Asus M5A97 R2.0

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 41%
Speed boat
Desktop
Desktop 71%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 32%
Sail boat
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (58th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 42 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 63.5%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
Graphics61.1% is a good 3D score. This GPU can handle the majority of recent games at high resolutions and ultra detail levels.
Boot Drive44.5% is a reasonable SSD score. This drive enables fast boots and responsive applications.
Memory12GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's more than sufficient for nearly all games. 12GB 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
MotherboardAsus M5A97 R2.0  (all builds)
Memory9.1 GB free of 12 GB @ 1.1 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit Farben
OSWindows 7
BIOS Date20150626
Uptime0 Days
Run DateNov 30 '19 at 23:34
Run Duration205 Seconds
Run User DEU-User
Background CPU2%

 PC Performing as expected (58th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD FX-6350 Six-Core-$55
Socket 942, 1 CPU, 3 cores, 6 threads
Base clock 3.9 GHz
Performing above expectations (84th percentile)
63.5% Good
Memory 80.2
1-Core 72.8
2-Core 125
57% 92.7 Pts
4-Core 258
8-Core 343
38% 300 Pts
64-Core 336
21% 336 Pts
Poor: 48%
This bench: 63.5%
Great: 66%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 980-$500
PNY(196E 1116) ≥ 4GB
CLim: 1392 MHz, MLim: 1752 MHz, Ram: 4GB, Driver: 441.12
Performing below potential (75th percentile) - GPU OC Guide
61.1% Good
Lighting 77.5
Reflection 80.1
Parallax 72
63% 76.5 fps
MRender 77.9
Gravity 71.4
Splatting 63
57% 70.8 fps
Poor: 53%
This bench: 61.1%
Great: 66%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Intenso SATAIII 256GB
171GB free (System drive)
Firmware: S022
SusWrite @10s intervals: 292 143 56 44 56 57 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (20th percentile)
44.5% Average
Read 448
Write 374
Mixed 366
SusWrite 108
72% 324 MB/s
4K Read 20.7
4K Write 12.2
4K Mixed 1
39% 11.3 MB/s
DQ Read 230
DQ Write 202
DQ Mixed 1.2
60% 144 MB/s
Poor: 34%
This bench: 44.5%
Great: 98%
Nvme TS256GMTE220S 256GB
238GB free
Firmware: 42B4 Max speed: PCIe 16,000 MB/s
SusWrite @10s intervals: 379 266 262 268 269 270 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (18th percentile)
167% Outstanding
Read 1,086
Write 618
Mixed 821
SusWrite 286
156% 703 MB/s
4K Read 59.2
4K Write 137
4K Mixed 79.4
264% 91.8 MB/s
DQ Read 577
DQ Write 476
DQ Mixed 462
363% 505 MB/s
Poor: 141%
This bench: 167%
Great: 273%
SAMSUNG 200GB
172GB free
Firmware: VM10
SusWrite @10s intervals: 57 54 54 55 55 55 MB/s
Performing as expected (56th percentile)
32.3% Below average
Read 57.2
Write 54
Mixed 37.5
SusWrite 54.9
38% 50.9 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1.4
4K Mixed 0.9
151% 0.97 MB/s
Poor: 22%
This bench: 32.3%
Great: 36%
Samsung SP2004C 200GB-$46
41GB free
Firmware: VM10
SusWrite @10s intervals: 52 53 53 52 52 51 MB/s
Performing above expectations (84th percentile)
29.1% Poor
Read 49
Write 54.5
Mixed 36.8
SusWrite 52
35% 48.1 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1.2
4K Mixed 0.7
125% 0.83 MB/s
Poor: 14%
This bench: 29.1%
Great: 32%
Hitachi HDT721010SLA360 1TB-$30
420GB free
Firmware: ST6O
SusWrite @10s intervals: 83 82 82 83 84 83 MB/s
Performing as expected (54th percentile)
49.1% Average
Read 88
Write 88.3
Mixed 43.8
SusWrite 82.9
55% 75.8 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.9
4K Mixed 0.9
164% 1.17 MB/s
Poor: 31%
This bench: 49.1%
Great: 61%
Seagate Barracuda 4TB (2017)-$79
3.5TB free
Firmware: 0001
SusWrite @10s intervals: 183 183 175 178 180 180 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - RAM cached drive detected
Poor: 40% Great: 90%
Generic STORAGE DEVICE 197GB
119GB free, PID 0727
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 18 17 16 17 17 18 MB/s
Performing above expectations (64th percentile)
16.6% Very poor
Read 19.8
Write 18.3
Mixed 17.3
SusWrite 17
24% 18.1 MB/s
4K Read 4.5
4K Write 2.9
4K Mixed 3.3
228% 3.57 MB/s
Poor: 9%
This bench: 16.6%
Great: 18%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown 991770 Corsair VS2GB1333D4 991770 Corsair VS2GB1333D4 12GB
1066, 1066, 1066, 1066 MHz
4096, 2048, 4096, 2048 MB
Performing above expectations (67th percentile)
39.6% Below average
MC Read 15.6
MC Write 13.7
MC Mixed 12.6
40% 14 GB/s
SC Read 9.1
SC Write 8.5
SC Mixed 10.2
26% 9.27 GB/s
Latency 80.1
50% 80.1 ns
Poor: 39%
This bench: 39.6%
Great: 42%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical M5A97 R2.0 Builds (Compare 2,841 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: 71% - Very good Total price: $354
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 youtubers extra to promote inferior products but UserBenchmark’s data exposes them.
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 keep returning.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170Nvidia RTX 4060 $293Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $122Nvidia 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) $28Corsair 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