Asus M5A97 R2.0

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 36%
Jet ski
Desktop
Desktop 69%
Battle cruiser
Workstation
Workstation 30%
Raft
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (47th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 53 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 62.5%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
Graphics55.2% 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)
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 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
High background CPU (28%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
4 years ago, 4 years ago.
MotherboardAsus M5A97 R2.0  (all builds)
Memory6.7 GB free of 16 GB @ 1.3 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20150626
Uptime0 Days
Run DateOct 19 '19 at 00:33
Run Duration286 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU 28%

 PC Performing as expected (47th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD FX-8350-$130
Socket 942, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 8 threads
Base clock 4 GHz, turbo 4.05 GHz (avg)
Performing above expectations (72nd percentile)
62.5% Good
Memory 81.8
1-Core 72.1
2-Core 131
58% 95.1 Pts
4-Core 235
8-Core 405
39% 320 Pts
64-Core 411
25% 411 Pts
Poor: 48%
This bench: 62.5%
Great: 68%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 970-$200
CLim: 1531 MHz, MLim: 1752 MHz, Ram: 4GB, Driver: 436.48
Performing way above expectations (99th percentile)
55.2% Above average
Lighting 68.6
Reflection 71
Parallax 68.2
56% 69.3 fps
MRender 75
Gravity 67.5
Splatting 58.6
54% 67 fps
Poor: 43%
This bench: 55.2%
Great: 54%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung 860 Evo 1TB-$137
615GB free
Firmware: RVT02B6Q
SusWrite @10s intervals: 259 286 287 297 328 329 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (8th percentile)
85.1% Excellent
Read 456
Write 319
Mixed 290
SusWrite 298
76% 341 MB/s
4K Read 33.4
4K Write 55.7
4K Mixed 42.5
135% 43.9 MB/s
DQ Read 274
DQ Write 11
DQ Mixed 19.2
45% 101 MB/s
Poor: 81%
This bench: 85.1%
Great: 133%
PNY SSD2SC120G1CS1754D117-551 120GB
4GB free (System drive)
Firmware: CS111101
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 292
Write 288
Mixed 61.7
47% 214 MB/s
4K Read 19.3
4K Write 30.8
4K Mixed 26.2
79% 25.4 MB/s
DQ Read 236
DQ Write 210
DQ Mixed 163
138% 203 MB/s
Poor: 58% Great: 90%
Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 1TB-$28
149GB free
Firmware: CC46
SusWrite @10s intervals: 171 175 164 172 173 161 MB/s
Performing as expected (57th percentile)
94.5% Outstanding
Read 160
Write 154
Mixed 79.3
SusWrite 169
103% 141 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.6
4K Mixed 0.9
159% 1.07 MB/s
Poor: 55%
This bench: 94.5%
Great: 112%
Seagate Expansion Desk 2TB
279GB free
Firmware: 0604
SusWrite @10s intervals: 93 103 94 102 103 95 MB/s
Performing as expected (48th percentile)
66.5% Good
Read 133
Write 100
Mixed 71.5
SusWrite 98.5
74% 101 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.8
4K Mixed 0.9
162% 1.13 MB/s
Poor: 16%
This bench: 66.5%
Great: 104%
Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1TB-$70
552GB free
Firmware: CC46
SusWrite @10s intervals: 86 88 81 87 87 81 MB/s
Performing as expected (47th percentile)
53.4% Above average
Read 101
Write 88
Mixed 59.8
SusWrite 85.1
62% 83.5 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 0.8
4K Mixed 0.8
133% 0.77 MB/s
Poor: 34%
This bench: 53.4%
Great: 68%
WDC WD25 00BEKT-75PVMT0 250GB
166GB free, PID 0621
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 72 74 69 73 74 68 MB/s
Performing above expectations (70th percentile)
33.6% Below average
Read 87
Write 87.7
Mixed 57.3
SusWrite 71.6
102% 75.9 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1.7
4K Mixed 0.8
87% 1.03 MB/s
Poor: 12%
This bench: 33.6%
Great: 37%
PNY USB 3.0 FD 136GB
101GB free, PID 00ad
Operating at USB 2.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 6.8 9.6 8.5 17 14 15 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (11th percentile)
10.1% Very poor
Read 30
Write 7.8
Mixed 22.5
SusWrite 12
22% 18.1 MB/s
4K Read 2.9
4K Write 0.8
4K Mixed 1.2
79% 1.63 MB/s
Poor: 9%
This bench: 10.1%
Great: 38%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Kingston 99U5474-028.A00LF 4x4GB
4 of 4 slots used
16GB DIMM DDR3 1333 MHz clocked @ 667 MHz
Performing below potential (11th percentile) - Ensure that the top XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
35% Below average
MC Read 12.6
MC Write 11.9
MC Mixed 12.1
35% 12.2 GB/s
SC Read 5
SC Write 8
SC Mixed 10.1
22% 7.7 GB/s
Latency 77.3
52% 77.3 ns
Poor: 30%
This bench: 35%
Great: 53%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical M5A97 R2.0 Builds (Compare 2,844 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 23%
Surfboard
Desktop
Desktop 69%
Battle cruiser
Workstation
Workstation 19%
Surfboard

Motherboard: Asus M5A97 R2.0 - $89

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 70% - Very good Total price: $358
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 $164Nvidia RTX 4060 $293WD Black SN850X M.2 2TB $149
Intel Core i5-12400F $110Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385WD Black SN850X M.2 1TB $89
Intel Core i5-13600K $245Nvidia RTX 4070 $549Crucial T700 M.2 4TB $336
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