PC severely underperforming

[DaAceGamer]

Can anyone explain to me why this is happening? I don't think thermal throttling is an issue and I've reset my PC multiple times too.

[Tan3l6]

Deafulted BIOS settings?

As RAM speed seems very low. Maybe check them or set speeds and timings manually.

[Skiiwee29]

Userbenchmark is not a good measure of how your system is performing, or not performing. You should run real benchmarks that you can compare against similar hardware to see if you get the performance you should from your GPU and CPU. 

 

Cinebench R20/R23

Unigine Heaven

Firestrike

Superposition

 

just to name a few. 

[Pixelfie]

Userbenchmark isn't accurate. You should try benchmarks like said by Skiiwee and some games etc.

 

Your RAM isn't running at full speed, but that's normal (CPU limit) if it's not a Z390 board. If it is a Z390 you should be able to set the RAM to 3200, maybe you can even OC higher. Also make sure the timings are correct, often motherboards set very high timings by default. 

 

Your CPU is probably limited by the RAM, and if the CPU is limited that can cause storage to slow down too.

 

Your GPU is performing fine, it says below potential, because that potential is with overclocking.

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, Tan3l6 said:

Deafulted BIOS settings?

As RAM speed seems very low. Maybe check them or set speeds and timings manually.

Its running at 2933mhz, thats not default settings, and it shouldn't have a huge impact on system performance either,  especially on intel.

 

But one question remains ,

1 hour ago, DaAceGamer said:

Can anyone explain to me why this is happening?

Whats exactly happening? Do you have issues with this pc, if so what kind of issues?

 

As for this userbench result,  its 100% non conclusive,  especially because that screenshot doesn't show cpu background usage, which needs to be very low for this "benchmark" to be anywhere conclusive. 

 

1 hour ago, Skiiwee29 said:

Userbenchmark is not a good measure of how your system is performing, or not performing.

It actually is, but the problem is people are notoriously misinterpreting it, this is meant to show how the system is performing compared to all other's results  - case in point OPs result seems to be about slightly under average,  which implies mostly no issues, but that isn't what the test is telling them, at least not directly-- everything is red and "below expectations/potential" of course most people will think "something is wrong..." when its just performing about average,  in comparison to others. 

 

In that respect its not different than cinebench which by design has a very unrealistic workload and doesn't say much about actual overall performance either,  it only tells you something about performance compared to others in this *specific* workload.

 

 

That said,  userbenchmark actually saved me twice from an actually underperforming pc, both times was weird/slow hard drive behavior when Crystal disk said there's nothing wrong with my drives... in fact I was able to fix the Kingston ssd with two "power cycles" ... its still slow for a ssd, but it doesn't slow my system down anymore-- I did not find a fix for the seagate barracuda however,  I simply can't use it in my system without it severely slowing down everything. 

 

So ub can be useful,  but it can also be misleading,  and also they have a severe intel bias, which i find rather amusing tbh,  but i can also see how its putting people off, and it is *factually* misleading in many cases. 

 

But anyway, here's my current result for example:

 

This gives me two things worth noting,  how the heck is my 3600 the third best result out of over 1 million results when its not overclocked and doesn't even have pbo enabled?(i will categorize this under "sus" for now, but it is interesting... )

And why is my RAM apparently kinda slow? This makes me think its either because it's overclocked and latency isn't as expected, or maybe it would be simply better to run it at rated 3200mhz XMP and thus having better latency (something i have been suspecting anyways)

 

 

Lastly,  OPs drives and RAM seem to be kinda slow, but im not sure its enough to be concerned tbh. (?)

 

 

PS: but I do wish there was a similar , but better kind of "overall performance" test, as with ub, there's definitely always this feeling of bias and not prioritizing the right things (such as in my RAM results, as per my own testings, the RAM does perform slightly better when overclocked... its still bugging me why I'm only at 49% lol, it could simply be others have overclocked it better with tighter timings...?something to investigate,  i guess)