Asus A88XM-PLUS

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 36%
Jet ski
Desktop
Desktop 74%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 27%
Raft
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (59th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 41 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
ProcessorWith a good single core score, this CPU can easily handle the majority of general computing tasks. Despite its good single core score this processor isn't appropriate for workstation use due to its relatively weak multi-core performance. Finally, with a gaming score of 63%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
Graphics51.7% is a reasonable 3D score (RTX 2060S = 100%). This GPU can handle the majority of recent games but it will struggle with resolutions greater than 1080p at ultra detail levels. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive84.4% is a very good SSD score. This drive is suitable for moderate workstation use, it will facilitate fast boots, responsive applications and ensure minimum IO wait times.
Memory16GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's more than sufficient for nearly all games. 16GB also allows for very large file and system caches, software development and batch photo editing/processing.
OS VersionAlthough 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
4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago. (Only the first run influences device rankings)
MotherboardAsus A88XM-PLUS  (all builds)
Memory13.6 GB free of 16 GB @ 1.3 GHz
Display1280 x 1024 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 7
BIOS Date20170414
Uptime0.4 Days
Run DateSep 10 '19 at 15:59
Run Duration162 Seconds
Run User EST-User
Background CPU0%

 PC Performing as expected (59th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD A10-7890K APU (2014 D.Ka)-$889
FM2+ , 1 CPU, 2 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 4.6 GHz
Performing way above expectations (100th percentile)
63% Good
Memory 82.9
1-Core 81.7
2-Core 163
65% 109 Pts
4-Core 252
8-Core 251
34% 251 Pts
64-Core 250
16% 250 Pts
Poor: 33%
This bench: 63%
Great: 57%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 970-$200
Asus(1043 852E) ≥ 4GB
CLim: 1450 MHz, MLim: 1757 MHz, Ram: 4GB, Driver: 436.15
Performing above expectations (85th percentile)
51.7% Above average
Lighting 64.5
Reflection 67.3
Parallax 60.4
53% 64.1 fps
MRender 72.4
Gravity 61
Splatting 53.2
50% 62.2 fps
Poor: 43%
This bench: 51.7%
Great: 54%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung 850 Pro 1TB-$175
244GB free (System drive)
Firmware: EXM0
SusWrite @10s intervals: 157 112 108 90 95 115 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (12th percentile)
84.4% Excellent
Read 361
Write 201
Mixed 254
SusWrite 113
52% 232 MB/s
4K Read 36.7
4K Write 100
4K Mixed 45.9
167% 60.9 MB/s
DQ Read 273
DQ Write 238
DQ Mixed 254
191% 255 MB/s
Poor: 77%
This bench: 84.4%
Great: 124%
Samsung 840 Evo 1TB-$199
187GB free
Firmware: EXT0
SusWrite @10s intervals: 350 371 349 357 357 343 MB/s
Performing as expected (52nd percentile)
108% Outstanding
Read 361
Write 339
Mixed 320
SusWrite 354
78% 344 MB/s
4K Read 45.2
4K Write 99.5
4K Mixed 58.1
196% 67.6 MB/s
DQ Read 267
DQ Write 239
DQ Mixed 200
164% 235 MB/s
Poor: 78%
This bench: 108%
Great: 126%
Seagate ST3250410AS 250GB-$95
55GB free
Firmware: 4.AA
SusWrite @10s intervals: 82 85 81 85 81 85 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (89th percentile)
50.6% Above average
Read 93
Write 69.2
Mixed 50.8
SusWrite 83.2
54% 74.1 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1
4K Mixed 0.8
137% 0.83 MB/s
Poor: 23%
This bench: 50.6%
Great: 54%
Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 500GB-$23
457GB free
Firmware: KC45
Relative performance n/a - benchmarks incomplete
Read 133
Mixed 70.7
77% 102 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.2
4K Mixed 0.8
140% 0.9 MB/s
Poor: 27% Great: 88%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
G.SKILL TridentX DDR3 2400 C10 2x8GB
2 of 4 slots used
16GB DIMM DDR3 1333 MHz clocked @ 2400 MHz
Performing below potential (17th percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
48.5% Average
MC Read 22.5
MC Write 9.4
MC Mixed 20.3
50% 17.4 GB/s
SC Read 10.7
SC Write 9.4
SC Mixed 13.4
32% 11.2 GB/s
Latency 75.4
53% 75.4 ns
Poor: 40%
This bench: 48.5%
Great: 88%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical A88XM-PLUS Builds (Compare 256 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 7%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 48%
Yacht
Workstation
Workstation 6%
Tree trunk

Motherboard: Asus A88XM-PLUS

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 27% - Poor Total price: $85
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.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170Nvidia RTX 4060 $293Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $120Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-13600K $260Nvidia RTX 4070 $550Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $45
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $37Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $29Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $48SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $62G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $351SanDisk Ultra Fit 32GB $16
If you make a purchase via one of these links, our site may earn a commission
Today's hottest deals
About  •  User Guide  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer  •  YouTube Feedback