UserBenchmark Results

So was looking at Jim's(AdoredTV) YT video about CPU cache latency when he talked about the benchmark UserBenchmark.

https://www.userbenchmark.com/resources/download/UserBenchMark.exe

These are my results.

UserBenchmarks: Game 114%, Desk 94%, Work 74%
CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K - 98.4%
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1080-Ti - 135%
SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 500GB - 85%
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 2TB - 101.4%
HDD: Seagate ST3000DM007-1WY10G 3TB - 65.3%
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 3TB - 91.7%
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 3TB (2016) - 90.9%
HDD: Seagate ST3000DM007-1WY10G 3TB - 63.9%
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 3TB (2016) - 77.6%
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 2TB - 89.7%
USB: ST2000LM 003 HN-M201R 2TB - 18.5%
USB: ST2000LM 003 HN-M201R 2TB - 41.3%
USB: Verbatim STORE N GO 32GB - 9.1%
RAM: G.SKILL TridentX DDR3 2400 C10 2x8GB - 87.6%
MBD: Asus MAXIMUS VII HERO

Post your results ;)
 
Last edited:
my new PC, A gaming beast

UserBenchmarks: Game 23%, Desk 111%, Work 62%
CPU: Intel Core i5-8259U - 76.9%
GPU: Intel Iris Plus Graphics 655 - 14.2%
SSD: Samsung 970 Evo NVMe PCIe M.2 500GB - 296.5%
RAM: Kingston HyperX DDR4 2400 C14 2x4GB - 109.4%
MBD: Intel NUC8BEB
 
Its a surprisingly tiny (5.5MB) benchmark covering a nice range of stats.
I'm very impressed :yes:

Only problem I have is during the test it tests by drive letter but results don't.
Gives hardware name/code without the link between.
I have a failing drive that needs to be replaced but I don't actually know which physical one it is (oddly I can't find relevant info via Windoze either), can't be assed to spend the time/effort doing the manual power down, unplug one, reboot thing.

Edit: I have it now! Remembered one of the relevant drive results as I just ran it & successfully found in results, its that 2TB Seagate.

UserBenchmarks: Game 69%, Desk 77%, Work 52%
CPU: Intel Core i5-6600K - 94.8%
GPU: AMD RX 480 - 69.1%
SSD: Intel 520 Series 240GB - 64%
SSD: Intel X25-M 80GB - 42.4%
HDD: WD Green 2TB (2011) - 39.9%
HDD: Seagate ST31000340AS 1TB - 42%
HDD: Seagate ST31000340AS 2TB - 40.4%
HDD: WD Green 6TB (2014) - 66.8%
HDD: WD Green 1TB (2009) - 39.4%
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 4TB (2016) - 88.2%
RAM: Kingston HyperX 2133 C14 2x8GB - 73.6%
MBD: Gigabyte GA-Z170-HD3
 
Last edited:
I just tested my home PC.

UserBenchmarks: Game 113%, Desk 122%, Work 138%
CPU: AMD Ryzen TR 1920X - 109.4%
GPU: AMD RX Vega 64 - 115%
SSD: Samsung 960 Evo NVMe PCIe M.2 250GB - 181%
SSD: SanDisk Ultra 3D 1TB - 111.3%
HDD: Toshiba X300 4TB - 64.7%
HDD: Seagate NAS HDD 4TB - 87.3%
RAM: G.SKILL F4 DDR4 3600 C16 4x8GB - 202.6%
MBD: Asrock X399 Taichi
 
Laptop: Performing as expected (58th percentile)

Intel Core i7-7700HQ - 70.4% Very good
Nvidia GTX 1050-Ti (Mobile)
38.5% Below average
Samsung PM961 NVMe PCIe M.2 256GB 203% Outstanding
Hitachi HTS541010B7E610 1TB 38.1% Below average
Kingston MSI24D4S7D8MH-16 1x16GB 43.7% Average

Gaming_128.png

Gaming 43%

Speed boat
Desktop_128.png

Desktop 86%

Aircraft carrier
Workstation_128.png

Workstation 59%

Gunboat
 
Last edited:
Desktop: Performing above expectations (67th percentile)

AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
76.7% Very good
Nvidia GTX 1060-3GB
68.6% Good
Toshiba DT01ACA100 1TB 57.5% Above average
Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x4GB 112% Outstanding

Gaming_128.png

Gaming 63%

Destroyer
Desktop_128.png

Desktop 56%

Gunboat
Workstation_128.png

Workstation 43%

Speed boat
 
Last edited:
Got the tripple UFO here
UserBenchmarks: Game 131%, Desk 154%, Work 182%
CPU: Intel Core i9-7980XE - 129.7%
GPU: AMD RX Vega 64-LC (Liquid Cooled) - 134.1%
SSD: Samsung 960 Pro NVMe PCIe M.2 512GB - 301.6%
SSD: WDC WDS200T2B0B-00YS70 2TB - 115.9%
RAM: G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3600 C17 4x16GB - 137.2%
MBD: Asus TUF X299 MARK 1

Despite that, dual V64 + 7980XE in a NZXT H700i case was not one of my best ideeas. Found out that H700i is for single GPU or dual blowers..
And couldn't be bothered to tune into a proper overcklock stable so I do get ocasional crashes. My memory <--> cpu relationship is not a happy one for some reason.
 
UFO x 3 :cool:

Seriously, my three 8-9yr old Crucial M4 SSDs are still kicking ass for their ages, while my Samsung 970 M.2 SSD raid array is taking no prisoners.

UserBenchmarks: Game 143%, Desk 171%, Work 189%
CPU: AMD Ryzen TR 1950X - 117.9%
GPU: Nvidia Titan Xp - 162.4%
SSD: Crucial M4 512GB - 75.3%
SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 1TB - 124.5%
SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 1TB - 124.5%
SSD: Crucial M4 512GB - 77.1%
SSD: Crucial M4 512GB - 76.2%
SSD: Amd-raid Array 1 999GB - 375.2%
SSD: Samsung 970 Evo NVMe PCIe M.2 500GB - 296.4%
SSD: Samsung Portable SSD T5 500GB - 85%
USB: WD My Book 25EE 8TB - 72.4%
RAM: G.SKILL F4 DDR4 3600 C17 8x8GB - 190.9%
MBD: Asus ROG ZENITH EXTREME
 
while my Samsung 970 M.2 SSD raid array is taking no prisoners
you have the same as me, though I did actually order the 970 pro but after waiting a week for it to arrive (And not having a SSD in the PC so the PC doesnt work without it, well I did have Linux on a USB drive that could be loaded in ram but not being able to install windows etc is a PITA) I cancelled it and went with the 970 evo. Though to be honest even though its ~6x quicker than my last SSD 3400 MB/s vs 500 MB/s, I am hard pressed to notice any different at all in actual usage, a bit disappointing TBH.
 
diminishing returns in action
One worry I have about non sata ssd's is a few years down the line I may end up with a motherboard that doesnt have the right socket.

ps:
what do you think about this (from wiki's ssd page)
According to Microsoft's former Windows division president Steven Sinofsky, "there are few files better than the pagefile to place on an SSD".[213] According to collected telemetry data, Microsoft had found the pagefile.sys to be an ideal match for SSD storage
wouldnt that be bad for wear ?
 
Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs handle well.
In looking at telemetry data from thousands of traces and focusing on pagefile reads and writes, we find that

Pagefile.sys reads outnumber pagefile.sys writes by about 40 to 1,

Pagefile.sys read sizes are typically quite small, with 67% less than or equal to 4 KB, and 88% less than 16 KB.

Pagefile.sys writes are relatively large, with 62% greater than or equal to 128 KB and 45% being exactly 1 MB in size.

In fact, given typical pagefile reference patterns and the favorable performance characteristics SSDs have on those patterns, there are few files better than the pagefile to place on an SSD.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/e7/2009/05/05/support-and-qa-for-solid-state-drives/

ps:
I know at first glance it seems ridiculous, but for those with large amounts of ram creating a small ramdrive and placing the swapfile on it is a good idea. You would think that if you have lots of ram then a swapfile isnt needed, but some programs expect to find one and freak out if they dont. also many programs write to the swapfile even if you have gigabytes of free memory.
 
Last edited:
Interesting results. I need to run my benchmark again but need to remove the USB drivers first and most of my HDD's.

Also interesting to see how my CPU does against the 6700K and Ryzen 5 2600. :)

pcchen, your 2080Ti definitely helps your gaming score, but seems my CPU is better for Desktop and Workstation. If I had a 2080Ti, I think I would have a better Gaming Score too.

Geez shortbread, bloody nice system. Workstation I take?
 
My work Workstation :oops::cry::LOL:

UserBenchmarks: Game 12%, Desk 44%, Work 19%
CPU: Intel Core i5-2500 - 66.4%
GPU: AMD Radeon HD 5450 - 1.4%
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 500GB - 50.7%
RAM: Kingston K1N7HK-HYC 2x2GB - 48.7%
MBD: Dell OptiPlex 790

Yeah, it's really old and I have been pushing for something newer. :cry:
 
Back
Top