT

Idk how many I can post, but I'll just add every device I have until storm-chaser gets sick of me 😄.












Dell Inspiron 7506 2n1 Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## domdtxdissar

domdtxdissar said:


> Knowing userbenchmark history, how long until they change the benchmark weighting to keep Alderlake and soon to be Raptorlake on top again ?
> (as we know, they have already done it before 😆)


Getting close to offtopic but these guys who run userbenchmark are so biased its not even funny..

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1553211194374103040


> Was it uploaded that way or did the userbenchmark people go in and change it out of spite? Took quite a long time for anyone to notice if it was the former.
> 
> EDIT: Changed since then from "AMD Hype Train" to "AMD Zen4 Hype Train." Userbenchmark somehow sinking to yet another new low with their unprofessionalism.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1553246238023520256

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1553250312605106178


----------



## Farih

On 24/7 settings:

UserBenchmarks: Game 123%, Desk 98%, Work 125%
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X - 95.1%
GPU: AMD RX 6700-XT - 127.1%
SSD: Samsung NVMe MZVPV256HDGL-00000 256GB - 199%
SSD: WDC WDS500G2B0A-00SM50 500GB - 106.8%
SSD: Samsung 860 Evo 1TB - 120.8%
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 3TB - 106.8%
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 3TB - 95.3%
RAM: G.SKILL Ripjaws V DDR4 3600 C16 4x8GB - 115.2%
MBD: Asus TUF GAMING X570-PLUS


----------



## storm-chaser

8800GT said:


> Idk how many I can post, but I'll just add every device I have until storm-chaser gets sick of me 😄.
> 
> View attachment 2567836
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dell Inspiron 7506 2n1 Performance Results - UserBenchmark


Yeah, I should probably let this one fade into oblivion. lol


----------



## 8800GT

storm-chaser said:


> Yeah, I should probably let this one fade into oblivion. lol


Yeah lol. For real though, appreciate you keeping the benchmarking alive on this site. Used to be every day people were 1upping each other on valley, heaven, 3dmark with their 780's and 290x's.


----------



## stahlhart

Asus ROG STRIX Z690-E GAMING WIFI Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## storm-chaser

storm-chaser said:


> Yeah, I should probably let this one fade into oblivion. lol





8800GT said:


> Yeah lol.


*psych.*


----------



## Luggage

At least CPU and GPU is doing ok 


MSI MEG X570 UNIFY (MS-7C35) Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## stahlhart

Two observations:

-- since I submitted this, I moved up to 92nd, if that matters
-- the benchmark doesn't seem to know how to correctly handle mechanical hard drives (yeah, I know...). It complains about them being RAM cached, but I have that same setting checked in Device Manager for the two SSDs. If I uncheck it for the spinners, they score lower. I don't see any other storage benchmarks complaining about caching.

(okay, three observations -- I'm the only one in the list with an Intel CPU in red  )


----------



## storm-chaser

stahlhart said:


> Two observations:
> 
> -- since I submitted this, I moved up to 92nd, if that matters
> -- the benchmark doesn't seem to know how to correctly handle mechanical hard drives (yeah, I know...). It complains about them being RAM cached, but I have that same setting checked in Device Manager for the two SSDs. If I uncheck it for the spinners, they score lower. I don't see any other storage benchmarks complaining about caching.
> 
> (okay, three observations -- I'm the only one in the list with an Intel CPU in red  )


They have major problems with SSD/Mechanical drive testing, we can put it that way. What I recommend is that you disconnect all non essential drives, but this is a PITA, so I get it.

Fixed the other issues you pointed out.


----------



## stahlhart

I thought about doing that, but felt that it would have been cheating and not really an accurate representation of my build's performance -- but I'll try it just for grins to see what difference it makes. The score already submitted should be the one that counts for me, though -- I'll post the no-spinner score here informationally, but not as a submission.

Thanks much for your help...


----------



## storm-chaser

stahlhart said:


> I thought about doing that, but felt that it would have been cheating and not really an accurate representation of my build's performance -- but I'll try it just for grins to see what difference it makes. The score already submitted should be the one that counts for me, though -- I'll post the no-spinner score here informationally, but not as a submission.


In the earlier part of the competition, we had a lot of really good averages getting killed by mechanical clunkers - and there is no option to un-select drives. That's why I added the option to remove everything except your primary SSD for best results. But that presents it's own sets of problems, people don't want to dig past hardline to remove a secondary NVMe just to run this mediocre benchmark. Then again you shouldn't be running hardline in the first place LOL (jk). 

Alternatively, you can also use a very fast USB thumb drive to *raise* your average, so if you are smart you will stock up on those if you know what you are doing lol


----------



## mongoled

cssorkinman said:


> View attachment 2567156
> 
> Asus CROSSHAIR V FORMULA-Z Performance Results - UserBenchmark


I have my Phenom II X4 965 at 4.4Ghz, I will run this to compare with yours when I get home. Running DDR2 though on a DFI 790FXB-M2RSH, wonder if the 200mhz CPU speed difference can make up for the l









Full result


Unknow Unknow Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## cssorkinman

mongoled said:


> I have my Phenom II X4 965 at 4.4Ghz, I will run this to compare with yours when I get home. Running DDR2 though on a DFI 790FXB-M2RSH, wonder if the 200mhz CPU speed difference can make up for the l
> 
> 
> View attachment 2568164
> 
> 
> Full result
> 
> 
> Unknow Unknow Performance Results - UserBenchmark


Interesting info - nice 965 .


----------



## mongoled

cssorkinman said:


> Interesting info - nice 965 .


I hit jackpot with her, thats 4.4Ghz prime95 "stable" forgive me but I didnt run it more than a couple of hours, dont want to kill anything on this retro rig 

Delidded and running under a Raystorm.

How much do you think the percentile could increase by if I had a better graphics card installed ?

Need to see how I can improve the ssd performance, must be some "tweak" 

** EDIT **
I lied, it was 4+ hours


----------



## cssorkinman

mongoled said:


> I hit jackpot with her, thats 4.4Ghz prime95 "stable" forgive me but I didnt run it more than a couple of hours, dont want to kill anything on this retro rig
> 
> Delidded and running under a Raystorm.
> 
> How much do you think the percentile could increase by if I had a better graphics card installed ?
> 
> Need to see how I can improve the ssd performance, must be some "tweak"
> 
> ** EDIT **
> I lied, it was 4+ hours
> View attachment 2568166


Nice temps too - good job


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## mirzet1976

Asus ROG STRIX B550-F GAMING Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## ShrimpBrime

Figured what the heck, I'll give it a whirl.

12400F 4.7ghz (117.50 x 40) / Patriot C36 series at 2937mhz / Asus ROG B660-G / Samsung 980 1TB / GTX 980 KPE



Asus ROG STRIX B660-G GAMING WIFI Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## tubs2x4

ShrimpBrime said:


> Figured what the heck, I'll give it a whirl.
> 
> 12400F 4.7ghz (117.50 x 40) / Patriot C36 series at 2937mhz / Asus ROG B660-G / Samsung 980 1TB / GTX 980 KPE
> 
> 
> 
> Asus ROG STRIX B660-G GAMING WIFI Performance Results - UserBenchmark
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2568376


How is the 12400f? Overclocks good with blck Control? I ordered one for a second system for the fam.. was looking at the b660 rog gaming but the Msi pro-a ddr5 was same price with z690 chipset. I read after the fact the SA voltage is locked on the 12400f so hope I can do the xmp on the ddr5 kit ha.


----------



## cssorkinman

ShrimpBrime said:


> Figured what the heck, I'll give it a whirl.
> 
> 12400F 4.7ghz (117.50 x 40) / Patriot C36 series at 2937mhz / Asus ROG B660-G / Samsung 980 1TB / GTX 980 KPE
> 
> 
> 
> Asus ROG STRIX B660-G GAMING WIFI Performance Results - UserBenchmark
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2568376


Nice job!


----------



## shrimpbrime_6466

tubs2x4 said:


> How is the 12400f? Overclocks good with blck Control? I ordered one for a second system for the fam.. was looking at the b660 rog gaming but the Msi pro-a ddr5 was same price with z690 chipset. I read after the fact the SA voltage is locked on the 12400f so hope I can do the xmp on the ddr5 kit ha.


It's a fine little chip. OC past 5ghz is no problem except the cooling at those speeds, I'm rocking the stock cooler at 4.7ghz though. Small bump in vcore.

Memory.... I have 2 boards. The first was a B660-I. It was really good with memory OC hitting 6400mhz. The bummer is no BCLK on that board.
The B660-G on the other hand OCs memory pretty well, but ****s it's self at 6000mhz. I don't know if it's a board thing physically having 4 slots or the more likely answer being an Matx board is the bios is neutered for decent memory overclocking.

But definitely go ddr5 either way. Once you get around 5700mhz, the performance really increases.

I can increase the SA on the B660-G, but I haven't bothered yet. Above is auto SA. 



cssorkinman said:


> Nice job!


Thanks brother man!


----------



## storm-chaser

*Shrimp and MrTooShort are co leaders at the moment, good work to the both of you!*


----------



## tubs2x4

Thx for reply. Yes my kit is 5600 xmp kit. So sounds like it should work. I have a d15 noctua cooler from my 12700k so that should be good for the 12400. Little over kill but have the parts anyway!


----------



## shrimpbrime_6466

tubs2x4 said:


> Thx for reply. Yes my kit is 5600 xmp kit. So sounds like it should work. I have a d15 noctua cooler from my 12700k so that should be good for the 12400. Little over kill but have the parts anyway!


My kit is only 5200mhz CL36-36-36 16gb 2x8. So it seems to OC rather easily. I'm not sure if it's cause 16gb, most people get 32gb. Haven't a need for that myself though. 
5600 should post up no problem I think.


----------



## tubs2x4

shrimpbrime_6466 said:


> My kit is only 5200mhz CL36-36-36 16gb 2x8. So it seems to OC rather easily. I'm not sure if it's cause 16gb, most people get 32gb. Haven't a need for that myself though.
> 5600 should post up no problem I think.


Yea it’s 2x16gb. Give it a whirl once equip shows up.


----------



## shrimpbrime_6466

tubs2x4 said:


> Yea it’s 2x16gb. Give it a whirl once equip shows up.


Hell yeah. 
Don't need more than +0.0500v at 4.6ghz, but am using +0.0750v vcore offset at 4.7ghz. Temps at load 82c AVX stable. Clocks well with as little vcore added as possible. Cstates off. Core parking off. Llc4 at 4.8ghz and up. Are my only pointers so far. 

Next step, overkill cooling like you 😆


----------



## shrimpbrime_6466




----------



## tubs2x4

shrimpbrime_6466 said:


> Hell yeah.
> Don't need more than +0.0500v at 4.6ghz, but am using +0.0750v vcore offset at 4.7ghz. Temps at load 82c AVX stable. Clocks well with as little vcore added as possible. Cstates off. Core parking off. Llc4 at 4.8ghz and up. Are my only pointers so far.
> 
> Next step, overkill cooling like you 😆


Thx for the tips! Will post back once it’s up and running.
Haha like the extra cooling you have done on your cpu! If it works then mission accomplished!


----------



## ShrimpBrime

tubs2x4 said:


> Thx for the tips! Will post back once it’s up and running.
> Haha like the extra cooling you have done on your cpu! If it works then mission accomplished!


I always like to have extra cooling. Room temp is 27.3c / 81f.


----------



## RockThePylon

Ran on my Surface Pro 4, on battery. Also hot AF at 28 degrees in here right now. 



Microsoft Surface Pro 4 Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## 8800GT

Want to delete all but my best score? I feel like I'm hogging the board. I might try to do better on my main rig anyway.


----------



## storm-chaser

8800GT said:


> Want to delete all but my best score? I feel like I'm hogging the board. I might try to do better on my main rig anyway.


You are totally good as it stands!!

I just have to split the leaderboard into two pages, and that would have happened anyway. So no worries my friend.


----------



## tubs2x4

shrimpbrime_6466 said:


> Hell yeah.
> Don't need more than +0.0500v at 4.6ghz, but am using +0.0750v vcore offset at 4.7ghz. Temps at load 82c AVX stable. Clocks well with as little vcore added as possible. Cstates off. Core parking off. Llc4 at 4.8ghz and up. Are my only pointers so far.
> 
> Next step, overkill cooling like you 😆


Got the cpu and board in and SA voltage reads 0.92-0.935 in hwinfo. And xmp 5600 seems to work good did a ycruncher 2.5b bench run since that seems to find issues with mem circuit if not somewhat stable quickly.


----------



## storm-chaser

Leaderboard Update


----------



## braincracking

**** it, gave them a bit of stink back: Gigabyte X570 AORUS MASTER Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## xioaxi

Used Uerbench a long time ago, had some good legit results that lasted a few months until Userbench deleted the parts of the result someone deemed too good to be true or whatever. Not overclock friendly!









Yeah, missing because Userbench deleted them but decided to keep the crappy parts of the bench such as disk and so on.


----------



## mongoled

Im coming for the joint top hotspot with the Phenom II X4 965 

So currently im at this

CPU: Performing way above expectations (100th percentile)
GPU: Performing way above expectations (96th percentile)
Drive: Performing below potential (39th percentile) - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable
Memory Kit: Performing way above expectations (94th percentile)

Obviously the worse is the "Drive" performance, so I will be sticking in a PCIe SATA card into one of the slots and then connecting that to the SSD. Will see by how much that pushes the percentile, if its close to 100% I will then mirror the OS to a faster SSD.

Next in line would be the "Memory Kit" seeing what I posted in my original post were 24/7 stable settings, I have some leeway to push some more, unsure though how much i can tweak out of the RAM.

Then we have the "GPU", finally found a waterblock for the HD 4890, just the temp difference with being watercooled should push it up to 100%, if not a little overclocking will fix that 

Hopefully by this time next week we will know the results

😁😁


----------



## Luggage

So my old winter run was apparently still linked MSI MEG X570 UNIFY (MS-7C35) Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## storm-chaser

xioaxi said:


> Used Uerbench a long time ago, had some good legit results that lasted a few months until Userbench deleted the parts of the result someone deemed too good to be true or whatever. Not overclock friendly!


What, are you certain? As far as I remember, my results never changed over the years, even though I had a decent OC on the CPU...


----------



## storm-chaser

mongoled said:


> Im coming for the joint top hotspot with the Phenom II X4 965
> 
> So currently im at this
> 
> CPU: Performing way above expectations (100th percentile)
> GPU: Performing way above expectations (96th percentile)
> Drive: Performing below potential (39th percentile) - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable
> Memory Kit: Performing way above expectations (94th percentile)
> 
> Obviously the worse is the "Drive" performance, so I will be sticking in a PCIe SATA card into one of the slots and then connecting that to the SSD. Will see by how much that pushes the percentile, if its close to 100% I will then mirror the OS to a faster SSD.
> 
> Next in line would be the "Memory Kit" seeing what I posted in my original post were 24/7 stable settings, I have some leeway to push some more, unsure though how much i can tweak out of the RAM.
> 
> Then we have the "GPU", finally found a waterblock for the HD 4890, just the temp difference with being watercooled should push it up to 100%, if not a little overclocking will fix that
> 
> Hopefully by this time next week we will know the results
> 
> 😁😁


Link?


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## storm-chaser

*HP Z820 Workstation Performance Results - UserBenchmark 








*


----------



## xioaxi

storm-chaser said:


> What, are you certain? As far as I remember, my results never changed over the years, even though I had a decent OC on the CPU...


Results were from 7+ years ago now so not going to dig around looking for possible screen shots. IIRC for the first month or so the results would be displayed including the top of the list under rating when all other entries selected. That disappeared, later to be followed with deleting data although it seems the numbers for the 1,2,4.. core results still exist if the result can be looked up. Managed to find one that was done later on different hardware that missed having the bench result deleted.

Not for entry but as an example.









Sorry for ranting.


----------



## mongoled

storm-chaser said:


> Link?


Just got the SATA card in



Unknow Unknow Performance Results - UserBenchmark





hold off updating the leaderboard until i finish, waiting for the GPU waterblock to arrive


----------



## mongoled

How are those running nvme drives on AMD system able to get decent results on the disk performance test ??
Is there some sort of trick ?

Here are the results from my WD nvme drive

WDS100T1X0E-00AFY0 1TB 
38,028 User benchmarks, average bench 466% 
420GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 613200WD 
SusWrite @10s intervals: 3474 2337 1459 1482 1401 985 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (15th percentile)

When I checked it with crystaldisk v7 i get (bear in mind this is my workOS, which is several years old etc with many processes running in the background)


----------



## Triax

How many drives do you have connected, including the WD NVME drive?

I had to unplug all of my drives, except the NVME drive (system drive) to get User Benchmark to properly read it.


----------



## mongoled

Triax said:


> How many drives do you have connected, including the WD NVME drive?
> 
> I had to unplug all of my drives, except the NVME drive (system drive) to get User Benchmark to properly read it.


I disabled in device manager all the drives so only OS is visable


----------



## storm-chaser

Comparing and contrasting both Phenom IIs:
@cssorkinman









@mongoled


----------



## cssorkinman

storm-chaser said:


> Comparing and contrasting both Phenom IIs:
> @cssorkinman
> View attachment 2569879
> 
> 
> @mongoled
> View attachment 2569880


It's quite a benchmark. It would be interesting to know how they arrive at the percentages.


----------



## storm-chaser

cssorkinman said:


> It's quite a benchmark. It would be interesting to know how they arrive at the percentages.


Here they go into a little detail on that very question: Essentially, it's measuring your CPU relative to the performance of a 9900K









The 9900K is the gold standard and the method by which all other processors are scored... that's why you see numbers like 128% or more on the CPU performance, some faster, some slower...


----------



## xioaxi

cssorkinman said:


> It's quite a benchmark. It would be interesting to know how they arrive at the percentages.


Yes, good question.  

With statements like


Userbench said:


> Speed test your SSD in less than a minute.


and


Userbench said:


> Sustained sequential write speed is calculated as the average Sequential write speed over a 60 second period.


Makes me wonder if their team of scientists and engineers can do basic math! 

Those CPU percentages seem to rely a lot on the memory result.

@mongoled Seems my Plextor nvme is around 17% with Intel, looking into it. While there's space on the drive has garbage collection freed up enough blocks? Might be some disk caching at play too plus C-States can affect results. Let us know if you get it figured out.


----------



## storm-chaser

xioaxi said:


> Those CPU percentages seem to rely a lot on the memory result.


not saying you are wrong, but How are you concluding this is the case?

FYI 

*Effective RAM speed*
The effective RAM speed index is weighted as 80% multi-core throughput, 10% single-core throughput and 10% latency. Dual channel *RAM running at 3000 MHz on a skylake chip ≈ 100%*. See a list of RAM Kits and their effective speeds (Avg. bench) here.


----------



## mongoled

xioaxi said:


> @mongoled Seems my Plextor nvme is around 17% with Intel, looking into it. While there's space on the drive has garbage collection freed up enough blocks? Might be some disk caching at play too plus C-States can affect results. Let us know if you get it figured out.


Not going to spend time looking into this.

There are people on the leaderboard who are likely to have already done the diagnostics on this but have yet to share what they did.

I highly doubt its down to garbage collection or c-states as ive seen other weird results on my Phenom system where the SSD test was running OK and now does not complete throwing some obscure message about not being able to finish the SSD benchmark.

This is most likely to do with userbenchmark being crap just like their views on AMD


----------



## storm-chaser

mongoled said:


> I highly doubt its down to garbage collection or c-states as ive seen other weird results on my Phenom system where the SSD test was running OK and now does not complete throwing some obscure message about not being able to finish the SSD benchmark.


Obviously userbenchmark is failing in the SSD department. But if you want to see the break down, this is it:


----------



## xioaxi

storm-chaser said:


> not saying you are wrong, but How are you concluding this is the case?
> 
> FYI
> 
> *Effective RAM speed*
> The effective RAM speed index is weighted as 80% multi-core throughput, 10% single-core throughput and 10% latency. Dual channel *RAM running at 3000 MHz on a skylake chip ≈ 100%*. See a list of RAM Kits and their effective speeds (Avg. bench) here.


I'm not saying I'm right either, just an observation that someone with higher CPU core scores, 1, 2,4,8 & 64 core can be beaten by someone else with lower CPU core scores but a higher memory score, the one above 1 & 2 core results. I think it supposed to represent latency.

As for the disk bench not finishing this can be due sometimes to a massive bench file that's too big to fit. A disk running 3GB/s would try to write a 180GB file due to the 60 seconds requirement. Sometimes this file doesn't get deleted so check disk space afterward as a precaution.


----------



## mongoled

Just arrived,
Hopefully will have time to get it installed some time this week


----------



## cssorkinman

xioaxi said:


> Yes, good question.
> 
> With statements likeandMakes me wonder if their team of scientists and engineers can do basic math!
> 
> Those CPU percentages seem to rely a lot on the memory result.
> 
> @mongoled Seems my Plextor nvme is around 17% with Intel, looking into it. While there's space on the drive has garbage collection freed up enough blocks? Might be some disk caching at play too plus C-States can affect results. Let us know if you get it figured out.


That was my initial take on things as well - memory latency in particular. But I have as much right as anyone to be mistaken, and generally about twice the ability .


----------



## xioaxi

Tried messing around with disk score, same hardware. I don't know why but W10 gives rubbish results vs W7. Disabling core C-States C3 and below see's some uplift.


Code:


                 C3             No C3
W7  SSD    80.7%    27th    91.7%   56th
W10 SSD    80.8%    27th    82.4%   32nd
W7  NVMe    201%    62nd     223%   83rd
W10 NVme    166%    18th     178%   27th


----------



## xioaxi

storm-chaser said:


> I found the run from my 9600KF (but I cannot find the link)


Some good news and some bad news. I'm pretty sure I found your link (I was bored )












MSI MEG Z390 ACE (MS-7B12) Performance Results - UserBenchmark



Look on the bright side, a least you didn't have that 16GB flash drive plugged in (see run history link) otherwise would have dropped a few more on the overall percentile.


----------



## storm-chaser

xioaxi said:


> Some good news and some bad news. I'm pretty sure I found your link (I was bored )
> 
> View attachment 2570076
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSI MEG Z390 ACE (MS-7B12) Performance Results - UserBenchmark
> 
> 
> 
> Look on the bright side, a least you didn't have that 16GB flash drive plugged in (see run history link) otherwise would have dropped a few more on the overall percentile.


LOL you did find it! I spent a good hour trying to locate that at the beginning of the comp.
So it looks like I dropped 1% in the last two years. And I cannot defend my honor because that rig has since been dismantled. When @mongoled posts his Phenom II system again, I will be sure to update the leaderboard to reflect the most current information. Regarding the USB thumb drive, I'm currently on the hunt for one that will land me in the 100th% percentile 

I think there is one thing we should look at though. You said your OC results for CPU were eventually getting deleted or whatever by userbenchmark? Just FYI, this run was made at 5.2 or 5.3GHz OC and the CPU result has been standing for two years.... nothing deleted


----------



## mongoled

@storm-chaser
as so not to delay the updating the leaderboard, use the below result. (see EDIT3 and you can decide which to use)

https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/54824027
The previous result I posted with 97% is null and void because of the following reason.

For reasons unknown to me (and probably them also) it was 97% because the SSD was not detected correctly.

The SSD is a "Micron C400 RealSSD 128GB ", but on the 97% percentile result the SSD was detected as a "C400-mtf DDAC128MAM 128GB"

The Micros SSD has over 11,000 entires while the C400 has only 15 entries.

Although the actual results are the same in terms of performance, their weighting is completely skewed.

Have room for improvements, but that result will come at another time, how much more than that is dependent on working out why the SSD cannot perform to its potential, I also tried a PNY 128GB SSD mirrored from the Micron and the results were even worse due to the bottleneck.

Going to investigate what the max throughput is on the PCIe slot I have the SATA 6G card plugged into.....

*** EDIT ***
So worse case scenario is that PCIe 2.0 is running at x4 with gives a theoretical max throughput of 500 MB/lane, so x4 = 2 GB/s.

Next SATA 6G has a theoretical max throughput 600 MB/s.

So from this info we know the SSD is not being restricted either through the PCIe interface or the SATA 6G card.

Will play with ganged and unganged mode to see if it has any effect.

Using CrystalDiskMark I get the following









*** EDIT2 ***
Motherboard BIOS set to defaults


Unknow Unknow Performance Results - UserBenchmark



Conclusion, "SSD test" influenced by other factors such as CPU speed.

Im considering setting up a raid0 array on two mechanical drives just to see what happens, LOL

*** EDIT3 ***
Using a HDD 98% percentile
https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/54824716


----------



## xioaxi

It's a fine result @storm-chaser, no dishonor there. So I had a further look regarding missing data and it seems something happened in Dec 2015 and possibly all results (I haven't checked each one) have lost their DRAM results which has possibly led to the CPU bench result percentage missing too. More precisely all results before 590001.

Sometimes there are statements that only the first run is used in rankings!

@mongoled lot of work for drive result. 
Here's one of mine that lost about 11% due to additional Barracuda drive. 98.75% to 87.4%


MSI Z97 GAMING 5 (MS-7917) Performance Results - UserBenchmark



Extreme example of software disk caching!


----------



## mongoled

xioaxi said:


> It's a fine result @storm-chaser, no dishonor there. So I had a further look regarding missing data and it seems something happened in Dec 2015 and possibly all results (I haven't checked each one) have lost their DRAM results which has possibly led to the CPU bench result percentage missing too. More precisely all results before 590001.
> 
> Sometimes there are statements that only the first run is used in rankings!
> 
> @mongoled lot of work for drive result.
> Here's one of mine that lost about 11% due to additional Barracuda drive. 98.75% to 87.4%
> 
> 
> MSI Z97 GAMING 5 (MS-7917) Performance Results - UserBenchmark
> 
> 
> 
> Extreme example of software disk caching!
> View attachment 2570165


Really unsure whats going on with this benchmark and the "alternating/variating" by such large margins.

Regards the the mis-detection of my SSD mentioned in my previous results, ive worked out the reason why. The SSD was detected as a "Micron" when I was using the MS drivers for the SATA6G add on card. Once I installed the manufacturer drivers for the SATA6G card then the name changed along with the result.

@storm-chaser
Bro, I think you can put up the 97% and 98% result.



Also noted that the top two scores that are 100% do not have "valid" results for the RAM, should have been a prerequisite for a total valid score as it is a primary component of the PC, without RAM there is no working PC !


----------



## storm-chaser




----------



## storm-chaser

mongoled said:


> Also noted that the top two scores that are 100% do not have "valid" results for the RAM, should have been a prerequisite for a total valid score as it is a primary component of the PC, without RAM there is no working PC !


i will look into this...


----------



## mongoled

storm-chaser said:


> i will look into this...


Hey, sorry if my statement was misinterpreted.
I meant this for "userbenchmark" not for your scoreboard, though it does give an advantage in getting to 100%


----------



## storm-chaser

mongoled said:


> Really unsure whats going on with this benchmark and the "alternating/variating" by such large margins.


Not sure if this will answer your question, but the scores will fluctuate based on new sample pool submissions to userbencmark. Hence your overall performance expectation may fluctuate a few points from time to time.


----------



## xioaxi

Well it took some doing to be first in all categories, especially the drive category but finally here's my result 


Xioaxi X99-Special Performance Results - UserBenchmark





mongoled said:


> Also noted that the top two scores that are 100% do not have "valid" results for the RAM, should have been a prerequisite for a total valid score as it is a primary component of the PC, without RAM there is no working PC !


Have you checked your own results? Your DRAM result is against a mixture of DDR, DDR2, DDR3 and even one LPDDR4 IIRC. Hardly what I would call similar hardware!


----------



## cssorkinman

xioaxi said:


> Well it took some doing to be first in all categories, especially the drive category but finally here's my result
> 
> 
> Xioaxi X99-Special Performance Results - UserBenchmark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you checked your own results? Your DRAM result is against a mixture of DDR, DDR2, DDR3 and even one LPDDR4 IIRC. Hardly what I would call similar hardware!


Nicely done lol


----------



## mongoled

xioaxi said:


> Well it took some doing to be first in all categories, especially the drive category but finally here's my result
> 
> 
> Xioaxi X99-Special Performance Results - UserBenchmark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you checked your own results? Your DRAM result is against a mixture of DDR, DDR2, DDR3 and even one LPDDR4 IIRC. Hardly what I would call similar hardware!


Wow, I assumed that Userbenchmark would score according to DDR types not across the board! Thats crazy, just goes to show how no-one should take anything they say seriously 😅

Just clicked on the link in that post
😁 😁


----------



## storm-chaser

mongoled said:


> Wow, I assumed that Userbenchmark would score according to DDR types not across the board! Thats crazy, just goes to show how no-one should take anything they say seriously 😅
> 
> Just clicked on the link in that post
> 😁 😁


It's just a baseline performance standard. What you are doing is comparing how your memory performs relative to a Skylake system with 3000mhz ddr4 memory.


----------



## storm-chaser

mongoled said:


> Just clicked on the link in that post
> 😁 😁


that was pretty funny right? I had a really good laugh. lol at 1st performance percentile.


----------



## xioaxi

storm-chaser said:


> *This one is just for fun.*


Right, it was also something I could aim for and strangely feel a sense of achievement.  Note there's results with 0 percentile so wasn't a case of just aiming for the lowest.

That also brings up the 100th percentile


https://www.userbenchmark.com/Faq/What-is-the-UBM-PC-status/94 said:


> A component achieves a status of 75% when it's faster than 75 out of 100 results for the same component.


So for 100% you would need to be faster than 100 out of 100 which includes your own result so technically it isn't possibly.

@storm-chaser I have an example of CPU memory score effect on result. First 2696v3 99th percentile (Note also there's only 10 cores enabled)









Next result beats the above in all of the core results but loses out on "Memory" score, 2nd percentile!










Just pointing out some "features" not bashing it, or am I? It is what it is, IMO more orientated to average scores than best scores.

@mongoled most of if not all the DDR results seem to be misreported i.e. not DDR1. If the DDR3 where removed you would have likely gotten a higher percentile.

There was also a Userbenchmark remark of only using the first run in the rankings? If you want to try to get the best result before submitting it might be possible to unzip the executable to a folder with 7-Zip and run from cmdline "UserBenchMarkRunEngine jsondebug". The results are point orientated not percentage orientated which would require knowledge of their algorithm. Some tests might want admin privilege, no internet connection required.


----------



## storm-chaser

xioaxi said:


> Right, it was also something I could aim for and strangely feel a sense of achievement.  Note there's results with 0 percentile so wasn't a case of just aiming for the lowest.
> 
> That also brings up the 100th percentile
> 
> So for 100% you would need to be faster than 100 out of 100 which includes your own result so technically it isn't possibly.
> 
> @storm-chaser I have an example of CPU memory score effect on result. First 2696v3 99th percentile (Note also there's only 10 cores enabled)
> View attachment 2571124
> 
> 
> Next result beats the above in all of the core results but loses out on "Memory" score, 2nd percentile!
> 
> View attachment 2571125
> 
> 
> Just pointing out some "features" not bashing it, or am I? It is what it is, IMO more orientated to average scores than best scores.
> 
> @mongoled most of if not all the DDR results seem to be misreported i.e. not DDR1. If the DDR3 where removed you would have likely gotten a higher percentile.
> 
> There was also a Userbenchmark remark of only using the first run in the rankings? If you want to try to get the best result before submitting it might be possible to unzip the executable to a folder with 7-Zip and run from cmdline "UserBenchMarkRunEngine jsondebug". The results are point orientated not percentage orientated which would require knowledge of their algorithm. Some tests might want admin privilege, no internet connection required.


Yes, very well done, and I mean that. Thanks for your contributions to the thread and competition.


----------



## storm-chaser

Posting the leaderboard here for reference purposes. I will not be adding any new submissions because the comp has ended. But you are still welcome to post what you've got and see what you are made of!


----------



## cssorkinman

I think they came out with a new version - might have to check that out?


----------



## storm-chaser

cssorkinman said:


> I think they came out with a new version - might have to check that out?


Thanks, I had no idea. Yup, they have a new version out. Comparisons to the old benchmark can be made. Looks pretty good, hopefully more accurate than before. However, I already see a problem with "processor" benchmark. Says I have a good single core. I mean, I don't want to knock my own system, but the single on these chips is bad. It's like a 4.3GHz core2 processor, effectively (in single core, for multi core it rocks).


----------



## mongoled

storm-chaser said:


> Thanks, I had no idea. Yup, they have a new version out. Comparisons to the old benchmark can be made. Looks pretty good, hopefully more accurate than before. However, I already see a problem with "processor" benchmark. Says I have a good single core. I mean, I don't want to knock my own system, but the single on these chips is bad. It's like a 4.3GHz core2 processor, effectively (in single core, for multi core it rocks).
> 
> View attachment 2573108


Its in prep for Zen4

More tanked scores coming to AMD from your "favourite unbiased userbenchmark"

😅 😅


----------



## stahlhart

Anyone having trouble with the new version of this getting all the way to the end of the testing and then hanging, without providing the results?


----------



## cssorkinman

Pop up blocker?


stahlhart said:


> Anyone having trouble with the new version of this getting all the way to the end of the testing and then hanging, without providing the results?


----------



## stahlhart

cssorkinman said:


> Pop up blocker?


Yup, thanks much...


----------



## ToyMach000

MSI X299 SLI PLUS (MS-7A93) Performance Results - UserBenchmark



Testing some hardware I had laying around


----------



## mongoled

Cant make this stuff up

"The 13600K beats AMD’s flagship 7950X in gaming and almost matches the 7900X in multi-core performance. "

Source: UserBenchmark: Intel Core i9-13900K BX8071513900K

😅 😅


----------



## ToyMach000

MSI B250 GAMING M3 (MS-7A62) Performance Results - UserBenchmark



Claims 100% background CPU. I mean, it's Windows 10, it's gonna be doing stuff in the background. I don't even have Chrome open.


----------



## storm-chaser

mongoled said:


> Cant make this stuff up
> 
> "The 13600K beats AMD’s flagship 7950X in gaming and almost matches the 7900X in multi-core performance. "
> 
> Source: UserBenchmark: Intel Core i9-13900K BX8071513900K
> 
> 😅 😅


Doesn't it seem like they are getting more and more brazen about knocking AMD? Intel must have them on direct payroll / direct deposit by now, lol.


----------



## ToyMach000

At a certain level, even the rabid Intel/Nvidia fanbois have to think to themselves "These people are losing their credibility."


----------



## Zero989

What a joke benchmark. two 100 percentiles. I am not even overclocked on the CPU, in fact, I'm underclocked but with HT off and E cores off.



EVGA Z690 CLASSIFIED Performance Results - UserBenchmark



2nd run to beat myself : EVGA Z690 CLASSIFIED Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## storm-chaser

Zero989 said:


> What a joke benchmark. two 100 percentiles. I am not even overclocked on the CPU, in fact, I'm underclocked but with HT off and E cores off.
> 
> 
> 
> EVGA Z690 CLASSIFIED Performance Results - UserBenchmark
> 
> 
> 
> 2nd run to beat myself : EVGA Z690 CLASSIFIED Performance Results - UserBenchmark


Please, don't get so far ahead of yourself next time. There are what, like 74 benchmark entries for the 13700K? You realize the processor has been out in the wild for less than a week, right? Obviously, it will take a bit of time for more submissions to roll in until you can get a consistent / accurate score. 

So let me get this straight...not that I don't believe your results, but you bought a $600 EVGA Z690 CLASSIFIED to ..... underclock with?


----------



## Zero989

storm-chaser said:


> Please, don't get so far ahead of yourself next time. There are what, like 74 benchmark entries for the 13700K? You realize the processor has been out in the wild for less than a week, right? Obviously, it will take a bit of time for more submissions to roll in until you can get a consistent / accurate score.
> 
> So let me get this straight...not that I don't believe your results, but you bought a $600 EVGA Z690 CLASSIFIED to ..... underclock with?


$300 and I was testing a config


----------



## ToyMach000

https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/56231719
Another Celeron rig, this one with DDR5.
The SSD is missing because I chose to use an HHD with this system.
Labled "Max Digital Data" (iirc), going pretty cheap on Amazon so I got a few to try out on spare systems like this.


----------



## stahlhart

Asus ROG STRIX Z690-E GAMING WIFI Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## bhav

I mean I just ran it for fun to check my ram again and this indeed has got to be a joke?

And yea, I'm not bothering to run it again just to post the full lot here.

Ok god damn it, maybe I will!


----------



## Zero989

RTX 4090 so fast it went undetected

EDIT



EVGA Z690 CLASSIFIED Performance Results - UserBenchmark


----------



## bhav

Ok so I got around to running it again. Apparently my 3080 Ti is 36th percentile and performing below average lol.


----------



## storm-chaser

What a joke. There, you finally heard it from me.


----------



## ToyMach000

I was curious how they'd react to Intel GPUs, but so many of my attempts to run their benchmark have failed or errored out, I haven't even tried it with an Arc graphics card yet.


----------



## bhav

storm-chaser said:


> What a joke. There, you finally heard it from me.


It seems like the percentile scores are just determined randomly using RNG.


----------



## xioaxi

Maybe the GPU cooling is clogged up with all those cat whiskers


----------

