Asus TUF Z370-PLUS GAMING

Performance Results


Gaming 37% Jet ski	Desktop 96% Nuclear submarine	Workstation 35% Jet ski


PC Status	Overall this PC is performing as expected (47th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 53 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
Processor	With an outstanding single core score, this CPU is the cat's whiskers: It demolishes everyday tasks such as web browsing, office apps and audio/video playback. Additionally this processor can handle typical workstation, and even moderate server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 97.3%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is excellent.
Graphics	31.6% is a below average 3D score (RTX 2060S = 100%). This GPU can handle older games but it will struggle to render recent games at resolutions greater than 1080p. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive	71.7% is a good SSD score. This drive enables fast boots, responsive applications and ensures minimum system IO wait times.
Memory	16GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's more than sufficient for nearly all games. 16GB also allows for very large file and system caches, software development and batch photo editing/processing.
OS Version	Although Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.

Run History

6 years ago, 6 years ago.

Motherboard	Asus TUF Z370-PLUS GAMING (all builds)
Memory	14.3 GB free of 16 GB @ 2.4 GHz
Display	1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit Farben
OS	Windows 10
BIOS Date	20171212
Uptime	0 Days
Run Date	Jan 23 '18 at 15:57
Run Duration	184 Seconds
Run User	DEU-User
Background CPU	2%

Watch Gameplay: 1050-Ti + 9600K How to compare your gameplay

PC Performing as expected (47^th percentile)

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

Processor	Bench	Normal	Heavy	Server
Intel Core i7-8700K-$186 746,287 User benchmarks, average bench 88% LGA1151, 1 CPU, 6 cores, 12 threads Base clock 3.7 GHz, turbo 4.3 GHz (avg) Performing way above expectations (93^rd percentile)	97.3% Outstanding	Memory 92.3 1-Core 138 2-Core 275 93% 168 Pts	4-Core 549 8-Core 935 90% 742 Pts	64-Core 1,154 72% 1,154 Pts
Poor: 76% ↑ This bench: 97.3% Great: 100%

Graphics Card	Bench	3D DX9	3D DX10	3D DX11
Nvidia GTX 1050-Ti-$59 946,701 User benchmarks, average bench 29% Nvidia(10DE 1C82) ≥ 4GB; Palit Passive Cooled CLim: 1911 MHz, MLim: 1752 MHz, Ram: 4GB, Driver: 388.13 Performing way above expectations (91^st percentile)	31.6% Below average	Lighting 39.6 Reflection 30.7 Parallax 37.1 32% 35.8 fps	MRender 38.9 Gravity 37.3 Splatting 35.5 30% 37.2 fps
Poor: 27% ↑ This bench: 31.6% Great: 33%

Drives	Bench	Sequential	Random 4k	Deep queue 4k
Samsung 850 Pro 1TB-$210 25,365 User benchmarks, average bench 105% 925GB free (System drive) Firmware: EXM02B6Q Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s Performing way below expectations (3^rd percentile) (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (05) Reallocated sector count 100 1 0 (09) Power-on hours count 99 99 3619 (0C) Power cycle count 99 99 367 (B1) Unknown 99 1 24 (B3) Unknown 100 100 0 (B5) Unknown 100 1 0 (B6) Unknown 100 99 0 (B7) Unknown 100 1 0 (BB) vendor-specific 100 100 0 (BE) vendor-specific 71 52 29 (C3) Hardware ECC recovered 200 200 0 (C7) UDMA CRC error rate 99 99 47 (EB) Unknown 99 99 225 (F1) Unknown 99 99 15933448799	71.7% Very good	Read 530 Write 142 Mixed 212 64% 295 MB/s	4K Read 36.6 4K Write 93.9 4K Mixed 21.1 132% 50.6 MB/s	DQ Read 38.3 DQ Write 112 DQ Mixed 83.8 62% 77.9 MB/s
Poor: 77% ↑ This bench: 71.7% Great: 124%
Samsung 850 Evo 1TB-$130 154,399 User benchmarks, average bench 110% 15GB free Firmware: EMT02B6Q Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s Performing way below expectations (16^th percentile) (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (05) Reallocated sector count 100 100 0 (09) Power-on hours count 99 99 422 (0C) Power cycle count 99 99 259 (B1) Unknown 99 99 5 (B3) Unknown 100 100 0 (B5) Unknown 100 100 0 (B6) Unknown 100 100 0 (B7) Unknown 100 100 0 (BB) vendor-specific 100 100 0 (BE) vendor-specific 74 50 26 (C3) Hardware ECC recovered 200 200 0 (C7) UDMA CRC error rate 99 99 13 (EB) Unknown 99 99 46 (F1) Unknown 99 99 11121219679	94.1% Outstanding	Read 514 Write 407 Mixed 416 99% 446 MB/s	4K Read 45.2 4K Write 92 4K Mixed 28.6 154% 55.3 MB/s	DQ Read 47 DQ Write 105 DQ Mixed 55 48% 69 MB/s
Poor: 80% ↑ This bench: 94.1% Great: 133%
WD Green 2TB (2011)-$70 212,471 User benchmarks, average bench 51% 105GB free Firmware: 51.0AB51 Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s Performing below expectations (39^th percentile) (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (01) Raw read error rate 200 200 0 (03) Spinup time 173 165 6350 (04) Start/Stop count 98 98 2156 (05) Reallocated sector count 200 200 0 (07) Seek error rate 100 253 0 (09) Power-on hours count 92 92 6381 (0A) Spinup retry count 100 100 0 (0B) Calibration retry count 100 100 0 (0C) Power cycle count 100 100 560 (C0) Power-off retract count 200 200 99 (C1) Load/Unload cycle count 195 195 16157 (C2) HDA temperature 115 103 35 (C4) Reallocation count 200 200 0 (C5) Current pending sector count 200 200 0 (C6) Offline scan uncorrectable count 200 200 0 (C7) UDMA CRC error rate 200 200 0 (C8) Write error rate 200 200 0	47.6% Average	Read 89.3 Write 76.5 Mixed 74 60% 79.9 MB/s	4K Read 0.46 4K Write 1.6 4K Mixed 0.12 63% 0.73 MB/s
Poor: 31% ↑ This bench: 47.6% Great: 67%
TOSHIBA External USB 3.0 2TB 9,084 User benchmarks, average bench 35% 260GB free, PID a202 Operating at USB 2.1 Speed Performing way below expectations (17^th percentile)	21.1% Poor	Read 41.4 Write 42.7 Mixed 42 54% 42 MB/s	4K Read 0.51 4K Write 1.84 4K Mixed 0.15 70% 0.83 MB/s
Poor: 15% ↑ This bench: 21.1% Great: 49%

Memory Kit	Bench	Multi core	Single core	Latency
Crucial BLS8G4D240FSB.16FBD2 2x8GB 16,539 User benchmarks, average bench 78% 2 of 4 slots used 16GB DIMM DDR4 clocked @ 2400 MHz Performing above expectations (72^nd percentile)	82.6% Excellent	MC Read 30.5 MC Write 31 MC Mixed 25.6 83% 29 GB/s	SC Read 18.8 SC Write 33.1 SC Mixed 26.5 75% 26.1 GB/s	Latency 63.4 63% 63.4 ns
Poor: 45% ↑ This bench: 82.6% Great: 91%

Take a copy of your results

System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Custom PC Builder (Explore upgrades for this PC) Build your perfect PC: compare component prices, popularity, speed and value for money

CHOOSE AN UPGRADE:

CPU

GPU

SSD

HDD

RAM

MBD

Typical TUF Z370-PLUS GAMING Builds (Compare 4,302 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings

Gaming 93%

Nuclear submarine

Desktop 91%

Nuclear submarine

Workstation 85%

Aircraft carrier

Motherboard: Asus TUF Z370-PLUS GAMING - $135

CPU
Core i7-8700KIntel $186Bench 88%, 746,287 samples	1,511x
Core i5-8600KIntel $173Bench 91%, 264,837 samples	832x
Core i7-8700Intel $200Bench 87%, 349,567 samples	573x

GPU
GTX 1080Nvidia $400Bench 102%, 1,082,454 samples	401x
GTX 1080-TiNvidia $485Bench 124%, 840,268 samples	346x
GTX 1060-6GBNvidia $117Bench 56%, 1,368,019 samples	338x

SSD
860 Evo 500GBSamsung $80Bench 105%, 762,998 samples	115x
970 Evo Plus NVMe PCIe M.2 1TBSamsung $95Bench 310%, 455,997 samples	105x
970 Evo NVMe PCIe M.2 500GBSamsung $43Bench 273%, 381,216 samples	97x

RAM
Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GBCorsair $43Bench 82%, 606,405 samples	145x
DDR4 3000 2OZ 2x8GBAdataBench 87%, 25,457 samples	90x
Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GBCorsair $40Bench 85%, 653,654 samples	83x

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER

Value: 73% - Very good

Total price: $844

CPU	GPU	SSD
Intel Core i5-13600K $279	Nvidia RTX 4060 $300	Crucial MX500 250GB $40
Intel Core i5-12400F $133	Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385	Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-12600K $182	Nvidia RTX 4070 $409	Samsung 860 Evo 250GB $52

HDD	RAM	USB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $39	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40	SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $30	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $43	SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $51	G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $351	SanDisk Ultra Fit 32GB $16