Updated:
 
https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/26107252

Memory Score here:
 
 
 

spit051261
Not really
Just goes to show that Intel make the best chips

Meh AMD has done a great job with the Ryzen line its only real weakness is (still) single thread performance but the 3000 line is starting to break that and if the rumors pay off AMD will catch up pretty soon as the gains of next gen intel really dont seem to be all that great.
I mean we are still dealing with first gen threadripper too, poor at gaming but great in other tasks.
Besides this is the main reason why userbenchmark caused such a issue, they clearly favor intel as AMD was creaming intel in terms of overall performance (not just gaming) and intel probably paid them off (I cant prove it but userbenchmarks attitude makes me think otherwise).
They totally crippled the scores of processors like the 3700X to make the 9900K look better then it actually is when in reality both processors have nearly the exact same performance with the 3700X actually being better in multithread and while yes it lacks behind in single thread its score is still very good.
I mean on average you still maybe get at best 20 frames more from the i9 in some games, maybe more maybe less but we are still talking about a processor that costs over $500 so you still pay more for only a handful of frames.
Again I am not denying the 9900K is the better processor in terms of gaming but I look at the big picture and the scores before this recent shift actually made AMD look better thus why in my not so humble opinion intel probably gave userbenchmark a load of cash to keep AMD looking bad as Zen2 overall has been very impressive and has made intel look bad overall as again yes AMD has not beaten intel at gaming I wont dispute that but they have caught up in other areas hard making intel probably hit the panic button and throw money out, the fact their response to criticisms from hardwareunboxed and the like makes them look very shady.
And i will believe hardwareunboxed anyday over that as they have shown their testing methodology, Gamers nexus of backed them up based on their own findings on the matter thus why I smell something fishy.
Again I feel I must reiterate I am not a AMD fanboy as yes Intel makes great processors and there is no denying the advantage they still have in games and software coded by idiots like Adobe, Intel also still has better overclocks and frequency as well again I am not going to deny intel in places where they have the advantage.
AMD still needs to have a full intel killer and while they have come amazingly close there is this general sense still of them having inferior processors but its not really true right now, AMD is better now then they have been before and while yes they still have issues seem to be on track while intel keeps on doing 14nm refreshes and not progressing as i would like them to.

UserBenchmarks: Game 111%, Desk 93%, Work 73%
CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K - 94.7%
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1070-Ti - 130.7%
SSD: Crucial MX100 512GB - 90.4%
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 2TB - 84.8%
RAM: Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 C9 2x8GB - 63.4%
MBD: Gigabyte GA-Z97M-D3H

Decided to put the M.2 drives back in Raid 0.
Also tried XOC Bios on the 1080ti.
The speeds have jumped quite a bit with Raid 0.
Got to love B die Ram.

Yep, the nvme drive really helps out on this benchmark.

First time I have hIt 99% on this but 100%  would be better .
Maiximus XI Gene
The 2 x Evo 970 Plus in raid 0 go pretty well .
I am also OC 2 x 8Gb sticks of Kingston 2666 Ram (new ones should be here soon).
Everyone that slags this bench off , it's a small download so have a go yourself
See what you can get .
 

 

Going from 2 x 500gb evo's to 2 x 1tb evo's in raid 0 gave a good increase in speed.
Is it just me or have the points given for CPU score down ?
Don't think my CPU has suddenly gone down over 50 pts in performance.

spit051261
Going from 2 x 500gb evo's to 2 x 1tb evo's in raid 0 gave a good increase in speed.
Is it just me or have the points given for CPU score down ?
Don't think my CPU has suddenly gone down over 50 pts in performance.

Is the benchmark not constantly updated, so yesterday's score is better than today's, even though the hardware is performing exactly the same?

spit051261
I also use crystal disk mark which is pretty good for testing speed .
It comes out the same as this bench , even a bit faster.
Raid 0 is definitely faster no doubt .
Larger Nvme's are faster that smaller ones.

Most definitely.
 
I wish i could get a RAID0 array on my Dark, but running W7, it appears to not be possible.

spit051261
I get problems loading RAID.
I have to put the Intel RST driver on the Windows install USB and then load the driver.
It won't work otherwise.

Are you using W7?
 
Which IRST driver?
 
Did you mod the BIOS with an older IRST ROM?

spit051261
No
Just Google Intel rst drivers , load them all on the OS install USB ( if you don't know which one ), go into bios and set your raid up .
When you install windows , it will probably tell you driver missing but give an option to navigate to it .
Install it .
I'm using OS 10.

Tried all that, Fernando over on win-raid suggested that possibly the OROM is the problem.
 
I just have not felt like modding a BIOS to see if it will work.

If i remember right i seen in an article  the IRST is being discontinued in the near future and will be replaced with  Intel® Optane™ Memory and Storage Management Software.  Its optional anyways and not required for setting up a raid. 
 

Nice
99% same as me
My 526% on the raid array gave me a good score .
Your speeds will sky rocket if you use bigger drives in your raid 0.
Also , open up Intel storage ( install If you don't have it ) and select write back under performance tab .
This should give you a bump in speed .

Nice RAM score