Asus TUF X299 MARK 2

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 81%
Aircraft carrier
Desktop
Desktop 79%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 77%
Battleship
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing below expectations (29th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 71 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 70.2%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is good.
Graphics112% is an outstanding 3D score, it's the bee's knees. This GPU can handle almost all 3D games at very high resolutions and ultra detail levels.
Boot Drive158% is an exceptional SSD score. This drive is suitable for heavy workstation use, it will facilitate fast boots, responsive applications and allow for fast transfers of multi-gigabyte files.
Memory32GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's far more than any current game requires. 32GB will also allow for large file and system caches, virtual machine hosting, software development, video editing and batch multimedia processing.
OS VersionAlthough Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
Very high background CPU (90%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
MotherboardAsus TUF X299 MARK 2  (all builds)
Memory10.9 GB free of 32 GB @ 2.1 GHz
Display2560 x 1440 - 32 Bit kleuren
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20210713
Uptime0.2 Days
Run DateOct 15 '21 at 14:36
Run Duration244 Seconds
Run User BEL-User
Background CPU 90%
Watch Gameplay: 2070 + 9600K How to compare your gameplay

 PC Performing below expectations (29th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i7-7800X-$216
LGA 2066 R4, 1 CPU, 6 cores, 12 threads
Base clock 3.5 GHz, turbo 3.95 GHz (avg)
Performing way below expectations (11th percentile)
70.2% Very good
Memory 71.4
1-Core 106
2-Core 212
72% 130 Pts
4-Core 371
8-Core 628
61% 499 Pts
64-Core 932
58% 932 Pts
Poor: 69%
This bench: 70.2%
Great: 87%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia RTX 2070-$200
CLim: 2175 MHz, MLim: 3500 MHz, Ram: 8GB, Driver: 472.12
Performing way above expectations (94th percentile)
112% Outstanding
Lighting 141
Reflection 118
Parallax 138
115% 132 fps
MRender 184
Gravity 135
Splatting 111
114% 143 fps
Poor: 93%
This bench: 112%
Great: 112%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung 970 Evo NVMe PCIe M.2 1TB-$159
664GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 2B2QEXE7 Max speed: PCIe 16,000 MB/s
SusWrite @10s intervals: 919 999 1056 1062 1077 1073 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (1st percentile)
158% Outstanding
Read 1,104
Write 1009
Mixed 410
SusWrite 1,031
199% 888 MB/s
4K Read 19.5
4K Write 31.1
4K Mixed 22.8
75% 24.5 MB/s
DQ Read 739
DQ Write 503
DQ Mixed 668
486% 636 MB/s
Poor: 214%
This bench: 158%
Great: 372%
Samsung 860 Evo 1TB-$139
30GB free
Firmware: RVT04B6Q
SusWrite @10s intervals: 321 345 351 298 212 178 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (3rd percentile)
75.2% Very good
Read 432
Write 413
Mixed 375
SusWrite 284
85% 376 MB/s
4K Read 21.1
4K Write 29.3
4K Mixed 24.4
79% 24.9 MB/s
DQ Read 383
DQ Write 336
DQ Mixed 355
267% 358 MB/s
Poor: 81%
This bench: 75.2%
Great: 133%
Samsung 850 Evo 500GB-$90
463GB free
Firmware: EMT02B6Q
SusWrite @10s intervals: 323 349 365 370 375 379 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (3rd percentile)
72.5% Very good
Read 417
Write 389
Mixed 323
SusWrite 360
84% 372 MB/s
4K Read 16.6
4K Write 21.2
4K Mixed 17.6
59% 18.5 MB/s
DQ Read 374
DQ Write 326
DQ Mixed 349
262% 350 MB/s
Poor: 80%
This bench: 72.5%
Great: 134%
WD Green 2TB (2011)-$60
1.5TB free
Firmware: 51.0AB51
SusWrite @10s intervals: 104 108 109 109 110 109 MB/s
Performing above expectations (77th percentile)
59.4% Above average
Read 98.9
Write 93.3
Mixed 78.9
SusWrite 108
70% 94.8 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1.8
4K Mixed 0.6
125% 1 MB/s
Poor: 31%
This bench: 59.4%
Great: 67%
USB Flash Disk 8GB
8GB free, PID 1000
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 5.3 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.5 6.5 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (13th percentile)
3.42% Terrible
Read 10
Write 4.2
Mixed 2.5
SusWrite 6.2
7% 5.73 MB/s
4K Read 2.6
4K Write 0
4K Mixed 0
10% 0.87 MB/s
Poor: 3%
This bench: 3.42%
Great: 9%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 4x8GB
4 of 8 slots used
32GB DIMM DDR4 clocked @ 2133 MHz
Performing below expectations (34th percentile)
76.5% Very good
MC Read 21.7
MC Write 45.8
MC Mixed 23.3
86% 30.3 GB/s
SC Read 5.7
SC Write 19.1
SC Mixed 8.6
32% 11.1 GB/s
Latency 98.1
41% 98.1 ns
Poor: 66%
This bench: 76.5%
Great: 106%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical TUF X299 MARK 2 Builds (Compare 1,662 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 100%
Nuclear submarine
Desktop
Desktop 87%
Aircraft carrier
Workstation
Workstation 94%
Nuclear submarine

Motherboard: Asus TUF X299 MARK 2

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 74% - Very good Total price: $796
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-13600K $254Nvidia RTX 4060 $293Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $133Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-12600K $175Nvidia RTX 4070 $550Samsung 860 Evo 250GB $52
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $39Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $45SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $32Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $45SanDisk 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