ADD TO PC
BUILD

Acer Veriton M680

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming 1% Tree trunk	Desktop 48% Yacht	Workstation 1% Tree trunk


PC Status	Overall this PC is performing above expectations (69th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 31 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
Processor	With 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 53%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is average.
Graphics	0.72% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive	The boot partition is located on a mechanical or hybrid drive. Moving the system to an SSD will yield far faster boot times, better system responsiveness and faster application load times.
Memory	8GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's sufficient for the vast majority of games. 8GB is also enough for moderate file and system caches which result in a very responsive system.
OS Version	Although 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

4 years ago, 4 years ago.

System	Acer Veriton M680 (all builds)
Motherboard	Acer Veriton M680G
Memory	6.1 GB free of 8 GB @ 1.3 GHz
Display	1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OS	Windows 7
BIOS Date	20100527
Uptime	0.2 Days
Run Date	Jan 13 '20 at 06:50
Run Duration	119 Seconds
Run User	THA-User
Background CPU	2%

PC Performing above expectations (69^th percentile)

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

Processor	Bench	Normal	Heavy	Server
Intel Core i5 660 5,902 User benchmarks, average bench 49% CPU 1, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 4 threads Base clock 3.35 GHz Performing above expectations (85^th percentile)	53% Above average	Memory 68.4 1-Core 89.8 2-Core 143 59% 100 Pts	4-Core 218 8-Core 222 29% 220 Pts	64-Core 220 14% 220 Pts
Poor: 37% ↑ This bench: 53% Great: 55%

Graphics Card	Bench	3D DX9	3D DX10	3D DX11
Intel HD Graphics (Clarkdale 0.733/0.9 GHz) 20,588 User benchmarks, average bench 1% Acer(1025 0290) 3.8GB Driver: igdumd64.dll Ver. 8.15.10.2993 Performing as expected (50^th percentile)	0.72% Terrible	Lighting 0.97 Reflection 1.27 Parallax 0.91 1% 1.05 fps	MRender 1.52 Gravity 0.73 Splatting 0.13 0% 0.8 fps
Poor: 1% ↑ This bench: 0.72% Great: 1%

Drive	Bench	Sequential	Random 4k	Deep queue 4k
WD WD3200AAJS-08L7A 320GB 7 User benchmarks, average bench 49% 258GB free (System drive) Firmware: 03.0 SusWrite @10s intervals: 86 85 87 87 90 92 MB/s Performing above expectations (71^st percentile)	52.6% Above average	Read 95.4 Write 90.2 Mixed 58.5 SusWrite 87.8 61% 83 MB/s	4K Read 0.6 4K Write 1.9 4K Mixed 0.9 160% 1.13 MB/s
Poor: 38% ↑ This bench: 52.6% Great: 56%

Memory Kit	Bench	Multi core	Single core	Latency
Unknown 9905403-151.A00LF 0198 99P5471-002.A00LF 0725 RMB4GB58HCA3-13HC 8GB 2 User benchmarks, average bench 30% 1334, 1334, 1334 MHz 2048, 2048, 4096 MB Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples	32% Below average	MC Read 10.5 MC Write 9.2 MC Mixed 13.9 32% 11.2 GB/s	SC Read 8.5 SC Write 7.5 SC Mixed 8.8 24% 8.27 GB/s	Latency 105 38% 105 ns
Poor: 28% ↑ This bench: 32% Great: 32%

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

System Memory Latency Ladder

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

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

Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?

Marketing teams operate large numbers of reddit accounts. Because UserBenchmark’s data often contradicts their marketing spiel, they systematically attack our reputation.

Why don’t large PC brands support UserBenchmark?

PC brands make a lot of money on flagship hardware sales: 4090, 14900KS, 7950X3D etc. We help consumers get comparable 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 praise us. Additionally, brands spend more on marketing weaker products 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. 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 the last 13 years to providing comprehensive and accurate data to our users. As a result, most of our users return over and over again and collectively save millions every year.

The Best.

CPU	GPU	SSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170	Nvidia RTX 4060 $293	Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $120	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) $39	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