Asus TUF GAMING B550-PLUS (WI-FI)

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 24%
Surfboard
Desktop
Desktop 76%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 22%
Surfboard
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing below expectations (27th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 73 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 very light workstation, and even some very light server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 64.8%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
Graphics27.6% is a below average 3D score (RTX 2060S = 100%). This GPU can handle older games but it will struggle to render recent games at resolutions greater than 1080p. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive290% 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.
Memory48GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's far more than any current game requires. 48GB 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 (100%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
MotherboardAsus TUF GAMING B550-PLUS (WI-FI)  (all builds)
Memory39.5 GB free of 48 GB @ 2.4 GHz
Display3840 x 2160 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20201022
Uptime0 Days
Run DateNov 14 '21 at 05:07
Run Duration405 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU 100%

 PC Performing below expectations (27th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X-$190
AM4, 1 CPU, 6 cores, 12 threads
Base clock 4 GHz, turbo 4 GHz (avg)
Performing way below expectations (2nd percentile)
64.8% Good
Memory 64.6
1-Core 92.6
2-Core 187
64% 115 Pts
4-Core 349
8-Core 573
56% 461 Pts
64-Core 656
41% 656 Pts
Poor: 74%
This bench: 64.8%
Great: 92%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD RX 6700-XT-$480
MSI(1462 3980) ≥ 4GB
Ram: 12GB, Driver: 21.10.2
Relative performance (0th percentile) - GPU OC Guide
27.6% Poor
Lighting 19.3
Reflection 33.1
Parallax 6.8
16% 19.7 fps
MRender 35.8
Gravity 116
Splatting 39.8
50% 63.8 fps
Poor: 113%
This bench: 27.6%
Great: 129%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung 860 Evo 500GB-$80
902GB free
Firmware: RVT04B6Q
SusWrite @10s intervals: 412 424 421 428 423 340 MB/s
Performing below expectations (29th percentile)
94.7% Outstanding
Read 433
Write 401
Mixed 390
SusWrite 408
92% 408 MB/s
4K Read 26.1
4K Write 90.5
4K Mixed 41.6
141% 52.7 MB/s
DQ Read 268
DQ Write 118
DQ Mixed 145
120% 177 MB/s
Poor: 74%
This bench: 94.7%
Great: 129%
WDS500G1X0E-00AFY0 500GB
367GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 613200WD
SusWrite @10s intervals: 1509 1570 1250 1319 927 814 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (16th percentile)
290% Outstanding
Read 2,208
Write 1,848
Mixed 1,767
SusWrite 1,231
395% 1,764 MB/s
4K Read 57.7
4K Write 138
4K Mixed 72.9
254% 89.4 MB/s
DQ Read 1,232
DQ Write 939
DQ Mixed 1,047
793% 1,073 MB/s
Poor: 234%
This bench: 290%
Great: 494%
Samsung 870 EVO 1TB-$99
109GB free
Firmware: SVT01B6Q
SusWrite @10s intervals: 420 418 419 420 417 422 MB/s
Performing as expected (41st percentile)
109% Outstanding
Read 427
Write 410
Mixed 396
SusWrite 419
93% 413 MB/s
4K Read 38.6
4K Write 91.7
4K Mixed 52.4
174% 60.9 MB/s
DQ Read 358
DQ Write 159
DQ Mixed 212
170% 243 MB/s
Poor: 82%
This bench: 109%
Great: 137%
Samsung 860 QVO 1TB-$100
1GB free
Firmware: RVQ02B6Q
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 436
Write 397
Mixed 362
89% 399 MB/s
4K Read 29
4K Write 92.4
4K Mixed 41.9
147% 54.4 MB/s
DQ Read 378
DQ Write 359
DQ Mixed 363
274% 367 MB/s
Poor: 49% Great: 121%
Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVMe PCIe M.2 1TB-$93
504GB free
Firmware: 2B2QEXM7 Max speed: PCIe 16,000 MB/s
SusWrite @10s intervals: 1982 1909 1455 1333 1338 1339 MB/s
Performing below expectations (38th percentile)
294% Outstanding
Read 2,156
Write 1995
Mixed 1,550
SusWrite 1,559
408% 1,815 MB/s
4K Read 52
4K Write 127
4K Mixed 72.4
239% 83.7 MB/s
DQ Read 1,077
DQ Write 652
DQ Mixed 936
678% 888 MB/s
Poor: 188%
This bench: 294%
Great: 410%
WD Game Drive 5TB
360GB free, PID 262f
Operating at USB 2.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 33 33 33 34 33 33 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (17th percentile)
28.7% Poor
Read 32.2
Write 33.2
Mixed 27.8
SusWrite 33.2
43% 31.6 MB/s
4K Read 0.8
4K Write 5.4
4K Mixed 0.8
214% 2.33 MB/s
Poor: 17%
This bench: 28.7%
Great: 66%
WD easystore 2647 5TB
0GB free, PID 2647
Operating at USB 2.1 Speed
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 14.7
Write 17
Mixed 18.9
22% 16.9 MB/s
4K Read 0.2
4K Write 0.4
4K Mixed 0.2
21% 0.27 MB/s
Poor: 17% Great: 66%
WD easystore 2647 5TB
0GB free, PID 2647
Operating at USB 2.1 Speed
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 32.7
Write 32.9
Mixed 25.9
39% 30.5 MB/s
4K Read 1.1
4K Write 3.8
4K Mixed 0.9
164% 1.93 MB/s
Poor: 17% Great: 66%
WD easystore 264D 18TB
17TB free, PID 264d
Operating at USB 3.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 78 78 77 82 78 76 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (10th percentile)
39% Below average
Read 82.7
Write 71.2
Mixed 61.4
SusWrite 78.3
98% 73.4 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 3.2
4K Mixed 0.7
135% 1.5 MB/s
Poor: 29%
This bench: 39%
Great: 111%
WD easystore 264D 18TB
730GB free, PID 264d
Operating at USB 3.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 142 140 144 140 138 140 MB/s
Performing below expectations (24th percentile)
75.8% Very good
Read 145
Write 138
Mixed 127
SusWrite 141
187% 138 MB/s
4K Read 5.6
4K Write 7.4
4K Mixed 2.2
347% 5.07 MB/s
Poor: 29%
This bench: 75.8%
Great: 111%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Patriot 3600 C18 Series Team Group Inc. TEAMGROUP-UD4-2666 47GB
2400, 2400 MHz
32767, 16384 MB
Performing above expectations (65th percentile)
57% Above average
MC Read 22.8
MC Write 17
MC Mixed 24.5
61% 21.4 GB/s
SC Read 9.7
SC Write 13.9
SC Mixed 15.2
37% 12.9 GB/s
Latency 115
35% 115 ns
Poor: 47%
This bench: 57%
Great: 61%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical TUF GAMING B550-PLUS (WI-FI) Builds (Compare 2,345 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 142%
UFO
Desktop
Desktop 101%
UFO
Workstation
Workstation 130%
UFO

Motherboard: Asus TUF GAMING B550-PLUS (WI-FI)

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 88% - Excellent Total price: $743
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketers operate thousands of reddit accounts. Our benchmarks expose their spiel so they attack our reputation.
Why don’t PC brands endorse UserBenchmark?
Brands make boatloads on flagships like the 4090 and 14900KS. We help users get similar real-world performance for less money.
Why don’t youtubers promote UserBenchmark?
We don't pay youtubers, so they don't praise us. Moreover, our data obstructs youtubers who promote overpriced or inferior products.
Why does UserBenchmark have negative trustpilot reviews?
The 200+ trustpilot reviews are mostly written by virgin marketing accounts. Real users don't give a monkey's about big brands.
Why is UserBenchmark popular with users?
Instead of pursuing brands for sponsorship, we've spent 13 years publishing real-world data for users.
The Best
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $171Nvidia RTX 4060 $293WD Black SN850X M.2 2TB $150
Intel Core i5-13600K $270Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $388WD Black SN850X M.2 1TB $90
Intel Core i5-12400F $110Nvidia RTX 4070 $520Crucial T700 M.2 4TB $353
Today's hottest deals
If you buy something via a price link, UserBenchmark may earn a commission
About  •  User Guide  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer  •  YouTube Feedback