ADD TO PC
BUILD

Asus P5KPL/EPU

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing CPU, RAM
Gaming 0% Incomplete	Desktop 0% Incomplete	Workstation 0% Incomplete


PC Status	Overall this PC is performing as expected (57th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 43 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
Graphics	0.66% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive	31.9% is low SSD score. With a better SSD this system will boot faster, make applications more responsive and reduce IO wait times.
Memory	4GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and although it's sufficient for most games, some will benefit from up to 8GB of RAM. 4GB is also enough for modest file and system caches which allow for a responsive system.
OS Version	Although Windows 7 is still a viable option, it's now 14 years and 10 months old. This system should be upgraded to Windows 10 which is generally faster and has an improved set of core utilities including better versions of explorer and task manager.

Run History

9 years ago, 9 years ago.

Motherboard	Asus P5KPL/EPU (all builds)
Memory	1.8 GB free of 4 GB @ 0.8 GHz
Display	1680 x 1050 - 32 Bit kleuren
OS	Windows 7
BIOS Date	20090617
Uptime	0 Days
Run Date	Mar 06 '15 at 11:23
Run Duration	229 Seconds
Run User	NLD-User
Background CPU	0%

PC Performing as expected (57^th percentile)

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

Processor	Bench	Normal	Heavy	Server
Intel Core2 Quad Q9550-$161 34,093 User benchmarks, average bench 49% Socket 775, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 4 threads Base clock 2.85 GHz Relative performance n/a - benchmarks incomplete		1-Core 47.9 2-Core 90.7 32% 69.3 Pts	4-Core 190 8-Core 188 25% 189 Pts	64-Core 189 12% 189 Pts
Poor: 37% Great: 57%

Graphics Card	Bench	3D DX9	3D DX10	3D DX11
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3400 7,025 User benchmarks, average bench 1% Asus(1043 01E2) 512MB Driver: aticfx64.dll Ver. 8.970.100.1100 Performing as expected (57^th percentile)	0.66% Terrible	Lighting 0.77 Reflection 1.58 Parallax 0.47 1% 0.94 fps	MRender 0.95 Gravity 0.33 Splatting 1.22 1% 0.83 fps
Poor: 0% ↑ This bench: 0.66% Great: 1%

Drives	Bench	Sequential	Random 4k	Deep queue 4k
OCZ CORE 60GB 17 User benchmarks, average bench 13% 22GB free Firmware: 02.10103 Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s Performing way above expectations (100^th percentile) (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (0C) Power cycle count 100 100 15875 (09) Power-on hours count 100 100 0 (C2) HDA temperature 32 100 0 (E5) Unknown 100 0 -21471777400852 (E8) Unknown 100 48 9024568700984 (E9) Unknown 100 0 0 (EA) Unknown 100 0 580659467570 (EB) Unknown 100 0 2483481662	14.1% Very poor	Read 118 Write 81.1 Mixed 79.6 21% 92.9 MB/s	4K Read 8.74 4K Write 1.83 4K Mixed 1.39 16% 3.99 MB/s
Poor: 10% ↑ This bench: 14.1% Great: 14%
OCZ VERTEX2 60GB 4,861 User benchmarks, average bench 36% 18GB free (System drive) Firmware: 1.11 Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s Performing below expectations (35^th percentile) (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (01) Raw read error rate 104 100 9328004 (05) Reallocated sector count 97 97 288 (09) Power-on hours count 100 100 -46780783779388 (0C) Power cycle count 96 96 4161 (AB) Unknown 0 0 0 (AC) Unknown 0 0 0 (AE) Unknown 0 0 50 (B1) Unknown 0 0 1 (B5) Unknown 0 0 0 (B6) Unknown 0 0 0 (BB) vendor-specific 100 100 0 (C2) HDA temperature 0 0 0 (C3) Hardware ECC recovered 104 100 9328004 (C4) Reallocation count 100 100 0 (E7) Temperature 95 95 1 (E9) Unknown 0 0 11968 (EA) Unknown 0 0 14784 (F1) Unknown 0 0 14784 (F2) Unknown 0 0 16512	31.9% Below average	Read 155 Write 59.3 Mixed 94.5 23% 103 MB/s	4K Read 20.4 4K Write 55.2 4K Mixed 8.54 71% 28 MB/s	DQ Read 23.1 DQ Write 60.9 DQ Mixed 9.51 17% 31.2 MB/s
Poor: 19% ↑ This bench: 31.9% Great: 51%
WD WD10EAVS-00D7B1 1TB 26,179 User benchmarks, average bench 41% 801GB free Firmware: 01.01A01 Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s Performing way above expectations (97^th percentile) (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (01) Raw read error rate 200 200 0 (03) Spinup time 142 141 7875 (04) Start/Stop count 89 89 11060 (05) Reallocated sector count 200 200 0 (07) Seek error rate 100 253 0 (09) Power-on hours count 75 75 18621 (0A) Spinup retry count 100 100 0 (0B) Calibration retry count 100 100 0 (0C) Power cycle count 96 96 4358 (C0) Power-off retract count 200 200 187 (C1) Load/Unload cycle count 197 197 10514 (C2) HDA temperature 129 83 21 (C4) Reallocation count 199 199 1 (C5) Current pending sector count 200 200 0 (C6) Offline scan uncorrectable count 200 200 0 (C7) UDMA CRC error rate 200 200 0 (C8) Write error rate 200 200 0	53.3% Above average	Read 88.6 Write 96.7 Mixed 92.5 70% 92.6 MB/s	4K Read 0.57 4K Write 2.34 4K Mixed 0.36 107% 1.09 MB/s
Poor: 26% ↑ This bench: 53.3% Great: 51%
Samsung Spinpoint F1 750GB-$60 30,974 User benchmarks, average bench 44% 175GB free Firmware: 1AA01107 Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s Performing below expectations (31^st percentile) (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (01) Raw read error rate 100 100 0 (03) Spinup time 67 67 10750 (04) Start/Stop count 87 87 12828 (05) Reallocated sector count 80 80 890 (07) Seek error rate 253 253 0 (08) Seek timer performance 100 100 10091 (09) Power-on hours count 98 98 8993 (0A) Spinup retry count 100 100 0 (0B) Calibration retry count 100 100 49 (0C) Power cycle count 94 94 6556 (0D) Soft read error rate 100 100 0 (B8) Unknown 100 100 0 (BB) vendor-specific 100 100 0 (BC) Unknown 100 100 0 (BE) vendor-specific 86 57 235601934 (C2) HDA temperature 82 54 302710802 (C3) Hardware ECC recovered 100 100 14951 (C4) Reallocation count 100 100 0 (C5) Current pending sector count 100 100 0 (C6) Offline scan uncorrectable count 100 100 0 (C7) UDMA CRC error rate 200 200 0 (C8) Write error rate 200 188 0 (C9) Soft read error rate 253 253 0 (CA) Data Address Mark errors 100 100 5	38.4% Below average	Read 59.8 Write 73.4 Mixed 54.2 47% 62.5 MB/s	4K Read 0.7 4K Write 1.94 4K Mixed 0.45 115% 1.03 MB/s
Poor: 28% ↑ This bench: 38.4% Great: 60%
WD 15EARS External 1.5TB 277 User benchmarks, average bench 18% 720GB free, PID 1003 Operating at USB 2.0 Speed Performing below expectations (25^th percentile)	14.9% Very poor	Read 28 Write 26.2 Mixed 26.9 35% 27 MB/s	4K Read 0.47 4K Write 1.64 4K Mixed 0.17 63% 0.76 MB/s
Poor: 12% ↑ This bench: 14.9% Great: 21%

Take a copy of your results How to check your in-game FPS

Custom PC Builder (Explore upgrades for this PC) Build your perfect PC: compare component prices, popularity, speed and value for money

CHOOSE AN UPGRADE:

CPU

GPU

SSD

HDD

RAM

Typical P5KPL/EPU Builds (Compare 40 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings

Gaming

Gaming 2%

Tree trunk

Desktop

Desktop 40%

Speed boat

Workstation

Workstation 2%

Tree trunk

Motherboard: Asus P5KPL/EPU

CPU
Core2 Duo E7500Intel $109Bench 39%, 39,897 samples	6x
Pentium E5300Intel $59Bench 36%, 18,604 samples	5x
Core2 Duo E8400Intel $89Bench 40%, 68,540 samples	3x

GPU
GeForce 9500 GTNvidiaBench 2%, 27,834 samples	5x
GeForce 210NvidiaBench 1%, 98,254 samples	4x
GeForce GT 520NvidiaBench 2%, 16,336 samples	3x

SSD
840 250GBSamsung $251Bench 70%, 41,998 samples	2x
Force 3 120GBCorsair $109Bench 48%, 22,358 samples	1x
SSDNow V300 240GBKingston $35Bench 64%, 176,713 samples	1x

RAM
2x2GBUnknownBench 20%, 446,702 samples	25x
1x2GBUnknownBench 17%, 99,586 samples	7x
3GBUnknownBench 14%, 81,553 samples	6x

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER

Value: 18% - Very poor

Total price: $360

Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?

Marketers operate countless reddit accounts. UserBenchmark’s data exposes their marketing spiel so they systematically attack our reputation.

Why don’t large PC brands support UserBenchmark?

PC brands profit greatly from flagship hardware like the 4090, 14900KS, and 7950X3D. We help users get similar real-world performance for less money.

Why don’t any youtubers promote UserBenchmark?

We don't sponsor youtubers, so they have no incentive to praise us. Moreover, brands pay more to market weaker products which puts their youtubers at odds with UserBenchmark.

Why does UserBenchmark have so many negative trustpilot reviews?

Trustpilot hosts user-generated online reviews. It's obvious that the 200+ UserBenchmark reviews, are mostly written by virgin marketing accounts. Real users aren't interested in promoting billon-dollar brands...

Why is UserBenchmark so popular with users?

Instead of pursuing lucrative sponsorships with billion-dollar PC brands, we have dedicated 13 years to publishing accurate real-world data. As a result, our users save millions every year and they return repeatedly.

The Best.

CPU	GPU	SSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170	Nvidia RTX 4060 $293	Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $122	Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385	Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-13600K $260	Nvidia RTX 4070 $550	Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $45

HDD	RAM	USB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $37	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40	SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $29	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $48	SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $62	G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $351	SanDisk Ultra Fit 32GB $16

If you make a purchase via one of these links, our site may earn a commission

Today's hottest

Amazon Ebay

deals

CPU GPU SSD HDD USB RAM MBD

Build

Test

EFps

Can You Run It?

►
YouTube
*NEW*

About • User Guide • FAQs • Email • Privacy • Developer • YouTube Feedback