ADD TO PC
BUILD

Asrock Z77 Pro4-M

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing CPU, RAM
Gaming 0% Incomplete	Desktop 0% Incomplete	Workstation 0% Incomplete


PC Status	Overall 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.
Graphics	9.03% is a very low 3D score (RTX 2060S = 100%). This GPU can only handle very basic 3D games but it's fine for general computing tasks.
Boot Drive	89.8% 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.
Memory	16GB 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 Version	Although Windows 8.1 is a recent version of Windows, it's worth upgrading to Windows 10 which has had several improvements made to the user interface including a better homescreen.

Run History

9 years ago, 9 years ago.

Motherboard	Asrock Z77 Pro4-M (all builds)
Memory	7.1 GB free of 16 GB @ 1.6 GHz
Display	1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors, 1920 x 1200 - 32 Bit colors
OS	Windows 8.1
BIOS Date	20120713
Uptime	1.1 Days
Run Date	May 11 '15 at 12:30
Run Duration	331 Seconds
Run User	NLD-User
Background CPU	9%

PC Performing as expected (52^nd percentile)

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

Processor	Bench	Normal	Heavy	Server
Intel Core i5-3570K-$30 185,516 User benchmarks, average bench 68% CPUSocket, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 4 threads Base clock 3.4 GHz, turbo 3.6 GHz (avg) Relative performance n/a - benchmarks incomplete		1-Core 99.6 2-Core 200 68% 150 Pts	4-Core 376 8-Core 385 51% 380 Pts	64-Core 381 24% 381 Pts
Poor: 54% Great: 79%

Graphics Card	Bench	3D DX9	3D DX10	3D DX11
AMD HD 7750 22,655 User benchmarks, average bench 8% Gigabyte(1458 2551) 1GB Driver: aticfx64.dll Ver. 14.501.1003.0 Performing way above expectations (91^st percentile)	9.03% Terrible	Lighting 9.77 Reflection 14.8 Parallax 12.8 8% 12.4 fps	MRender 12.6 Gravity 9.6 Splatting 17.1 11% 13.1 fps
Poor: 7% ↑ This bench: 9.03% Great: 9%

Drives	Bench	Sequential	Random 4k	Deep queue 4k
Samsung 850 EVO 250GB (TurboPC EX) 11 User benchmarks, average bench 105% 187GB free (System drive) Firmware: EMT01B6Q Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s Performing way below expectations (18^th percentile) (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (05) Reallocated sector count 100 100 0 (09) Power-on hours count 99 99 90 (0C) Power cycle count 99 99 34 (B1) Unknown 100 100 0 (B3) Unknown 100 100 0 (B5) Unknown 100 100 0 (B6) Unknown 100 100 0 (B7) Unknown 100 99 0 (BB) vendor-specific 100 100 0 (BE) vendor-specific 60 54 40 (C3) Hardware ECC recovered 200 200 0 (C7) UDMA CRC error rate 96 96 3031 (EB) Unknown 99 99 6 (F1) Unknown 99 99 748012198	89.8% Excellent	Read 375 Write 303 Mixed 309 73% 329 MB/s	4K Read 33.9 4K Write 94.5 4K Mixed 45.3 159% 57.9 MB/s	DQ Read 223 DQ Write 84.9 DQ Mixed 60.5 69% 123 MB/s
Poor: 88% ↑ This bench: 89.8% Great: 117%
Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 3TB-$67 235,501 User benchmarks, average bench 88% 1.5TB free Firmware: CC25 Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s Performing above expectations (64^th percentile) (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (01) Raw read error rate 116 99 108035984 (03) Spinup time 94 94 0 (04) Start/Stop count 100 100 44 (05) Reallocated sector count 100 100 0 (07) Seek error rate 100 253 713165 (09) Power-on hours count 100 100 442 (0A) Spinup retry count 100 100 0 (0C) Power cycle count 100 100 44 (B7) Unknown 99 99 1 (B8) Unknown 100 100 0 (BB) vendor-specific 100 100 0 (BC) Unknown 100 95 32 (BD) vendor-specific 100 100 0 (BE) vendor-specific 65 52 605683747 (BF) G-sense error rate 100 100 0 (C0) Power-off retract count 100 100 6 (C1) Load/Unload cycle count 93 93 15466 (C2) HDA temperature 35 48 85899345955 (C5) Current pending sector count 100 100 0 (C6) Offline scan uncorrectable count 100 100 0 (C7) UDMA CRC error rate 200 103 41291 (F0) Head flying hours 100 253 -122784525057646 (F1) Unknown 100 253 6694448924 (F2) Unknown 100 253 9085515203	96.3% Outstanding	Read 176 Write 160 Mixed 160 124% 165 MB/s	4K Read 0.75 4K Write 1.71 4K Mixed 0.22 87% 0.89 MB/s
Poor: 56% ↑ This bench: 96.3% Great: 113%
Seagate ST2000DM001-1ER164 (TurboPC EX) 2TB 12 User benchmarks, average bench 83% 1TB free Firmware: CC43 Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s Performing way below expectations (8^th percentile) (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (01) Raw read error rate 116 99 114701656 (03) Spinup time 95 95 0 (04) Start/Stop count 100 100 76 (05) Reallocated sector count 100 100 0 (07) Seek error rate 76 60 42204118 (09) Power-on hours count 95 95 5102 (0A) Spinup retry count 100 100 0 (0C) Power cycle count 100 100 71 (B7) Unknown 82 82 18 (B8) Unknown 100 100 0 (BB) vendor-specific 100 100 0 (BC) Unknown 100 100 4295032833 (BD) vendor-specific 100 100 0 (BE) vendor-specific 66 51 588644386 (BF) G-sense error rate 100 100 0 (C0) Power-off retract count 100 100 0 (C1) Load/Unload cycle count 62 62 76094 (C2) HDA temperature 34 49 81604378658 (C5) Current pending sector count 100 100 0 (C6) Offline scan uncorrectable count 100 100 0 (C7) UDMA CRC error rate 200 198 186 (F0) Head flying hours 100 253 120181774880805 (F1) Unknown 100 253 10733380914 (F2) Unknown 100 253 78064261073	67.9% Good	Read 115 Write 121 Mixed 132 93% 123 MB/s	4K Read 0.47 4K Write 1.61 4K Mixed 0.22 74% 0.77 MB/s
Poor: 70% ↑ This bench: 67.9% Great: 97%
WD WD20EARS-00MVWB0 (TurboPC EX) 2TB 11 User benchmarks, average bench 52% 879GB free Firmware: 51.0 Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s Performing as expected (50^th percentile) (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (01) Raw read error rate 199 198 4490 (03) Spinup time 253 165 1016 (04) Start/Stop count 96 96 4674 (05) Reallocated sector count 200 200 0 (07) Seek error rate 200 200 0 (09) Power-on hours count 64 64 26479 (0A) Spinup retry count 100 100 0 (0B) Calibration retry count 100 100 0 (0C) Power cycle count 100 100 333 (C0) Power-off retract count 200 200 122 (C1) Load/Unload cycle count 111 111 267352 (C2) HDA temperature 116 101 34 (C4) Reallocation count 200 200 0 (C5) Current pending sector count 200 200 0 (C6) Offline scan uncorrectable count 200 200 0 (C7) UDMA CRC error rate 200 200 0 (C8) Write error rate 197 196 810	53.4% Above average	Read 94.3 Write 91.7 Mixed 90.2 69% 92.1 MB/s	4K Read 0.68 4K Write 1.71 4K Mixed 0.16 78% 0.85 MB/s
Poor: 43% ↑ This bench: 53.4% Great: 61%
WD WD10EZRX-00A8LB0 (TurboPC EX) 1TB 2 User benchmarks, average bench 55% 630GB free Firmware: 01.0 Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (01) Raw read error rate 200 200 233 (03) Spinup time 136 132 4183 (04) Start/Stop count 100 100 318 (05) Reallocated sector count 199 199 71 (07) Seek error rate 200 200 0 (09) Power-on hours count 76 76 17934 (0A) Spinup retry count 100 100 0 (0B) Calibration retry count 100 100 0 (0C) Power cycle count 100 100 301 (C0) Power-off retract count 200 200 122 (C1) Load/Unload cycle count 168 168 97081 (C2) HDA temperature 110 97 33 (C4) Reallocation count 135 135 65 (C5) Current pending sector count 200 200 0 (C6) Offline scan uncorrectable count 200 200 0 (C7) UDMA CRC error rate 200 200 8 (C8) Write error rate 200 200 0	37.3% Below average	Read 66.2 Write 63.4 Mixed 68.9 50% 66.1 MB/s	4K Read 0.49 4K Write 2.11 4K Mixed 0.21 83% 0.94 MB/s
Poor: 37% ↑ This bench: 37.3% Great: 72%
BUFFALO HD-PZU3 USB Device (TurboPC EX) 1TB 17 User benchmarks, average bench 267% 413GB free, PID 01f9 Operating at USB 3.0 Speed Performing above expectations (76^th percentile)	339% Outstanding	Read 79.5 Write 79.4 Mixed 65.5 95% 74.8 MB/s	4K Read 0.46 4K Write 101 4K Mixed 0.02 3,438% 33.8 MB/s	DQ Read 0.7 DQ Write 166 DQ Mixed 0.57 5,652% 55.6 MB/s
Poor: 62% ↑ This bench: 339% Great: 382%
JetFlash Transcend 64GB 3,351 User benchmarks, average bench 17% 57GB free, PID 1000 Operating at USB 2.1 Speed Performing as expected (53^rd percentile)	14.1% Very poor	Read 31 Write 25.7 Mixed 18.2 30% 25 MB/s	4K Read 3.87 4K Write 1.01 4K Mixed 0.76 75% 1.88 MB/s
Poor: 5% ↑ This bench: 14.1% Great: 32%

Take a copy of your results How to check your in-game FPS

Custom PC Builder (Explore upgrades for this PC) Build your perfect PC: compare component prices, popularity, speed and value for money

CHOOSE AN UPGRADE:

CPU

GPU

SSD

HDD

RAM

Typical Z77 Pro4-M Builds (Compare 333 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings

Gaming

Gaming 56%

Gunboat

Desktop

Desktop 77%

Battleship

Workstation

Workstation 43%

Speed boat

Motherboard: Asrock Z77 Pro4-M

CPU
Core i5-3570KIntel $30Bench 68%, 185,516 samples	89x
Core i7-3770Intel $297Bench 69%, 278,207 samples	76x
Core i7-3770KIntel $175Bench 72%, 165,979 samples	58x

GPU
GTX 1070Nvidia $278Bench 80%, 1,459,281 samples	25x
HD 4000 (Desktop 1.15 GHz)Intel $15Bench 3%, 52,547 samples	24x
GTX 970Nvidia $200Bench 49%, 834,238 samples	21x

SSD
850 Evo 250GBSamsung $100Bench 103%, 951,591 samples	25x
860 Evo 500GBSamsung $76Bench 105%, 762,998 samples	17x
A400 240GBKingston $28Bench 66%, 424,288 samples	15x

RAM
Savage DDR3 1600 C9 2x4GBHyperXBench 51%, 78,181 samples	10x
RipjawsX DDR3 1600 C9 2x4GBG.SKILLBench 53%, 47,852 samples	8x
Vengeance LP DDR3 1600 C9 4x4GBCorsairBench 54%, 12,350 samples	8x

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER

Value: 59% - Above average

Total price: $408

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.

CPU	GPU	SSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170	Nvidia RTX 4060 $293	Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $122	Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385	Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-13600K $260	Nvidia RTX 4070 $550	Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $45

HDD	RAM	USB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $37	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40	SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $28	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $48	SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $62	G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $351	SanDisk Ultra Fit 32GB $16

If you make a purchase via one of these links, our site may earn a commission

Today's hottest

Amazon Ebay

deals

CPU GPU SSD HDD USB RAM MBD

Build

Test

EFps

Can You Run It?

►
YouTube
*NEW*

About • User Guide • FAQs • Email • Privacy • Developer • YouTube Feedback