Asus M5A97 R2.0

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 36%
Jet ski
Desktop
Desktop 69%
Battle cruiser
Workstation
Workstation 29%
Raft
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (52nd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 48 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 56.9%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is average.
Graphics59.7% 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 Drive48.1% 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.
Very high background CPU (91%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
MotherboardAsus M5A97 R2.0  (all builds)
Memory9.3 GB free of 12 GB @ 1.1 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit Farben
OSWindows 7
BIOS Date20150626
Uptime0 Days
Run DateDec 02 '19 at 18:42
Run Duration204 Seconds
Run User DEU-User
Background CPU 91%

 PC Performing as expected (52nd 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 below expectations (29th percentile)
56.9% Above average
Memory 76.9
1-Core 72.8
2-Core 132
57% 94.1 Pts
4-Core 201
8-Core 326
32% 264 Pts
64-Core 322
20% 322 Pts
Poor: 48%
This bench: 56.9%
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 (66th percentile) - GPU OC Guide
59.7% Above average
Lighting 75.4
Reflection 78.9
Parallax 70.4
62% 74.9 fps
MRender 74.2
Gravity 70.5
Splatting 63.9
56% 69.5 fps
Poor: 53%
This bench: 59.7%
Great: 66%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Intenso SATAIII 256GB
180GB free (System drive)
Firmware: S022
SusWrite @10s intervals: 283 176 30 28 65 74 MB/s
Performing below expectations (28th percentile)
48.1% Average
Read 426
Write 324
Mixed 27.5
SusWrite 110
49% 222 MB/s
4K Read 20.6
4K Write 14.8
4K Mixed 8.4
50% 14.6 MB/s
DQ Read 215
DQ Write 235
DQ Mixed 42.5
82% 164 MB/s
Poor: 34%
This bench: 48.1%
Great: 98%
Nvme TS256GMTE220S 256GB
238GB free
Firmware: 42B4 Max speed: PCIe 16,000 MB/s
SusWrite @10s intervals: 365 267 265 268 267 270 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (15th percentile)
163% Outstanding
Read 998
Write 563
Mixed 776
SusWrite 284
146% 655 MB/s
4K Read 59.5
4K Write 139
4K Mixed 79.5
266% 92.7 MB/s
DQ Read 581
DQ Write 462
DQ Mixed 459
361% 501 MB/s
Poor: 141%
This bench: 163%
Great: 273%
SAMSUNG 200GB
172GB free
Firmware: VM10
SusWrite @10s intervals: 55 58 56 54 54 55 MB/s
Performing as expected (56th percentile)
32.3% Below average
Read 57
Write 56
Mixed 36.8
SusWrite 55.2
38% 51.2 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1.4
4K Mixed 0.8
140% 0.93 MB/s
Poor: 22%
This bench: 32.3%
Great: 36%
Samsung SP2004C 200GB-$46
40GB free
Firmware: VM10
SusWrite @10s intervals: 51 52 52 52 52 52 MB/s
Performing above expectations (84th percentile)
28.9% Poor
Read 48.8
Write 54.5
Mixed 36.8
SusWrite 51.7
35% 48 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1.2
4K Mixed 0.7
125% 0.83 MB/s
Poor: 14%
This bench: 28.9%
Great: 32%
Hitachi HDT721010SLA360 1TB-$30
420GB free
Firmware: ST6O
SusWrite @10s intervals: 84 83 82 83 84 83 MB/s
Performing as expected (54th percentile)
49.1% Average
Read 87.5
Write 87.8
Mixed 40.5
SusWrite 83.2
55% 74.8 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 2
4K Mixed 0.9
166% 1.2 MB/s
Poor: 31%
This bench: 49.1%
Great: 61%
Seagate Barracuda 4TB (2017)-$79
3.5TB free
Firmware: 0001
SusWrite @10s intervals: 174 177 178 177 179 179 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (98th percentile)
92% Outstanding
Read 143
Write 162
Mixed 113
SusWrite 177
110% 149 MB/s
4K Read 3.9
4K Write 0.5
4K Mixed 0.1
183% 1.5 MB/s
Poor: 40%
This bench: 92%
Great: 90%
Generic STORAGE DEVICE 197GB
119GB free, PID 0727
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 17 18 17 18 18 17 MB/s
Performing as expected (43rd percentile)
15.6% Very poor
Read 19.3
Write 18.8
Mixed 18
SusWrite 17.5
25% 18.4 MB/s
4K Read 4.3
4K Write 2.6
4K Mixed 3.7
230% 3.53 MB/s
Poor: 9%
This bench: 15.6%
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
Relative performance (0th percentile)
37.8% Below average
MC Read 15.4
MC Write 12.8
MC Mixed 12.6
39% 13.6 GB/s
SC Read 5.5
SC Write 8
SC Mixed 10.1
22% 7.87 GB/s
Latency 86.4
46% 86.4 ns
Poor: 39%
This bench: 37.8%
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