UserBenchmark.com mini benchmark competition

[storm-chaser]

Yes, User-Benchmark gets a bad rap by some in the tech community! I think most of that is unwarranted. At the very least, that criticism will not diminish the competitive nature of this this friendly benchmark competition in the least. If you can cut through all the BS you'll actually see that it has extensive and comprehensive (user driven) stats on even the latest tech hardware, allowing for detailed performance comparisons between rigs and specific hardware choices. More information on exactly how userbenchmark assesses / determines your systems performance can be found later in the thread.

Scoring metrics:
Actual scoring of the competition will be determined by looking at your overall percentile rank, as determined by userbenchmark. In example:

You can compete for highest percentile rank overall, plus you can also compete for specific hardware in specific categories, if you wish.

Considering the benchmarking software is free, readily available and fast to run, I highly recommend anyone reading this to please give it a chance -- just download the benchmark (link below) and let it run. Takes all of one minute...
LINK: User Benchmark Test

Please follow a general layout like this
-Provide a hyperlink to your benchmark result
-Provide a little background information on your rig or your specific overclock, if you'd like
-Any other relevant info you think we should know about your system

You may, or may not take snips of your results. If you have something exceptional and you want everyone to see it, by all means, post it with your result like this:

Notable Submissions as of 12-27-20:
Best Overall CPU Effective Speed = Arctucas, 8 core Intel i9-9900K, 111%
Best Overall GPU Effective Speed = KainXS, Asus nVidia RTX 3070 TUF 8GB, 171%
Best Overall Memory Effective Speed = Arctucas, G.SKILL F4 DDR4 4000 C19 2x16GB Kit, 138%
Best Overall SSD Effective Speed = Storm-Chaser, 512GB Samsung 970 Pro NVMe M.2, 417%

In theory, if userbenchmark.com is accurate, which it is, this combination of hardware should net you supreme overall performance, so long as you have the proper tuning and overclocking in place to take advantage of this performance potential. No guarantees, but this assessment does appear to align accurately with known performance data.

Leaderboard entries, listed below, are color coded to make for easy comparisons:

Blue = Team Intel
Red = Team AMD

Orange = 100th percentile Results (top marks)
Green = Honorable Mentions

Red + Bold = Top score from each category
Bold = Honorable mentions in each category

Basically, if it's in a different color or bold, it's a notable result...

A couple pointers to de-mystify this experience:
*In listing the effective CPU speed above in the leaderboard, know that it is being measured relative to a 9900K 8 core CPU.
*In other words, the 8 core 9900K is the CPU performance baseline and the standard to which all other CPUs are measured. (9900K = 100%)
*The Nvidia RTX 2060 super is the GPU performance baseline to which all other GPUs are measured. (RTX 2060s = 100%)
*The Samsung 850 Pro is the SSD performance baseline to which all other SSDs are measured. (850 Pro = 100%)
*Dual channel DDR4 RAM running at 3000 MHz on a Skylake chip = 100% (so this configuration is the memory baseline to which all other memory is compared)

So, effective speed is a (global) comparison, contrasting your CPU 's performance to everything else on the market (example: your CPU vs the world), in other words, grading your processors performance relative to all other CPUs on the market.
Percentile score/result refers to how well your particular hardware does within its own class. (example: your CPU vs all other identical CPU benchmarks in the userbenchmark.com database). In other words, grading your processors performance within it's own class. This is done with your GPU, SSD and memory as well, and both of these results are listed in the same category, as seen below.

Current Leaderboard (updated 2-24)
(Updated 3PM December 30th, 2020)



*As you can see from the leaderboard, we have a number of processors highlighted that provide over the 100% CPU effective speed baseline. If you are interested in some of the more detailed comparisons, you can see how userbenchmark.com rates these processors against each other, for example, the 3.7GHz base / 4.6GHz Boost 6C/6T Intel i5-9600KF (Q2 2019) verses the 3.8GHz base / 4.7GHz Boost 8C/16T AMD Ryzen 5800X (Q4 2020); both yield a CPU effective speed of 108% and 107% on the leaderboard, respectively. Understand that both of our overclocked configurations are taken into account by userbenchmark.com when determining CPU Effective speed.

Detailed (and accurate) userbenchmark.com CPU assessments and comparisons can be found here:
UserBenchmark: AMD Ryzen 7 5800X vs Intel Core i5-9600KF
UserBenchmark: Intel Core i5-9600KF vs i7-8700K

*Seeing identical consistency between vabeachboy0s I7-8700K @ 5.15GHz at 108% CPU Effective Speed and storm-chasers i5 9600KF @ 5.15GHz at the SAME 108% Effective Speed indicates very accurate and precise CPU performance assessments, as both of these processors are known to offer nearly identical performance at the same clock speed, only real difference being that the older i7-8700K has hyperthreading, meaning 6 cores and 12 threads; as opposed to only 6 cores and 6 threads for the later generation i5-9600KF (which is also accounted for in the benchmark results listed below).


vabeachboy0's i7-8700K 108% CPU Effective Speed Result:

Storm-Chaser's i5-9600KF 108% CPU Effective Speed Result:

And for comparison purposes, here is CainXS 107% CPU Effective Speed Result:

Again, you will see some tech people out in the world that like to bad mouth userbenchmark.com (as evidenced by the initial resistance to this thread when I first posted this competition a few days ago), but know that it is actually one of the most accurate benchmark sites on the internet, can be trusted, and know that most of these people that bad mouth it simply work to influence marketing or public perception of certain products and they are simply afraid of userbenchmark.com because it accurately lists the performance of some product or piece of hardware that they are desperately working to enhance beyond what the real world benchmarks reveal. Leaving them with no choice but to bash the source as "un-credible"... in fact, these people are not far off!!! Just a few digits in fact!

Userbenchmark.com is not "un-credible"
Userbenchmark.com is "in-credible"

*And again, I am saying this as someone who is in no way connected to them, I just enjoy hosting friendly benchmark competitions so I know who is credible and who is not! And I will NOT withhold the truth from my friends here at TPU! Userbenchmark.com is 100% Trustworthy! Power to the people!

 

[Arctucas]

Please click the green human to continue - UserBenchmark

 

[storm-chaser]

Man a lot of your guys are just here to bully because you can. If you have nothing nice to stay then stay out of the thread. Either run the benchmark or not but quit downplaying OP when all he wants to do is have a little fun and be open to others.

First off, I am giving userbenchmark.com diplomatic immunity here. Why? Because I can. lol sorry guys!

Yes, thank you. You get the idea -- what you are saying here is exactly on point. That's my sole intent, to have a little fun while at the same time make for a productive, healthy covid activity, in an effort to fire up some friendly competition amongst the members here. Point being, If the naysayers read the entire thread carefully, you can see I have already addressed this irrational concern early on. Or to be slightly more specific, and slightly more accurate, I have already addressed this potential paranoid delusion that some people have regarding the efficacy of userbenchmark.com in my VERY FIRST POST. And yet this other guy (and the other one after him) still feels the need to post another negative narrative, (even after the first naysayer said what he said and I told him he is welcome to compete along with us or leave if he finds userbenchmark.com doesn't measure up to his "rigorous" standards of what a "real" benchmark should be. lol last time I checked I was hosting the benchmark competition here, not you. If you have all these grand ideas about benchmarks that are SOOOO much better than userbenchmark, by all means, start your own little competition. Then I can follow up in that thread about how flawed your results really are and why you shouldn't use that specific benchmark engine.

And that brings me to the main point people. Benchmarks are tools of the trade. You can find value here. Some work better in certain circumstances, others are for more specialized metrics. Good or bad, or indifferent, there are plenty of "flawed" benchmarks out there, we live in a fallen world after all. They give us a rough indication of relative system performance, and it is unrealistic to impose more extreme scrutiny on a viable, competent benchmark engine like userbenchmark.com. What this tells me is that you have limited knowledge of the fact that all benchmarks are flawed in some way or another and all can serve a specific purpose very well if you tailor the competition appropriately. Moreover, there has to be a fundamental shift in your perception relative to the true spirit of competition. Don't rule out your own creativity! Now please, lets put this nitpicking to bed right now and just move forward in the spirit of friendly competition. After all, you guys are throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

I guess I can make one more clarifying point. The people knocking userbenchmark.com are also forgetting that if we get enough interest generated, you guys will be able to match up and compete directly against other members here on an individual (and specific) hardware level. (I.e. go pound for pound with another 9900K or something like that and see if it comes down to a better OC). In other words, since we all play by the same rules and all run the same bench engine, your result can confidently be measured against the competition with NO doubts that the benchmark itself is to blame. An accurate and legitimate comparison can then be drawn against your competition. And you can be confident in your result!

In other words, direct competition against other members with similar/identical hardware is in no way going to be "tainted" in any way, no matter how hard you look for another flaw to exploit here, it is simply NOT in this usage case! Which should actually make up a large contingent of the actual competition. Since it's like hardware, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the results to be skewed one way or the other. So this is just one example on how we will use this so called "illegitimate" benchmark and still somehow manage to get "legitimate" and accurate results (boy that's a real head scratcher). According to you and the other naysayers, that should be like trying to get water from a rock. Yet somehow, thats exactly what we are going to do.

Get it? Got it? Good!

I want to make one thing crystal clear. I am not in love with userbenchmark, nor do they sponsor me. I am in no way connected to them. I am not "raving" about userbenchmark.com nor am I being a "sold out fanboy" who can do no wrong -- I'm merely indifferent to the rumors/delusions leveled against userbenchmark.com because I see it much differently than you do. I see intrinsic value in it. I see the benchmark engine as a tool for measuring or estimating system performance under specific circumstances and If you are not ambitious enough to see a potential usage case here then I suppose there is no way to out reason your conclusions. Bottom line? Until you see the value in this benchmark, you will be forever stuck on that perpetual hamster wheel, repeating the same negative lines over and over and over again, sounding like a broken record while at the same time, desperately fighting to change someone else's benchmark competition because it doesnt meet your standards of "purity". Hint: Read that last sentence again.

And just one more plug:
Really love the results displayed in this format, which gives the end user the specific sweet spot, how the results are clustered and where you rank on the spectrum vs like hardware. I think this is pretty innovative and offers the end user some interesting metrics, not to mention a great visual representation of just where your OC falls when tossed in the mix. It's a great feature and allows for quick, accurate comparisons. Also a great visual tool for use when researching your next CPU. With all this data at your fingertips, you can confidently pick the right chip for your needs, while getting relevant data on just how high it will clock, on average, and just how hard you will be able to push it if you are into overclocking. This makes the CPU comparison system on the userbenchmark.com website second to none in terms of available OC data and metrics at your fingertips. Oh that's right, I almost forgot! userbenchmark.com is nothing more than an "illegitimate" benchmark, much like Barack Obama's birth certificate.

Does userbenchmark.com have limitations and perhaps some drawbacks? Absolutely. That doesn't mean it's completely useless! This is so very relevant here so I will repeat myself again, just as you guys have done a number of times in the thread with the wining, negative, pessimistic narrative! Even after I patiently ask to move on and get back on topic. I'm overgeneralizing now, so don't take this personally. But in some instances those that say "no" are typically blinded by their own pride, which is enough to conceal the truth from their analytical, rational, decision making thought process, effectively keeping that person in the dark and forcing them into a very tight and rigid interpretation of benchmarking as a whole and stifling creativity.

Point being that attitude stifles competition. As a result, the old and boring benchmark competitions tend to repeat themselves over and over and over again. It's a perpetual cycle of boredom that goes on and on, until someone steps in and tries something new and refreshing. See where I am going with this? Doesn't it seem a little foolish and close minded to take the "negative" approach? Leaves a bad taste in your mouth, doesn't it? Take a moment here for self reflection. What you are essentially doing is shooting down a brand new challenge/competition that hasn't really been done at this level and in this capacity before. Guess that's what we would call a very "restrictive" attitude.

Your naysayer attitude and generally restrictive and highly subjective approach would certainly never get us to the moon, this much I know.

Failing to see the intrinsic value of this benchmark indicates a relatively low level of overall ambition on your part. That's not something I can help you with. You either see it or you don't!

BOTTOM LINE: You guys are NOT in charge of my benchmark competition, and it's lame to shoot down something a little creative and a little different than the usual suspects. I've got to hand it to you, that must be a great COVID coping strategy! I'll definitely have to try that one of these days!

 

[95Viper]

If you wish to participate... do so.
If not, don't post.
Stay on topic and play nice.

Thank You for your cooperation.

Edit: We have cleaned up this topic so it can go back to its originally intended form. Further actions taken to any that do not heed this warning past this point.

 

[68Olds]

This is a mITX web surfer of mine. It has an i5-3330s, iGPU, 2x4GB SODIMM RAM, & an Intel SSD. Fine for its intended use.

Gigabyte GA-H77TN-00 Performance Results - UserBenchmark

 

[storm-chaser]

Here is my Phenom II rig with unlocked X6 960T processor @ 4.0GHz

Yes I know, the graphics card performance is atrocious!

I currently have the MSI 5700 XT Gaming X in another rig so I wasn't able to capitalize on that.

Biostar TA880GU3+ Performance Results - UserBenchmark

Highlights! (lol)

This is a mITX web surfer of mine. It has an i5-3330s, iGPU, 2x4GB SODIMM RAM, & an Intel SSD. Fine for its intended use.

Gigabyte GA-H77TN-00 Performance Results - UserBenchmark

Wow for a second there I thought I was looking at my Phenom II results because both rigs are super close in terms of performance.

Your I5 result:

My Phenom II 960T result:

 

[Toothless]

 

[plat]

Here's my modest build. My graphics card will be replaced soon (I hope) but until then, it's performing OK at stock clocks with a slight undervolt and custom fan curve via Afterburner.

Please click the green human to continue - UserBenchmark

 

[Rowsol]

UserBenchmarks: Game 63%, Desk 96%, Work 57%
CPU: Intel Core i5-10400 - 93.2%
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1650S (Super) - 61.1%
SSD: Adata SWORDFISH 500GB - 186.2%
HDD: WD Blue 4TB (2015) - 80.8%
RAM: G.SKILL Ripjaws V DDR4 2666 C15 2x8GB - 85.7%
MBD: Asrock B460 Pro4

I'm not too thrilled with the Swordfish. I wish I had gone with something different.

Does anyone else get "waiting for sustained writes" for 30 seconds during the test?

 

[Arctucas]

<SNIP>

Does anyone else get "waiting for sustained writes" for 30 seconds during the test?

Every time.

 

[storm-chaser]

Thanks for the interest all! Keep the submissions coming!

I will be pulling my Core 2 Quad Q9650 rig out of storage tomorrow for this bench, and if I can find the time, I will try to run this benchmark on both of my HP z820 dual processor workstations as well...

Here is my initial baseline leaderboard that was just hastily thrown together. By no means is this layout set in stone. If you have any tips or see something I should change, feel free to bring it up and we can have a community discussion about what's best for this competition. I will get the mods to unlock the very first post so I can update accordingly so we can keep track of results in real time. I will do my best to keep the leaderboard updated on a daily basis.

Effective Speed (abbreviated ES in the leaderboard) is included as well. This is your processors performance profile relative to the 9900K, the "control" chip that userbenchmark.com is using as the gold standard to measure all other chips... You will notice I have both (local) and (global) results grouped together, this way you know exactly where your system places both specifically for this competition (local result) and overall (global result) based on submissions to the userbenchmark database. The percentile result is based on how well your CPU stacks up within the entire sample group of identical processors, as measured by userbenchmark.com. I have included a link below so you know exactly how userbenchmark.com is evaluating and formulating your processors performance statistics.

Userbenchmark, across the board, has an excellent sample size for most of the popular hardware choices, and it continues to grow on a daily basis. Highly recommended for hardware comparisons as well, lots of great data to parse through, as I am sure many of you are just finding out.

Current Leaderboard
Updated 12:40AM December 21st, 2020



Reminder:
For all intensive purposes *YOU WILL BE COMPETING AGAINST SIMILAR HARDWARE* SO THIS IS NOT A DIRECT ASSESSMENT OF YOUR COMPUTER'S PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO ANOTHER FORUM MEMBERS COMPUTERS. IT'S A DIRECT ASSESSMENT OF YOUR COMPUTER'S PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO ASSESSMENTS DONE BY USERBENCHMARK OF SIMILAR HARDWARE (based on a large sample pool of user-submitted bench results) -- And that being said, you can also compete against other forum members as well if we get enough interest generated, I just wanted to explain the dynamics of this original approach so you know exactly how scores are being calculated and just what your hardware is measured against.

You can rest in confidence knowing that the benchmark sample size at userbenchmark.com is pretty decent. For example, there have been nearly 300,000 submissions for the I9-9900K alone! All submitted by enthusiasts, overclockers, and end users alike. Userbenchmark is powered by people like you and me and contrary to what you might read, they are not biased against AMD, nor are they owned by Intel. I consider them an authentic and honest benchmark suite with lots of good data points. In other words, userbenchmark.com is around for the right reasons!

A couple pointers to de-mystify this experience:
*In listing the effective CPU speed above in the leaderboard, know that it is being measured relative to a 9900K 8 core CPU.
*In other words, the 8 core 9900K is the CPU performance baseline and the standard to which all other CPUs are measured.
*The Nvidia 2060s is the GPU performance baseline to which all other GPUs are measured.
*The Samsung 850 Pro is the SSD performance baseline to which all other SSDs are measured.

If you'd like to learn more, please check these links below for detailed information or feel free to ask your questions here if you have any remaining doubts.

What is the effective SSD speed index? - Answers - UserBenchmark

What is the effective CPU speed index? - Answers - UserBenchmark

What is the effective GPU speed index? - Answers - UserBenchmark

Again, please do NOT post or respond to posts here if you are not submitting a result. It will just serve to muddy the waters and we've already been through that headache once and the mods have been kind enough to clean it up and allow us to continue with the threads intended purpose, so lets not blow our second chance here. Bottom line: I've chosen userbenchmark.com for this comp and nothing is going to change that! So I don't expect to see people posting here who have a bias against userbenchmark.com. No more bashing please! Just submit your result and grab some popcorn, it's that easy!

@Toothless
Please include a link to your online result on the userbenchmark.com site so I can add the memory latency of your rig to the leaderboard.

 

[Caring1]

Here's mine:
UserBenchmarks: Game 60%, Desk 99%, Work 53%
CPU: Intel Core i5-9600KF - 95%
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1060-6GB - 56.8%
SSD: Kingston SA2000M8500G 500GB - 275.7%
RAM: Unknown R020D408GX2-4400C19A 2x8GB - 86.4%
MBD: NZXT N7 Z370

Ran it again to get the link.
Link:https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/37177869

 

[storm-chaser]

Here's mine:
UserBenchmarks: Game 60%, Desk 99%, Work 53%
CPU: Intel Core i5-9600KF - 95%
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1060-6GB - 56.8%
SSD: Kingston SA2000M8500G 500GB - 275.7%
RAM: Unknown R020D408GX2-4400C19A 2x8GB - 86.4%
MBD: NZXT N7 Z370

Thanks for the sub, we will get you added to the leaderboard, but please provide the userbenchmark.com link to your online result. I need to input your systems memory latency result for the leaderboard which does not come through with a standard copy/paste method. That goes for everyone, please remember to include your link to the results for me. Thanks guys!

 

[Caring1]

Edited.

 

[Toothless]

Please click the green human to continue - UserBenchmark

Reran to include link.

 

[NoJuan999]

Asus ROG STRIX X470-F GAMING Performance Results - UserBenchmark

 

[Tomgang]

This is a older run of my system from 2018. I will not do a new run now, as i am in the process to move on from X58, to a Zen 3 based system. Well when CPU and GPU´s are in stock to normal prising that is.

Please click the green human to continue - UserBenchmark

 

[KainXS]

Link

Please click the green human to continue - UserBenchmark

100th percentile is amazing, nice Arctucas

 

[xu^]

Please click the green human to continue - UserBenchmark

2nd PC Q9450,GTX 970 ,8gb ddr2

Please click the green human to continue - UserBenchmark

 

[storm-chaser]

Had my own little benchmark marathon going on earlier this evening! Benchmarked three separate machines.
Here, I am swapping spare parts from one z820 to the other z820...
That's a total of 40 cores and 80 threads across both of them!
And 30 rounds of 7.62×39mm split core hollow point projectiles, of course, to go along with it! lol

mmmmmuuhahhahahaha!

Q9650 Results:

Please click the green human to continue - UserBenchmark

Highlights for this rig were for CPU and memory performance. Graphics card is terrible. The CPU runs at 4.0GHz but is capable of 4.5GHz for benchmarking. So this is a 100% stable OC configuration that I use for daily driving.

My HP z820 rig listed below has two E5-2696 v2 processors and 64GB worth of 8 channel DDR3 memory. These chips have an all core base turbo of 3.1GHz and a single core max turbo of 3.5GHz. So it's 12 cores per chip for a total of 24 cores and 48 threads. This is an Ivy Bridge era Xeon, 22nm process.
HP Z820 Workstation Performance Results - UserBenchmark

Highlights (take a look at that 64 core CPU bench result coming in at 2521 pts):

My second z820 rig has two Ivy Bridge E5-2673 v2 processors, for a total of 16 cores and 32 threads. Also 64GB of 8 channel memory like the first one.

Please click the green human to continue - UserBenchmark

 

[freeagent]

Some stock action!

CPU cooler mount should be here today between dawn and dusk sometime..

 

[storm-chaser]

I just re-imaged a very old laptop for a friend and I was curious to see how it would perform according to userbenchmark.com. In a word... BAD!

HP Pavilion g6 Notebook PC Performance Results - UserBenchmark

Further information on how userbenchmark assesses the performance capabilities of your hardware:


General FAQ

about userbenchmark.com:

If you are wondering how userbenchmark.com calculates gaming/desktop/workstation placings. This result comes in just above the actual benchmark section:

 

[vabeachboy0]

UserBenchmarks: Game 119%, Desk 110%, Work 113%
CPU: Intel Core i7-8700K - 107.7%
GPU: AMD RX 5700-XT - 107.5%
SSD: Intel Raid 0 Volume 2TB - 388.5%
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 3TB - 95.8%
RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3600 C18 4x8GB - 115.1%
MBD: Gigabyte Z370 AORUS Ultra Gaming

Please click the green human to continue - UserBenchmark

Here's my run. Guess I got more tweaking to do.

 

[storm-chaser]

Using Userbenchmark to determine your CPUs specific overclock ceiling or overclock "potential":

Measuring "overclocking" potential within a CPU is something quite unique, set in its own class, and I think another way in which userbenchmark brings key statistics to the fore with the way they compile and display your CPU's actual benchmarking results in visual terms. First, you have a sliding scale at the bottom that indicates relative performance against the 9900K. Then, you can see exactly how other people with the same CPU stack up, in visual terms. Once you have a large enough benchmark pool of results to draw accurate comparisons, you can begin to interpret the scale in the context of "overclocking potential". In the case of the six core i5 9600KF, you can see results simply don't "fall off" at a certain point, indicating the chip may have decent overclocking "potential". What I mean by this is not harsh judgment against the AMD 5800X, its just merely another tool or resource you can use to aid in "optimizing" your next overclocking build. To be more specific, you can see the AMD benchmark pool has a "overclocking" result (represented by this case in the visual "profile") that is less "desirable" than that of the 9600KF. The AMD processor results on the scale at the bottom resemble a "cliff" past a certain point. In other words, the AMD processor benchmark results are grouped much more around a specific MHz speed with not as much potential or headroom to go above that. Versus the 9600KF which has results that continue to string on to higher and higher speeds, albeit at a lower rate. But it just serves to show you that if the cooling solution is good and the overclocking is competent, the performance potential ceiling of the 9600KF is generally higher than that of the Ryzen 7 5800X. This interpretation should be considered "presumptive" only but may aid in your search in finding a CPU with the ideal overclocking "ceiling" that you are seeking to build. This would not be a tool used to "needle" other people, it would be a tool you could use to measure the performance capabilities of your next system before your put it together. Or finding a really really great CPU with a really really high performance potential. Interested to see what you guys think about this. Obviously limited by the submissions themselves, i.e. less "overclockers" running submissions with one or the other here could taint the true results.

Competition Highlights!
just another way to group the results!
Any result 90% and over is included in the highlight reel below!
Please let me know if I missed anything and I'll be sure it add it!

@Arctucas
*Competition Winner and Overall Champion*
Highest average performance in both percentile rank and effective speed, across the board!
Best Overall CPU Effective speed, 111%, 9900K
Best Overall Memory Effective Speed, 138%, DDR4 @ 4000MHz
100th Performance Percentile, CPU, 9900K
100th Performance Percentile, GPU, Nvidia RTX 2080
98th Performance Percentile, Memory, G.Skill 4000MHz DDR4 kit
100th Performance Percentile, SDD, Samsung 960 Evo
252% Effective Speed, SSD, Samsung 960 Evo
150% Effective Speed, GPU, RTX 2080


@KainXS
Best Overall GPU Effective Speed = Asus nVidia RTX 3070 TUF 8GB, 171%
98th Performance Percentile, CPU, AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
100th Performance Percentile, GPU, Nvidia RTX 3070 TUF 8GB
93rd Performance Percentile, Memory, no other details available

@storm-chaser
Best Overall SSD Effective Speed = 512GB Samsung 970 Pro NVMe PCIe M.2 417%
100th Performance Percentile, SDD, Samsung 970 Pro NVMe PCIe M.2
100th Performance Percentile, Memory, DDR4 16GB Kit @ 4000MHz
100th Performance Percentile, CPU, AMD Phenom II 960T
100th Performance Percentile, CPU , Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650
100th Performance Percentile, CPU , Intel 9600KF
97th Performance Percentile, GPU, AMD RX 580
94th Performance Percentile, Memory, 64GB 1866MHz CL9 8 Channel
94th Performance Percentile, Memory, 64GB 1866MHz CL9 8 Channel
90th Performance Percentile, Memory, 4GB DDR3 @ 890 MHz CL 7

@freeagent
100th Performance Percentile, GPU, Nvidia GTX 1070
94th Performance Percentile, SSD, WD Black SN750 NVMe

@xubidoo
97th Performance Percentile, CPU, AMD Ryzen 5 3600
97th Performance Percentile, SSD, WD WDS350G2B0A SSD

@NoJuan999
100th Performance Percentile, AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
99th Performance Percentile, Nvidia RTX 2060 super

@vabeachboy0
108% Effective CPU Speed, Intel i7-8700K
100th Performance Percentile, Intel i7-8700K
91st Performance Percentile, Memory

@Tomgang
100th Performance Percentile, CPU, Intel Core i7-980
95th Performance Percentile, GPU, Nvidia GTX 1080-Ti

@Caring1
97th Performance Percentile, SSD, Kingston SA2000M8500G

@plat
100th Performance Percentile, CPU, Intel i9-9900

@Rowsol
93rd Performance Percentile, CPU, Intel Core i5-10400

@Toothless
99th Performance Percentile, CPU, Intel Xeon X5680

@68Olds
82nd Performance Percentile, CPU, Intel Core i5-3330S


*****still working on compiling the highlight reel so some stuff will be added later!!! Thanks for playing!
****You can also still submit another result, and I will continue updating the leaderboard, just will no longer count for overall placing!

 

[storm-chaser]

I just re-imaged a very old laptop for a friend and I was curious to see how it would perform according to userbenchmark.com. In a word... BAD!

HP Pavilion g6 Notebook PC Performance Results - UserBenchmark

Well, I'm not going to include it on the leaderboard but I made some noteworthy performance improvements on this old laptop and since I'm on a userbenchmark kick as of late, I thought I would show case those improvements using, you guessed it, userbenchmark! I first upgraded from the very rusty and old mechanical hard drive to a fancy sata III samsung SSD. This results in a huge performance "usability" increase as I am sure you are all well aware of in situations like this.

I also used K10stat to boost CPU performance. This is handy utility is essentially like a cool and quiet for your CPU but with fine tuning for boost states, profiles and designed specifically for K10 based CPUs. I got it up to 3.0GHz but for all around use this laptop does not have a lot of thermal headroom - and consequently, does not need peak clock speed for average web browsing / YouTube stuff. So I settled for heat mitigation while still being able to achieve the rated 2.4GHz turbo, as its is usage case is primarily web browsing only. I was able to maintain the 2.4GHz turbo - and keep it locked in that boost state - permanently - using k10stat. I was able to bring the voltage down from the stock 1.35 v to 1.100v while maintaining 100% stability and moderate and decent temps in the mid 160s under full load. Also topped it all off with Windows 10.

K10Stat settings:

Here are before and after processor results (and increase to 47th overall performance percentile)
This is actually pretty big and makes the rig very usable even though the hardware is pretty dated...

Here is the old clunky mechanical drive vs new SSD

Versus New Samsung PM830 SSD...
Again, the SSD upgrade allows this to be a viable web browsing rig/basic computing/ entertainment station for many years to come...