Asus M5A97 R2.0

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 39%
Jet ski
Desktop
Desktop 71%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 31%
Sail boat
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 62.3%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
Graphics59.4% 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 Drive54.6% 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 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
Sub-optimal background CPU (13%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
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. (Only the first run influences device rankings)
MotherboardAsus M5A97 R2.0  (all builds)
Memory8.3 GB free of 12 GB @ 1.1 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit Farben
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20150626
Uptime0 Days
Run DateJan 11 '20 at 17:42
Run Duration234 Seconds
Run User DEU-User
Background CPU 13%

 PC Performing as expected (59th 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, turbo 3.85 GHz (avg)
Performing above expectations (76th percentile)
62.3% Good
Memory 79
1-Core 74.5
2-Core 149
60% 101 Pts
4-Core 252
8-Core 334
37% 293 Pts
64-Core 334
21% 334 Pts
Poor: 48%
This bench: 62.3%
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: 432.0
Performing below potential (55th percentile) - GPU OC Guide
59.4% Above average
Lighting 74.6
Reflection 77.9
Parallax 75.5
61% 76 fps
MRender 77.9
Gravity 70.6
Splatting 62.5
57% 70.3 fps
Poor: 53%
This bench: 59.4%
Great: 66%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Nvme TS256GMTE220S 256GB
238GB free
Firmware: 42B4S8JA Max speed: PCIe 16,000 MB/s
SusWrite @10s intervals: 380 267 270 269 270 270 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (9th percentile)
156% Outstanding
Read 1,172
Write 901
Mixed 928
SusWrite 288
183% 822 MB/s
4K Read 52.5
4K Write 113
4K Mixed 67.2
226% 77.6 MB/s
DQ Read 524
DQ Write 444
DQ Mixed 473
357% 480 MB/s
Poor: 141%
This bench: 156%
Great: 273%
Intenso SATAIII 256GB
187GB free (System drive)
Firmware: S022
SusWrite @10s intervals: 304 125 64 56 48 52 MB/s
Performing below expectations (39th percentile)
54.6% Above average
Read 493
Write 393
Mixed 379
SusWrite 108
77% 344 MB/s
4K Read 28.1
4K Write 84.7
4K Mixed 1
89% 37.9 MB/s
DQ Read 187
DQ Write 16.7
DQ Mixed 41.8
46% 81.7 MB/s
Poor: 34%
This bench: 54.6%
Great: 98%
Samsung SP2004C 200GB-$46
172GB free
Firmware: VM10
SusWrite @10s intervals: 53 57 57 57 57 57 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (98th percentile)
32.3% Below average
Read 56
Write 56.8
Mixed 37.3
SusWrite 56.3
38% 51.6 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1.4
4K Mixed 0.8
140% 0.93 MB/s
Poor: 14%
This bench: 32.3%
Great: 32%
Samsung SP2004C 200GB-$46
40GB free
Firmware: VM10
SusWrite @10s intervals: 15 15 15 16 16 16 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (15th percentile)
17.9% Very poor
Read 46.5
Write 36
Mixed 29.5
SusWrite 15.4
24% 31.9 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1.2
4K Mixed 0.7
125% 0.83 MB/s
Poor: 14%
This bench: 17.9%
Great: 32%
Hitachi HDT721010SLA360 1TB-$69
421GB free
Firmware: ST6O
SusWrite @10s intervals: 83 83 83 84 84 82 MB/s
Performing as expected (50th percentile)
48.3% Average
Read 85
Write 88.5
Mixed 44.5
SusWrite 83.1
55% 75.3 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.7
4K Mixed 0.9
161% 1.1 MB/s
Poor: 31%
This bench: 48.3%
Great: 61%
Seagate IronWolf 4TB (2016)-$90
3TB free
Firmware: SC60
SusWrite @10s intervals: 173 187 185 187 187 180 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (94th percentile)
107% Outstanding
Read 190
Write 161
Mixed 89.5
SusWrite 183
114% 156 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.8
4K Mixed 0.8
151% 1.1 MB/s
Poor: 62%
This bench: 107%
Great: 108%
Samsung FIT USB 3.0 32GB-$27
30GB free, PID 1000
Operating at USB 3.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 29 24 26 26 25 25 MB/s
Performing above expectations (75th percentile)
75.2% Very good
Read 205
Write 42.5
Mixed 81.5
SusWrite 26.1
94% 88.7 MB/s
4K Read 12.5
4K Write 12
4K Mixed 10.6
815% 11.7 MB/s
DQ Read 15.5
DQ Write 19.7
DQ Mixed 12.2
1,142% 15.8 MB/s
Poor: 13%
This bench: 75.2%
Great: 90%
ST4000DM 004-2CV104 4TB
2.5TB free, PID 0611
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 161 157 165 165 165 163 MB/s
Performing as expected (57th percentile)
55.9% Above average
Read 119
Write 148
Mixed 108
SusWrite 162
188% 134 MB/s
4K Read 4.6
4K Write 0.7
4K Mixed 0.4
54% 1.9 MB/s
Poor: 8%
This bench: 55.9%
Great: 71%
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 (83rd percentile)
39.8% Below average
MC Read 15.3
MC Write 13.8
MC Mixed 12.8
40% 14 GB/s
SC Read 9
SC Write 9
SC Mixed 11.4
28% 9.8 GB/s
Latency 82.4
48% 82.4 ns
Poor: 39%
This bench: 39.8%
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 2,840 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?
Marketing teams operate large numbers of reddit accounts. When UserBenchmark’s data contradicts their marketing spiel, they deflect by systematically attacking our reputation.
Why don’t large PC brands support UserBenchmark?
PC brands make a lot of their profit from flagship hardware sales: 4090, 14900KS, 7950X3D etc. We help consumers to choose hardware that offers similar real world performance at a fraction of the cost.
Why don’t any youtubers promote UserBenchmark?
We don't sponsor youtubers, so they have no incentive to make positive content about us. Additionally, the brands with weaker products tend to spend more on youtube marketing, which puts their youtubers at odds with UserBenchmark.
Why does UserBenchmark have so many negative trustpilot reviews?
Trustpilot hosts user-generated reviews in an online community that's open and accessible to all. Looking at its 200+ UserBenchmark reviews, which are mostly written by virgin accounts, it is glaringly obvious that they were created by a marketing team. Real users don’t have any time or interest to promote one brand over another.
Why is UserBenchmark so popular with users?
Instead of trying to win lucrative sponsorship deals with billion dollar PC brands, we have spent the last 13 years 100% focussed on providing comprehensive, accurate and relevant information for our users. As a result, most of our users return over and over again because collectively they save millions of dollars every year.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $159Nvidia RTX 4060 $280Crucial 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) $39Corsair 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