UserBenchmark Results

I want your hard drives - Gaming Goodness needs a home

 

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

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

 

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 43%

Speed boat

Desktop 86%

Aircraft carrier

Workstation 59%

Gunboat

 

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 63%

Destroyer

Desktop 56%

Gunboat

Workstation 43%

Speed boat

 

Doesn't seem to work on my system, maybe to do with 2 screens/ SLi?
GTX 1070 is boosting (although not quite to max clocks) but it's scores are abysmal.


EDIT: Doesn't like GSYNC


Results:
UserBenchmarks: Game 92%, Desk 82%, Work 82%
CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 2600 - 98%
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1070 - 94.7%
SSD: Crucial MX100 256GB - 75.8%
SSD: Crucial BX200 960GB - 70.5%
USB: WD My Book 500GB - 19.2%
RAM: G.SKILL Ripjaws V DDR4 3200 C14 4x8GB - 107.8%
MBD: Asus CROSSHAIR VI HERO

 

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

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

 

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.

 

Thats an interesting quote

 

UserBenchmarks: Game 145%, Desk 81%, Work 73%
CPU: Intel Core i7-6700K - 83.8%
GPU: Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti - 218.2%
SSD: Intel 530 Series 240GB - 31.1%
SSD: Plextor M8Pe NVMe PCIe M.2 512GB - 47.3%
HDD: Seagate FireCuda SSHD 2TB (2016) - 59.5%
HDD: WD Green 2TB (2011) - 44.8%
HDD: Toshiba MD04ACA400 4TB - 60.8%
HDD: Seagate ST1500DL003-9VT16L 1TB - 86.6%
RAM: Adata DDR4 3000 2OZ Kingston KHX2400C15/8G DDR4 3000 2OZ Kingston KHX2400C15/8G 48GB - 82.4%
MBD: Asus Z170 PRO GAMING

 

Not unusual, the vast majority of use cases won't see any difference.

 

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 ?

 

Just a remark (in form of an open question).. how many writes actually do happen to the page file? I imagine that for systems on 8 GB or more of RAM, not very many..

 

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.