Asus SABERTOOTH X99

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 21%
Surfboard
Desktop
Desktop 74%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 19%
Surfboard
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing below expectations (39th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 61 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components. Use the charts in the benchmark sections of this report to identify problem areas.
ProcessorWith a good single core score, this CPU can easily handle the majority of general computing tasks. Additionally this processor can handle light workstation, and even some light server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 73.1%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is good.
Graphics29.2% 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)
Memory16GB 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 VersionAlthough Windows 7 is still a viable option, it's now 14 years and 10 months old. This system should be upgraded to Windows 10 which is generally faster and has an improved set of core utilities including better versions of explorer and task manager.
MotherboardAsus SABERTOOTH X99  (all builds)
Memory10.6 GB free of 16 GB @ 2.1 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 7
BIOS Date20160818
Uptime1.9 Days
Run DateJul 24 '21 at 18:03
Run Duration208 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU0%

 PC Performing below expectations (39th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i7-5820K-$130
SOCKET 2011, 1 CPU, 6 cores, 12 threads
Base clock 3.3 GHz
Performing below expectations (30th percentile)
73.1% Very good
Memory 80.4
1-Core 102
2-Core 203
73% 128 Pts
4-Core 355
8-Core 626
59% 490 Pts
64-Core 780
48% 780 Pts
Poor: 68%
This bench: 73.1%
Great: 88%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 950-$100
CLim: 1569 MHz, MLim: 1652 MHz, Ram: 2GB, Driver: 471.11
Performing way above expectations (98th percentile)
29.2% Poor
Lighting 37.1
Reflection 40.5
Parallax 33.4
30% 37 fps
MRender 34.1
Gravity 35.6
Splatting 30.9
27% 33.5 fps
Poor: 22%
This bench: 29.2%
Great: 28%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Crucial M4 256GB-$218
7GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 000F
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 426
Write 258
Mixed 246
68% 310 MB/s
4K Read 23.1
4K Write 91.4
4K Mixed 15.2
103% 43.2 MB/s
DQ Read 123
DQ Write 116
DQ Mixed 15.7
40% 85 MB/s
Poor: 43% Great: 74%
Maxtor 6H400F0 400GB
24GB free
Firmware: HA431DD0
SusWrite @10s intervals: 52 44 43 43 49 45 MB/s
Performing below expectations (37th percentile)
29.9% Poor
Read 56.2
Write 54.7
Mixed 33.3
SusWrite 46.1
35% 47.6 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 5.9
4K Mixed 0.2
161% 2.27 MB/s
Poor: 24%
This bench: 29.9%
Great: 37%
WD Green 1.5TB (2010)-$176
388GB free
Firmware: 51.0AB51
SusWrite @10s intervals: 44 44 45 45 45 44 MB/s
Performing below expectations (28th percentile)
37.4% Below average
Read 85.3
Write 82
Mixed 72
SusWrite 44.4
53% 70.9 MB/s
4K Read 0.8
4K Write 2.2
4K Mixed 0.7
152% 1.23 MB/s
Poor: 26%
This bench: 37.4%
Great: 63%
WD Green 1TB (2009)-$72
32GB free
Firmware: 01.0
SusWrite @10s intervals: 83 82 84 83 83 82 MB/s
Performing above expectations (76th percentile)
48.6% Average
Read 86
Write 84.3
Mixed 66
SusWrite 82.9
59% 79.8 MB/s
4K Read 0.8
4K Write 2.2
4K Mixed 0.8
163% 1.27 MB/s
Poor: 23%
This bench: 48.6%
Great: 57%
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 120G 120GB
107GB free, PID 55aa
Operating at USB 2.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 26 26 26 25 26 26 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (7th percentile)
31.6% Below average
Read 29.3
Write 25.8
Mixed 27.3
SusWrite 25.9
37% 27.1 MB/s
4K Read 7.2
4K Write 6.5
4K Mixed 7
486% 6.9 MB/s
Poor: 32%
This bench: 31.6%
Great: 258%
WD My Book 1230 2TB
516GB free, PID 1230
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 76 74 76 76 76 76 MB/s
Performing below expectations (24th percentile)
32.9% Below average
Read 75.5
Write 75
Mixed 63.5
SusWrite 75.7
99% 72.4 MB/s
4K Read 1
4K Write 1.7
4K Mixed 0.9
92% 1.2 MB/s
Poor: 16%
This bench: 32.9%
Great: 59%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 2400 C14 1x16GB
1 of 8 slots used
16GB DIMM DDR4 clocked @ 2133 MHz
Performing below potential (14th percentile) - ensure that an XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
36.5% Below average
MC Read 14.2
MC Write 10.8
MC Mixed 11.5
35% 12.2 GB/s
SC Read 11.4
SC Write 10.4
SC Mixed 11.5
32% 11.1 GB/s
Latency 79.8
50% 79.8 ns
Poor: 33%
This bench: 36.5%
Great: 49%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical SABERTOOTH X99 Builds (Compare 961 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 82%
Aircraft carrier
Desktop
Desktop 86%
Aircraft carrier
Workstation
Workstation 72%
Battleship

Motherboard: Asus SABERTOOTH X99

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 114% - Outstanding Total price: $418
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketers operate countless reddit accounts. UserBenchmark’s data exposes their marketing spiel so they systematically attack our reputation.
Why don’t large PC brands support UserBenchmark?
PC brands profit greatly from flagship hardware like the 4090, 14900KS, and 7950X3D. We help users get similar real-world performance for less money.
Why don’t any youtubers promote UserBenchmark?
We don't sponsor youtubers, so they have no incentive to praise us. Moreover, brands pay more to market weaker products which puts their youtubers at odds with UserBenchmark.
Why does UserBenchmark have so many negative trustpilot reviews?
Trustpilot hosts user-generated online reviews. It's obvious that the 200+ UserBenchmark reviews, are mostly written by virgin marketing accounts. Real users aren't interested in promoting billon-dollar brands...
Why is UserBenchmark so popular with users?
Instead of pursuing lucrative sponsorships with billion-dollar PC brands, we have dedicated 13 years to publishing accurate real-world data. As a result, our users save millions every year and they return repeatedly.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170Nvidia RTX 4060 $293Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $120Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-13600K $260Nvidia RTX 4070 $550Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $45
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $37Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $29Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $48SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $62G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $351SanDisk Ultra Fit 32GB $16
If you make a purchase via one of these links, our site may earn a commission
Today's hottest deals
About  •  User Guide  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer  •  YouTube Feedback