Measured hardware
Every graphics card, processor, memory kit and system drive that has run WhatFPS Benchmark gets its own page with measured numbers — FPS across four graphics APIs, bandwidth, latency, IOPS and specs read straight out of the machines. No estimates, no self-reported figures.
Graphics cards
- RTX 5090 — 28,389 GPU score, 6 verified runs
- Radeon RX 7900 XTX — 18,924 GPU score, 2 verified runs — 33.3 % weaker than RTX 5090
- RTX 5080 — 16,640 GPU score, 3 verified runs — 12.1 % weaker than Radeon RX 7900 XTX
- Radeon RX 9070 XT — 15,520 GPU score, 7 verified runs — 6.7 % weaker than RTX 5080
- RTX 4080 — 14,521 GPU score, 5 verified runs — 6.4 % weaker than Radeon RX 9070 XT
- RTX 4080 SUPER — 14,460 GPU score, 2 verified runs — 0.4 % weaker than RTX 4080
- RTX 5070 Ti — 13,554 GPU score, 2 verified runs — 6.3 % weaker than RTX 4080 SUPER
- Radeon RX 7900 XT — 12,390 GPU score, 3 verified runs — 8.6 % weaker than RTX 5070 Ti
- RTX 4070 Ti — 11,692 GPU score, 1 verified run — 5.6 % weaker than Radeon RX 7900 XT
- NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell — 10,870 GPU score, 1 verified run — 7 % weaker than RTX 4070 Ti
- RTX 4070 SUPER — 10,840 GPU score, 11 verified runs — 0.3 % weaker than NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell
- RTX 4070 Ti SUPER — 10,459 GPU score, 1 verified run — 3.5 % weaker than RTX 4070 SUPER
- RTX 3080 Ti — 10,358 GPU score, 7 verified runs — 1 % weaker than RTX 4070 Ti SUPER
- RTX 5070 — 10,006 GPU score, 2 verified runs — 3.4 % weaker than RTX 3080 Ti
- RTX 3080 — 9,043 GPU score, 1 verified run — 9.6 % weaker than RTX 5070
- RTX 4070 — 8,601 GPU score, 3 verified runs — 4.9 % weaker than RTX 3080
- RTX 5070 Ti Laptop GPU — 8,439 GPU score, 20 verified runs — 1.9 % weaker than RTX 4070
- Radeon RX 6800 XT — 8,241 GPU score, 1 verified run — 2.3 % weaker than RTX 5070 Ti Laptop GPU
- Radeon RX 9070 GRE — 7,650 GPU score, 1 verified run — 7.2 % weaker than Radeon RX 6800 XT
- RTX 5060 Ti — 7,285 GPU score, 1 verified run — 4.8 % weaker than Radeon RX 9070 GRE
- Radeon RX 9060 XT — 7,263 GPU score, 4 verified runs — 0.3 % weaker than RTX 5060 Ti
- RTX 4060 Ti — 6,629 GPU score, 2 verified runs — 8.7 % weaker than Radeon RX 9060 XT
- RTX 4070 Laptop GPU — 6,445 GPU score, 6 verified runs — 2.8 % weaker than RTX 4060 Ti
- RTX 5060 — 6,381 GPU score, 7 verified runs — 1 % weaker than RTX 4070 Laptop GPU
- RTX 3070 — 6,307 GPU score, 4 verified runs — 1.2 % weaker than RTX 5060
- Radeon RX 7600 — 5,437 GPU score, 1 verified run — 13.8 % weaker than RTX 3070
- RTX 3060 Ti — 5,278 GPU score, 9 verified runs — 2.9 % weaker than Radeon RX 7600
- Arc B580 Graphics — 5,187 GPU score, 1 verified run — 1.7 % weaker than RTX 3060 Ti
- RTX 2080 SUPER — 5,034 GPU score, 1 verified run — 2.9 % weaker than Arc B580 Graphics
- Arc A770 Graphics — 4,743 GPU score, 1 verified run — 5.8 % weaker than RTX 2080 SUPER
- RTX 3070 Laptop GPU — 4,430 GPU score, 5 verified runs — 6.6 % weaker than Arc A770 Graphics
- RTX 5050 — 4,375 GPU score, 1 verified run — 1.2 % weaker than RTX 3070 Laptop GPU
- RTX 3060 — 3,914 GPU score, 15 verified runs — 10.5 % weaker than RTX 5050
- RTX 2070 — 3,537 GPU score, 1 verified run — 9.6 % weaker than RTX 3060
- RTX 5050 Laptop GPU — 3,345 GPU score, 5 verified runs — 5.4 % weaker than RTX 2070
- GTX 1080 Ti — 3,332 GPU score, 5 verified runs — 0.4 % weaker than RTX 5050 Laptop GPU
- Radeon 890M Graphics — 3,273 GPU score, 1 verified run — 1.8 % weaker than GTX 1080 Ti
- Radeon RX 6600 — 3,190 GPU score, 1 verified run — 2.5 % weaker than Radeon 890M Graphics
- RTX 4050 Laptop GPU — 3,037 GPU score, 1 verified run — 4.8 % weaker than Radeon RX 6600
- Arc B390 GPU — 3,013 GPU score, 1 verified run — 0.8 % weaker than RTX 4050 Laptop GPU
- RTX 2060 — 2,972 GPU score, 6 verified runs — 1.4 % weaker than Arc B390 GPU
- NVIDIA RTX A3000 Laptop GPU — 2,526 GPU score, 1 verified run — 15 % weaker than RTX 2060
- Radeon 780M Graphics — 2,435 GPU score, 2 verified runs — 3.6 % weaker than NVIDIA RTX A3000 Laptop GPU
- GTX 1080 — 2,297 GPU score, 3 verified runs — 5.7 % weaker than Radeon 780M Graphics
- RTX 3050 — 2,190 GPU score, 1 verified run — 4.7 % weaker than GTX 1080
- RTX 3050 Laptop GPU — 2,175 GPU score, 2 verified runs — 0.7 % weaker than RTX 3050
- Arc 140T GPU (8GB) — 1,748 GPU score, 1 verified run — 19.6 % weaker than RTX 3050 Laptop GPU
- RTX 2050 — 1,667 GPU score, 1 verified run — 4.6 % weaker than Arc 140T GPU (8GB)
- Arc Graphics — 1,360 GPU score, 1 verified run — 18.4 % weaker than RTX 2050
- GTX 1060 6GB — 1,199 GPU score, 2 verified runs — 11.8 % weaker than Arc Graphics
- GTX 1060 3GB — 1,096 GPU score, 1 verified run — 8.6 % weaker than GTX 1060 6GB
- GTX 1650 Ti — 1,005 GPU score, 2 verified runs — 8.3 % weaker than GTX 1060 3GB
- Radeon 680M — 862 GPU score, 1 verified run — 14.2 % weaker than GTX 1650 Ti
- NVIDIA RTX A3000 12GB Laptop GPU — 772 GPU score, 1 verified run — 10.4 % weaker than Radeon 680M
- MX450 — 577 GPU score, 1 verified run — 25.3 % weaker than NVIDIA RTX A3000 12GB Laptop GPU
- Radeon Graphics — 558 GPU score, 2 verified runs — 3.4 % weaker than MX450
- Graphics — 532 GPU score, 2 verified runs — 4.7 % weaker than Radeon Graphics
- Iris Xe Graphics — 304 GPU score, 5 verified runs — 42.8 % weaker than Graphics
- UHD Graphics 770 — 174 GPU score, 1 verified run — 42.8 % weaker than Iris Xe Graphics
Processors
- Ryzen 9 9950X3D — 16,059 CPU score, 6 verified runs
- Core Ultra 9 285K — 15,519 CPU score, 1 verified run — 3.4 % weaker than Ryzen 9 9950X3D
- Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus — 15,437 CPU score, 20 verified runs — 0.5 % weaker than Core Ultra 9 285K
- Core i7-14700KF — 14,368 CPU score, 1 verified run — 6.9 % weaker than Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus
- Core Ultra 7 265K — 13,700 CPU score, 2 verified runs — 4.6 % weaker than Core i7-14700KF
- Core Ultra 7 270K Plus — 13,506 CPU score, 1 verified run — 1.4 % weaker than Core Ultra 7 265K
- 13th Gen Core i9-13900K — 13,199 CPU score, 2 verified runs — 2.3 % weaker than Core Ultra 7 270K Plus
- Ryzen 7 9850X3D — 13,163 CPU score, 1 verified run — 0.3 % weaker than 13th Gen Core i9-13900K
- Ryzen 7 9800X3D — 12,707 CPU score, 7 verified runs — 3.5 % weaker than Ryzen 7 9850X3D
- Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 w Radeon 890M — 11,981 CPU score, 1 verified run — 5.7 % weaker than Ryzen 7 9800X3D
- 13th Gen Core i5-13600KF — 11,638 CPU score, 1 verified run — 2.9 % weaker than Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 w Radeon 890M
- Ryzen 9 9900X — 11,352 CPU score, 4 verified runs — 2.5 % weaker than 13th Gen Core i5-13600KF
- Core Ultra 9 285H — 11,033 CPU score, 1 verified run — 2.8 % weaker than Ryzen 9 9900X
- Ryzen 5 9600X — 11,003 CPU score, 2 verified runs — 0.3 % weaker than Core Ultra 9 285H
- Ryzen 7 7700 — 10,783 CPU score, 1 verified run — 2 % weaker than Ryzen 5 9600X
- Core i7-14650HX — 10,737 CPU score, 3 verified runs — 0.4 % weaker than Ryzen 7 7700
- Core Ultra X7 358H — 10,578 CPU score, 1 verified run — 1.5 % weaker than Core i7-14650HX
- Core i9-14900HX — 10,367 CPU score, 1 verified run — 2 % weaker than Core Ultra X7 358H
- Ryzen 7 5800X — 10,283 CPU score, 11 verified runs — 0.8 % weaker than Core i9-14900HX
- Core i7-14700HX — 10,097 CPU score, 4 verified runs — 1.8 % weaker than Ryzen 7 5800X
- Ryzen 5 7600X — 9,953 CPU score, 3 verified runs — 1.4 % weaker than Core i7-14700HX
- Ryzen 7 5800XT — 9,879 CPU score, 1 verified run — 0.7 % weaker than Ryzen 5 7600X
- 13th Gen Core i7-13700K — 9,842 CPU score, 3 verified runs — 0.4 % weaker than Ryzen 7 5800XT
- Core i5-14600KF — 9,334 CPU score, 4 verified runs — 5.2 % weaker than 13th Gen Core i7-13700K
- Core i9-10900F — 9,329 CPU score, 1 verified run — 0 % weaker than Core i5-14600KF
- Ryzen 7 5700X — 9,159 CPU score, 1 verified run — 1.8 % weaker than Core i9-10900F
- Ryzen 7 7800X3D — 9,002 CPU score, 1 verified run — 1.7 % weaker than Ryzen 7 5700X
- Ryzen 7 5800X3D — 8,975 CPU score, 1 verified run — 0.3 % weaker than Ryzen 7 7800X3D
- Ryzen 7 8745HS w Radeon 780M Graphics — 8,920 CPU score, 2 verified runs — 0.6 % weaker than Ryzen 7 5800X3D
- Core i9-9900K — 8,893 CPU score, 1 verified run — 0.3 % weaker than Ryzen 7 8745HS w Radeon 780M Graphics
- 11th Gen Core i7-11700 @ 2.50GHz — 8,769 CPU score, 1 verified run — 1.4 % weaker than Core i9-9900K
- Core i5-14400F — 8,732 CPU score, 1 verified run — 0.4 % weaker than 11th Gen Core i7-11700 @ 2.50GHz
- Genuine 0000 @ 3.40GHz — 8,614 CPU score, 1 verified run — 1.4 % weaker than Core i5-14400F
- Ryzen 7 7435HS — 8,546 CPU score, 2 verified runs — 0.8 % weaker than Genuine 0000 @ 3.40GHz
- Ryzen 5 5600X — 8,235 CPU score, 1 verified run — 3.6 % weaker than Ryzen 7 7435HS
- Ryzen 9 5900HX with Radeon Graphics — 8,200 CPU score, 4 verified runs — 0.4 % weaker than Ryzen 5 5600X
- 12th Gen Core i5-12400F — 8,030 CPU score, 1 verified run — 2.1 % weaker than Ryzen 9 5900HX with Radeon Graphics
- Core Ultra 5 125H — 7,825 CPU score, 1 verified run — 2.6 % weaker than 12th Gen Core i5-12400F
- Core Ultra 5 125U — 7,684 CPU score, 1 verified run — 1.8 % weaker than Core Ultra 5 125H
- Core i7-10700 — 7,356 CPU score, 1 verified run — 4.3 % weaker than Core Ultra 5 125U
- 12th Gen Core i3-12100F — 7,289 CPU score, 1 verified run — 0.9 % weaker than Core i7-10700
- Ryzen 5 5600G with Radeon Graphics — 7,259 CPU score, 2 verified runs — 0.4 % weaker than 12th Gen Core i3-12100F
- 13th Gen Core i7-13620H — 7,137 CPU score, 1 verified run — 1.7 % weaker than Ryzen 5 5600G with Radeon Graphics
- Ryzen 7 4800H with Radeon Graphics — 7,065 CPU score, 1 verified run — 1 % weaker than 13th Gen Core i7-13620H
- 11th Gen Core i5-11400 @ 2.60GHz — 6,951 CPU score, 4 verified runs — 1.6 % weaker than Ryzen 7 4800H with Radeon Graphics
- Ryzen 5 4500 — 6,817 CPU score, 1 verified run — 1.9 % weaker than 11th Gen Core i5-11400 @ 2.60GHz
- Ryzen 5 3600 — 6,812 CPU score, 2 verified runs — 0.1 % weaker than Ryzen 5 4500
- 13th Gen Core i5-13600K — 6,694 CPU score, 1 verified run — 1.7 % weaker than Ryzen 5 3600
- Ryzen 7 7735HS with Radeon Graphics — 6,517 CPU score, 2 verified runs — 2.7 % weaker than 13th Gen Core i5-13600K
- 11th Gen Core i9-11950H @ 2.60GHz — 6,495 CPU score, 1 verified run — 0.3 % weaker than Ryzen 7 7735HS with Radeon Graphics
- Core i7-10870H — 6,353 CPU score, 1 verified run — 2.2 % weaker than 11th Gen Core i9-11950H @ 2.60GHz
- 13th Gen Core i5-13420H — 6,187 CPU score, 1 verified run — 2.6 % weaker than Core i7-10870H
- Core i5-14600K — 6,162 CPU score, 1 verified run — 0.4 % weaker than 13th Gen Core i5-13420H
- Core i7-7700K — 6,160 CPU score, 1 verified run — 0 % weaker than Core i5-14600K
- Ryzen 5 1600 Six-Core Processor — 5,922 CPU score, 1 verified run — 3.9 % weaker than Core i7-7700K
- Ryzen 5 2600X Six-Core Processor — 5,673 CPU score, 1 verified run — 4.2 % weaker than Ryzen 5 1600 Six-Core Processor
- Core i7-10750H — 5,435 CPU score, 3 verified runs — 4.2 % weaker than Ryzen 5 2600X Six-Core Processor
- Core i7-7700 — 5,252 CPU score, 1 verified run — 3.4 % weaker than Core i7-10750H
- Core i5-9400F — 5,082 CPU score, 1 verified run — 3.2 % weaker than Core i7-7700
- 11th Gen Core i5-1135G7 @ 2.40GHz — 4,933 CPU score, 4 verified runs — 2.9 % weaker than Core i5-9400F
- 12th Gen Core i5-1240P — 4,747 CPU score, 1 verified run — 3.8 % weaker than 11th Gen Core i5-1135G7 @ 2.40GHz
- 12th Gen Core i7-12850HX — 4,586 CPU score, 1 verified run — 3.4 % weaker than 12th Gen Core i5-1240P
- Core i5-7500 — 4,189 CPU score, 1 verified run — 8.7 % weaker than 12th Gen Core i7-12850HX
- Core i7-6700 — 4,175 CPU score, 1 verified run — 0.3 % weaker than Core i5-7500
- Ryzen 5 6600H with Radeon Graphics — 3,897 CPU score, 1 verified run — 6.7 % weaker than Core i7-6700
- Core i3-9100F — 3,896 CPU score, 2 verified runs — 0 % weaker than Ryzen 5 6600H with Radeon Graphics
- Core Ultra 7 155H — 2,738 CPU score, 1 verified run — 29.7 % weaker than Core i3-9100F
- Ryzen 5 5500U with Radeon Graphics — 2,687 CPU score, 1 verified run — 1.9 % weaker than Core Ultra 7 155H
- Core 7 150U — 2,532 CPU score, 1 verified run — 5.8 % weaker than Ryzen 5 5500U with Radeon Graphics
Memory kits
The RAM list only ranks runs made with the corrected latency measurement (app 0.36.0 and later).
- Patriot Viper Venom DDR5-6000 2×16 GB — 12,822 RAM score, 1 verified run
- G.Skill DDR5-8000 CL38 2×16 GB — 12,704 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.9 % weaker than Patriot Viper Venom DDR5-6000 2×16 GB
- KLEVV DDR5-6400 CL32 2×32 GB — 12,661 RAM score, 2 verified runs — 0.3 % weaker than G.Skill DDR5-8000 CL38 2×16 GB
- Corsair Vengeance RGB DDR5-5600 CL36 2×16 GB — 12,610 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.4 % weaker than KLEVV DDR5-6400 CL32 2×32 GB
- Crucial Pro DDR4-6000 CL36 2×16 GB — 12,554 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.4 % weaker than Corsair Vengeance RGB DDR5-5600 CL36 2×16 GB
- Corsair Vengeance RGB DDR5-6000 CL36 2×16 GB — 12,187 RAM score, 3 verified runs — 2.9 % weaker than Crucial Pro DDR4-6000 CL36 2×16 GB
- Corsair Vengeance DDR5-6000 CL36 2×16 GB — 11,959 RAM score, 2 verified runs — 1.9 % weaker than Corsair Vengeance RGB DDR5-6000 CL36 2×16 GB
- Corsair Vengeance RGB DDR5-6000 CL30 2×16 GB — 11,605 RAM score, 6 verified runs — 3 % weaker than Corsair Vengeance DDR5-6000 CL36 2×16 GB
- Corsair CMK5X16G1D60Z38A2 2×16 GB — 11,263 RAM score, 2 verified runs — 2.9 % weaker than Corsair Vengeance RGB DDR5-6000 CL30 2×16 GB
- G.Skill DDR5-6000 CL26 2×16 GB — 11,048 RAM score, 1 verified run — 1.9 % weaker than Corsair CMK5X16G1D60Z38A2 2×16 GB
- Kingston FURY Beast DDR5-6000 CL32 2×16 GB — 10,768 RAM score, 1 verified run — 2.5 % weaker than G.Skill DDR5-6000 CL26 2×16 GB
- Crucial DDR5-5600 CL46 2×64 GB SO-DIMM — 10,614 RAM score, 1 verified run — 1.4 % weaker than Kingston FURY Beast DDR5-6000 CL32 2×16 GB
- UD5-6000 2×16 GB — 10,241 RAM score, 1 verified run — 3.5 % weaker than Crucial DDR5-5600 CL46 2×64 GB SO-DIMM
- G.Skill Aegis DDR4-3200 CL16 2×8 GB — 10,029 RAM score, 1 verified run — 2.1 % weaker than UD5-6000 2×16 GB
- Kingston FURY Beast DDR5-6000 CL30 4×32 GB — 9,640 RAM score, 3 verified runs — 3.9 % weaker than G.Skill Aegis DDR4-3200 CL16 2×8 GB
- Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5600 CL40 2×16 GB — 9,632 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.1 % weaker than Kingston FURY Beast DDR5-6000 CL30 4×32 GB
- Kingston FURY Beast DDR4-3200 CL16 2×16 GB — 9,608 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.2 % weaker than Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5600 CL40 2×16 GB
- Kingston FURY Beast DDR4-3200 CL16 2×8 GB — 9,600 RAM score, 11 verified runs — 0.1 % weaker than Kingston FURY Beast DDR4-3200 CL16 2×16 GB
- G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 CL16 4×8 GB — 9,563 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.4 % weaker than Kingston FURY Beast DDR4-3200 CL16 2×8 GB
- Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5600 CL36 2×16 GB — 9,549 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.1 % weaker than G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 CL16 4×8 GB
- Kingston FURY Beast DDR5-6000 CL30 2×16 GB — 9,401 RAM score, 1 verified run — 1.5 % weaker than Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5600 CL36 2×16 GB
- Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro DDR4-3200 CL16 2×8 GB — 9,382 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.2 % weaker than Kingston FURY Beast DDR5-6000 CL30 2×16 GB
- Corsair CMH5S16G3B56Z40A2 2×16 GB — 9,348 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.4 % weaker than Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro DDR4-3200 CL16 2×8 GB
- Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 CL40 2×16 GB — 9,276 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.8 % weaker than Corsair CMH5S16G3B56Z40A2 2×16 GB
- Corsair Vengeance RGB DDR5-5200 CL40 2×8 GB — 9,140 RAM score, 1 verified run — 1.5 % weaker than Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 CL40 2×16 GB
- Kingston FURY Beast DDR5-5600 CL40 2×16 GB — 9,122 RAM score, 2 verified runs — 0.2 % weaker than Corsair Vengeance RGB DDR5-5200 CL40 2×8 GB
- ERD4AB8B3Z2ABZ201 2×16 GB — 9,084 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.4 % weaker than Kingston FURY Beast DDR5-5600 CL40 2×16 GB
- Crucial Pro DDR5-5600 CL46 2×16 GB — 9,023 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.7 % weaker than ERD4AB8B3Z2ABZ201 2×16 GB
- Corsair Vengeance RGB DDR5-6000 CL38 2×16 GB — 8,888 RAM score, 1 verified run — 1.5 % weaker than Crucial Pro DDR5-5600 CL46 2×16 GB
- Kingston KF556S40-16 2×16 GB — 8,815 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.8 % weaker than Corsair Vengeance RGB DDR5-6000 CL38 2×16 GB
- G.Skill DDR5-5600 CL36 2×16 GB — 8,790 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.3 % weaker than Kingston KF556S40-16 2×16 GB
- Kingston FURY Beast DDR5-6000 CL36 2×32 GB — 8,753 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.4 % weaker than G.Skill DDR5-5600 CL36 2×16 GB
- Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro SL DDR4-3600 CL20 2×16 GB — 8,729 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.3 % weaker than Kingston FURY Beast DDR5-6000 CL36 2×32 GB
- G.Skill DDR5-6400 CL32 2×32 GB — 8,412 RAM score, 2 verified runs — 3.6 % weaker than Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro SL DDR4-3600 CL20 2×16 GB
- Corsair CMSX16GX5M1A5600C48 2×16 GB — 8,264 RAM score, 20 verified runs — 1.8 % weaker than G.Skill DDR5-6400 CL32 2×32 GB
- Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3000 CL15 2×8 GB — 8,210 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.7 % weaker than Corsair CMSX16GX5M1A5600C48 2×16 GB
- Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-2666 CL15 4×4 GB — 8,159 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.6 % weaker than Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3000 CL15 2×8 GB
- TeamGroup Elite DDR4-3200 4×8 GB — 8,109 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.6 % weaker than Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-2666 CL15 4×4 GB
- Samsung DDR5-5600 2×16 GB SO-DIMM (OEM) — 8,016 RAM score, 4 verified runs — 1.1 % weaker than TeamGroup Elite DDR4-3200 4×8 GB
- Kingston FURY Impact DDR4-3200 CL20 2×16 GB SO-DIMM — 7,889 RAM score, 1 verified run — 1.6 % weaker than Samsung DDR5-5600 2×16 GB SO-DIMM (OEM)
- Kingston ACR32D4U2S8HD-8X 2×8 GB — 7,843 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.6 % weaker than Kingston FURY Impact DDR4-3200 CL20 2×16 GB SO-DIMM
- Nanya Technology NT16GF64F88AX3S-Q5 1×16 GB — 7,843 RAM score, 3 verified runs — 0 % weaker than Kingston ACR32D4U2S8HD-8X 2×8 GB
- SK hynix DDR5-5600 2×32 GB (OEM) — 7,705 RAM score, 1 verified run — 1.8 % weaker than Nanya Technology NT16GF64F88AX3S-Q5 1×16 GB
- G.Skill Aegis DDR4-2400 CL15 2×16 GB — 7,692 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.2 % weaker than SK hynix DDR5-5600 2×32 GB (OEM)
- Kingston FURY Beast DDR5-4800 CL38 2×16 GB — 7,652 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.5 % weaker than G.Skill Aegis DDR4-2400 CL15 2×16 GB
- Crucial DDR5-5600 CL46 2×12 GB SO-DIMM — 7,404 RAM score, 1 verified run — 3.2 % weaker than Kingston FURY Beast DDR5-4800 CL38 2×16 GB
- Micron DDR4-3200 2×8 GB SO-DIMM (OEM) — 7,395 RAM score, 2 verified runs — 0.1 % weaker than Crucial DDR5-5600 CL46 2×12 GB SO-DIMM
- SK hynix DDR4-3200 2×8 GB SO-DIMM (OEM) — 7,345 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.7 % weaker than Micron DDR4-3200 2×8 GB SO-DIMM (OEM)
- Kingston DDR4-2400 4×16 GB (OEM) — 7,268 RAM score, 1 verified run — 1 % weaker than SK hynix DDR4-3200 2×8 GB SO-DIMM (OEM)
- Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro DDR4-3600 CL18 2×8 GB — 6,997 RAM score, 2 verified runs — 3.7 % weaker than Kingston DDR4-2400 4×16 GB (OEM)
- Samsung DDR4-2667 2×16 GB SO-DIMM (OEM) — 6,860 RAM score, 4 verified runs — 2 % weaker than Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro DDR4-3600 CL18 2×8 GB
- G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 CL18 2×16 GB — 6,688 RAM score, 1 verified run — 2.5 % weaker than Samsung DDR4-2667 2×16 GB SO-DIMM (OEM)
- Samsung DDR5-5600 2×8 GB SO-DIMM (OEM) — 6,624 RAM score, 4 verified runs — 1 % weaker than G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 CL18 2×16 GB
- Micron LPDDR5-8533 8×2 GB (OEM) — 6,457 RAM score, 1 verified run — 2.5 % weaker than Samsung DDR5-5600 2×8 GB SO-DIMM (OEM)
- GoodRAM DDR4-2133 4×8 GB — 6,444 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.2 % weaker than Micron LPDDR5-8533 8×2 GB (OEM)
- Samsung fastlött LPDDR4X-4267 8×2 GB — 6,425 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.3 % weaker than GoodRAM DDR4-2133 4×8 GB
- K3LK7K70BM-BGCP 4×6 GB — 6,411 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.2 % weaker than Samsung fastlött LPDDR4X-4267 8×2 GB
- WPBS48D508SWB-16G 1×16 GB — 6,275 RAM score, 1 verified run — 2.1 % weaker than K3LK7K70BM-BGCP 4×6 GB
- SK hynix fastlött DDR4-3200 2×16 GB SO-DIMM — 6,044 RAM score, 1 verified run — 3.7 % weaker than WPBS48D508SWB-16G 1×16 GB
- SK hynix DDR5-4800 2×16 GB SO-DIMM (OEM) — 5,965 RAM score, 1 verified run — 1.3 % weaker than SK hynix fastlött DDR4-3200 2×16 GB SO-DIMM
- Samsung DDR4-3200 2×8 GB (OEM) — 5,923 RAM score, 1 verified run — 0.7 % weaker than SK hynix DDR5-4800 2×16 GB SO-DIMM (OEM)
- Samsung DDR4-3200 2×8 GB SO-DIMM (OEM) — 5,791 RAM score, 1 verified run — 2.2 % weaker than Samsung DDR4-3200 2×8 GB (OEM)
- Ramaxel Technology RMSA3320MJ78HAF-3200 1×8 GB — 5,524 RAM score, 1 verified run — 4.6 % weaker than Samsung DDR4-3200 2×8 GB SO-DIMM (OEM)
- TeamGroup Elite DDR4-2666 1×16 GB — 5,220 RAM score, 2 verified runs — 5.5 % weaker than Ramaxel Technology RMSA3320MJ78HAF-3200 1×8 GB
- Shenzhen Longsys Electronics Co Ltd FD5DS5600CQGZL 1×16 GB — 5,100 RAM score, 1 verified run — 2.3 % weaker than TeamGroup Elite DDR4-2666 1×16 GB
- Samsung DDR5-5600 1×16 GB SO-DIMM (OEM) — 5,034 RAM score, 1 verified run — 1.3 % weaker than Shenzhen Longsys Electronics Co Ltd FD5DS5600CQGZL 1×16 GB
- Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-2800 CL16 4×4 GB — 4,799 RAM score, 1 verified run — 4.7 % weaker than Samsung DDR5-5600 1×16 GB SO-DIMM (OEM)
- Samsung fastlött LPDDR5-6400 4×4 GB — 4,749 RAM score, 1 verified run — 1 % weaker than Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-2800 CL16 4×4 GB
- Micron DDR4-3200 1×8 GB SO-DIMM (OEM) — 4,737 RAM score, 4 verified runs — 0.3 % weaker than Samsung fastlött LPDDR5-6400 4×4 GB
- SK hynix DDR5-5600 1×16 GB SO-DIMM (OEM) — 4,499 RAM score, 1 verified run — 5 % weaker than Micron DDR4-3200 1×8 GB SO-DIMM (OEM)
- Crucial DDR5-5600 CL46 2×24 GB SO-DIMM — 4,049 RAM score, 1 verified run — 10 % weaker than SK hynix DDR5-5600 1×16 GB SO-DIMM (OEM)
- Samsung DDR4-3200 1×8 GB SO-DIMM (OEM) — 3,827 RAM score, 1 verified run — 5.5 % weaker than Crucial DDR5-5600 CL46 2×24 GB SO-DIMM
- Crucial DDR4-3200 2×16 GB — 3,385 RAM score, 1 verified run — 11.5 % weaker than Samsung DDR4-3200 1×8 GB SO-DIMM (OEM)
System drives
- Samsung 9100 PRO 2 TB — 18,882 Drive score, 1 verified run
- Samsung 9100 PRO 1 TB — 18,621 Drive score, 3 verified runs — 1.4 % weaker than Samsung 9100 PRO 2 TB
- Kioxia XG10 (OEM) 1 TB — 17,026 Drive score, 1 verified run — 8.6 % weaker than Samsung 9100 PRO 1 TB
- Lexar NM990 4 TB — 15,889 Drive score, 1 verified run — 6.7 % weaker than Kioxia XG10 (OEM) 1 TB
- Acer Predator GM7 4 TB — 15,709 Drive score, 2 verified runs — 1.1 % weaker than Lexar NM990 4 TB
- Samsung 980 PRO 500 GB — 15,649 Drive score, 1 verified run — 0.4 % weaker than Acer Predator GM7 4 TB
- Samsung 990 PRO 1 TB — 15,510 Drive score, 1 verified run — 0.9 % weaker than Samsung 980 PRO 500 GB
- Lexar NM790 1 TB — 14,639 Drive score, 2 verified runs — 5.6 % weaker than Samsung 990 PRO 1 TB
- Viper VP4300L 1TB — 14,489 Drive score, 2 verified runs — 1 % weaker than Lexar NM790 1 TB
- Crucial P310 4 TB — 14,351 Drive score, 3 verified runs — 1 % weaker than Viper VP4300L 1TB
- WD Black SN850 8 TB — 14,297 Drive score, 1 verified run — 0.4 % weaker than Crucial P310 4 TB
- Crucial T500 2 TB — 14,050 Drive score, 5 verified runs — 1.7 % weaker than WD Black SN850 8 TB
- WPBSN4M8-1TGP 1 TB — 13,698 Drive score, 2 verified runs — 2.5 % weaker than Crucial T500 2 TB
- TeamGroup T-Force NVMe 2 TB — 13,523 Drive score, 2 verified runs — 1.3 % weaker than WPBSN4M8-1TGP 1 TB
- Samsung 980 PRO 2 TB — 13,331 Drive score, 1 verified run — 1.4 % weaker than TeamGroup T-Force NVMe 2 TB
- NVMe Phison 512GB ESR512GYCCA4-EDJ-2MS — 13,049 Drive score, 1 verified run — 2.1 % weaker than Samsung 980 PRO 2 TB
- PVC10 SK hynix 1024GB — 12,966 Drive score, 1 verified run — 0.6 % weaker than NVMe Phison 512GB ESR512GYCCA4-EDJ-2MS
- Kingston OEM NVMe 1 TB — 12,745 Drive score, 21 verified runs — 1.7 % weaker than PVC10 SK hynix 1024GB
- Crucial T500 500 GB — 12,519 Drive score, 1 verified run — 1.8 % weaker than Kingston OEM NVMe 1 TB
- Kingston NV3 1 TB — 12,417 Drive score, 6 verified runs — 0.8 % weaker than Crucial T500 500 GB
- SK hynix PC801 (OEM) 1 TB — 12,146 Drive score, 4 verified runs — 2.2 % weaker than Kingston NV3 1 TB
- Samsung 980 PRO 1 TB — 12,115 Drive score, 1 verified run — 0.3 % weaker than SK hynix PC801 (OEM) 1 TB
- Silicon Power NVMe 4 TB — 12,042 Drive score, 1 verified run — 0.6 % weaker than Samsung 980 PRO 1 TB
- NVMe WD PC SN5000S SDEQNSJ-1T00-1002 1 TB — 11,929 Drive score, 1 verified run — 0.9 % weaker than Silicon Power NVMe 4 TB
- WD Green SN3000 500 GB — 11,813 Drive score, 1 verified run — 1 % weaker than NVMe WD PC SN5000S SDEQNSJ-1T00-1002 1 TB
- WD WD_BLACK Gen4 SDCPNRY-1T00-1106 1 TB — 11,739 Drive score, 1 verified run — 0.6 % weaker than WD Green SN3000 500 GB
- Kingston NV3 500 GB — 11,260 Drive score, 1 verified run — 4.1 % weaker than WD WD_BLACK Gen4 SDCPNRY-1T00-1106 1 TB
- Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1 TB — 11,203 Drive score, 1 verified run — 0.5 % weaker than Kingston NV3 500 GB
- Samsung 990 EVO 2 TB — 11,057 Drive score, 1 verified run — 1.3 % weaker than Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1 TB
- Kioxia XG8 (OEM) 1 TB — 10,885 Drive score, 1 verified run — 1.6 % weaker than Samsung 990 EVO 2 TB
- Samsung 970 EVO Plus 500 GB — 10,870 Drive score, 12 verified runs — 0.1 % weaker than Kioxia XG8 (OEM) 1 TB
- Solidigm P41 Plus 1 TB — 10,816 Drive score, 1 verified run — 0.5 % weaker than Samsung 970 EVO Plus 500 GB
- NVMe MTFDKBA512QGN-1BN1AABGA 512 GB — 10,443 Drive score, 3 verified runs — 3.5 % weaker than Solidigm P41 Plus 1 TB
- WD SN5000S (OEM) 512 GB — 10,118 Drive score, 1 verified run — 3.1 % weaker than NVMe MTFDKBA512QGN-1BN1AABGA 512 GB
- NVMe SAMSUNG MZVL4512HBLU-00BTW 1 TB — 10,078 Drive score, 1 verified run — 0.4 % weaker than WD SN5000S (OEM) 512 GB
- SK hynix BC901 HFS512GEJ9X108N 512 GB — 10,011 Drive score, 1 verified run — 0.7 % weaker than NVMe SAMSUNG MZVL4512HBLU-00BTW 1 TB
- Samsung 970 EVO 1 TB — 9,919 Drive score, 2 verified runs — 0.9 % weaker than SK hynix BC901 HFS512GEJ9X108N 512 GB
- Corsair MP600 ELITE 1 TB — 9,890 Drive score, 4 verified runs — 0.3 % weaker than Samsung 970 EVO 1 TB
- Intel 670p 512 GB — 9,828 Drive score, 1 verified run — 0.6 % weaker than Corsair MP600 ELITE 1 TB
- NX-2TB — 9,761 Drive score, 1 verified run — 0.7 % weaker than Intel 670p 512 GB
- WD Blue SN570 500 GB — 9,605 Drive score, 2 verified runs — 1.6 % weaker than NX-2TB
- SK hynix Gold P31 1 TB — 9,522 Drive score, 1 verified run — 0.9 % weaker than WD Blue SN570 500 GB
- PCIe SSD 1 TB — 9,503 Drive score, 2 verified runs — 0.2 % weaker than SK hynix Gold P31 1 TB
- SK hynix PC611 (OEM) 512 GB — 9,315 Drive score, 2 verified runs — 2 % weaker than PCIe SSD 1 TB
- Micron 2400 (OEM) 512 GB — 9,165 Drive score, 1 verified run — 1.6 % weaker than SK hynix PC611 (OEM) 512 GB
- Vi3000 Internal PCIe NVMe M.2 SSD 1TB — 9,045 Drive score, 2 verified runs — 1.3 % weaker than Micron 2400 (OEM) 512 GB
- Samsung 960 (NVMe) 500 GB — 8,886 Drive score, 8 verified runs — 1.7 % weaker than Vi3000 Internal PCIe NVMe M.2 SSD 1TB
- Samsung PM9B1 (OEM) 512 GB — 8,373 Drive score, 3 verified runs — 5.8 % weaker than Samsung 960 (NVMe) 500 GB
- Origin Inception TLC830 Pro 1 TB — 8,236 Drive score, 1 verified run — 1.6 % weaker than Samsung PM9B1 (OEM) 512 GB
- NVME SSD 1TB — 8,210 Drive score, 1 verified run — 0.3 % weaker than Origin Inception TLC830 Pro 1 TB
- Kingston NV2 500 GB — 8,158 Drive score, 14 verified runs — 0.6 % weaker than NVME SSD 1TB
- WD Black SN750 1 TB — 8,114 Drive score, 1 verified run — 0.5 % weaker than Kingston NV2 500 GB
- Kioxia XG6 (OEM) 1 TB — 8,007 Drive score, 1 verified run — 1.3 % weaker than WD Black SN750 1 TB
- TeamGroup T-Force 512 GB — 7,852 Drive score, 1 verified run — 1.9 % weaker than Kioxia XG6 (OEM) 1 TB
- SSSTC (Kioxia) CL4 (OEM) 512 GB — 7,571 Drive score, 1 verified run — 3.6 % weaker than TeamGroup T-Force 512 GB
- GVR512 512 GB — 7,403 Drive score, 1 verified run — 2.2 % weaker than SSSTC (Kioxia) CL4 (OEM) 512 GB
- Samsung PM981a (OEM) 1 TB — 7,285 Drive score, 1 verified run — 1.6 % weaker than GVR512 512 GB
- Kingston NV1 500 GB — 7,213 Drive score, 3 verified runs — 1 % weaker than Samsung PM981a (OEM) 1 TB
- Kioxia XG6 (OEM) 512 GB — 7,195 Drive score, 2 verified runs — 0.2 % weaker than Kingston NV1 500 GB
- WD Black SN770 2 TB — 7,184 Drive score, 1 verified run — 0.1 % weaker than Kioxia XG6 (OEM) 512 GB
- WD SN730 (OEM) 1 TB — 7,131 Drive score, 3 verified runs — 0.7 % weaker than WD Black SN770 2 TB
- Micron 2400 (OEM) 1 TB — 6,914 Drive score, 1 verified run — 3 % weaker than WD SN730 (OEM) 1 TB
- Samsung 980 (NVMe) 1 TB — 6,780 Drive score, 1 verified run — 1.9 % weaker than Micron 2400 (OEM) 1 TB
- Samsung PM9A1 (OEM) 512 GB — 6,778 Drive score, 5 verified runs — 0 % weaker than Samsung 980 (NVMe) 1 TB
- Samsung 960 (NVMe) 250 GB — 6,562 Drive score, 6 verified runs — 3.2 % weaker than Samsung PM9A1 (OEM) 512 GB
- Kioxia BG4 (OEM) 512 GB — 6,560 Drive score, 2 verified runs — 0 % weaker than Samsung 960 (NVMe) 250 GB
- Intel 660p 1 TB — 6,320 Drive score, 1 verified run — 3.7 % weaker than Kioxia BG4 (OEM) 512 GB
- MSI M480 PRO 1 TB — 6,236 Drive score, 1 verified run — 1.3 % weaker than Intel 660p 1 TB
- NVMe BC511 NVMe SK hynix 256GB — 6,105 Drive score, 4 verified runs — 2.1 % weaker than MSI M480 PRO 1 TB
- Kingston OEM NVMe 512 GB — 5,835 Drive score, 1 verified run — 4.4 % weaker than NVMe BC511 NVMe SK hynix 256GB
- WD SN530 (OEM) 512 GB — 4,858 Drive score, 2 verified runs — 16.7 % weaker than Kingston OEM NVMe 512 GB
- Samsung PM991 (OEM) 512 GB — 4,385 Drive score, 1 verified run — 9.7 % weaker than WD SN530 (OEM) 512 GB
- Samsung 850 EVO 250 GB — 4,011 Drive score, 1 verified run — 8.5 % weaker than Samsung PM991 (OEM) 512 GB
- Samsung 850 EVO 500 GB — 3,638 Drive score, 1 verified run — 9.3 % weaker than Samsung 850 EVO 250 GB
- Kingston SUV50 240 GB — 3,410 Drive score, 1 verified run — 6.3 % weaker than Samsung 850 EVO 500 GB
- TEAM T253X5480G 480 GB — 3,181 Drive score, 2 verified runs — 6.7 % weaker than Kingston SUV50 240 GB
- ADATA S510 120 GB — 3,162 Drive score, 1 verified run — 0.6 % weaker than TEAM T253X5480G 480 GB
- SK hynix SC311 SATA 256GB — 2,875 Drive score, 1 verified run — 9.1 % weaker than ADATA S510 120 GB
- Crucial MX300 256 GB — 2,851 Drive score, 1 verified run — 0.8 % weaker than SK hynix SC311 SATA 256GB
- ADATA XPG SPECTRIX S40G 256 GB — 2,810 Drive score, 1 verified run — 1.4 % weaker than Crucial MX300 256 GB
- GoodRAM CX400 256 GB — 2,780 Drive score, 1 verified run — 1.1 % weaker than ADATA XPG SPECTRIX S40G 256 GB
- Microsoft Virtual Disk 128 GB — 2,528 Drive score, 1 verified run — 9.1 % weaker than GoodRAM CX400 256 GB
- AMD-RAID Array 2 1 TB — 106 Drive score, 2 verified runs — 95.8 % weaker than Microsoft Virtual Disk 128 GB