Asus M5A97 R2.0

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 38%
Jet ski
Desktop
Desktop 70%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 30%
Sail boat
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (53rd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 47 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 60.9%, 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 Drive50.8% 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.
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)
Memory8.7 GB free of 12 GB @ 1.1 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit Farben
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20150626
Uptime0.6 Days
Run DateJan 15 '20 at 02:31
Run Duration240 Seconds
Run User DEU-User
Background CPU7%

 PC Performing as expected (53rd 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 (67th percentile)
60.9% Good
Memory 80.4
1-Core 75.6
2-Core 127
58% 94.3 Pts
4-Core 225
8-Core 338
35% 282 Pts
64-Core 313
19% 313 Pts
Poor: 48%
This bench: 60.9%
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: 432.0
Performing below potential (55th percentile) - GPU OC Guide
59.4% Above average
Lighting 74.7
Reflection 78.2
Parallax 69.2
61% 74 fps
MRender 76.3
Gravity 70.6
Splatting 62.7
56% 69.9 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: 411 266 268 268 271 270 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (6th percentile)
152% Outstanding
Read 987
Write 486
Mixed 930
SusWrite 292
150% 674 MB/s
4K Read 54.5
4K Write 116
4K Mixed 71
235% 80.5 MB/s
DQ Read 532
DQ Write 448
DQ Mixed 468
357% 483 MB/s
Poor: 141%
This bench: 152%
Great: 273%
Intenso SATAIII 256GB
186GB free (System drive)
Firmware: S022
SusWrite @10s intervals: 320 93 74 38 56 56 MB/s
Performing below expectations (33rd percentile)
50.8% Above average
Read 495
Write 394
Mixed 28.2
SusWrite 106
56% 256 MB/s
4K Read 25.1
4K Write 15.9
4K Mixed 5.5
54% 15.5 MB/s
DQ Read 196
DQ Write 236
DQ Mixed 42
80% 158 MB/s
Poor: 34%
This bench: 50.8%
Great: 98%
Samsung SP2004C 200GB-$46
172GB free
Firmware: VM10
SusWrite @10s intervals: 57 57 58 58 57 57 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (98th percentile)
32% Below average
Read 53.9
Write 58.7
Mixed 38
SusWrite 57.3
38% 52 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1.3
4K Mixed 0.8
138% 0.9 MB/s
Poor: 14%
This bench: 32%
Great: 32%
Samsung SP2004C 200GB-$46
40GB free
Firmware: VM10
SusWrite @10s intervals: 17 18 18 19 19 19 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (19th percentile)
19.1% Very poor
Read 47.8
Write 54.8
Mixed 36.8
SusWrite 18.4
29% 39.4 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1.2
4K Mixed 0.7
125% 0.83 MB/s
Poor: 14%
This bench: 19.1%
Great: 32%
Hitachi HDT721010SLA360 1TB-$69
421GB free
Firmware: ST6O
SusWrite @10s intervals: 102 98 102 102 100 101 MB/s
Performing above expectations (72nd percentile)
53.9% Above average
Read 86.9
Write 85.3
Mixed 39.6
SusWrite 101
57% 78.1 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 2
4K Mixed 0.9
166% 1.2 MB/s
Poor: 31%
This bench: 53.9%
Great: 61%
Seagate IronWolf 4TB (2016)-$90
3TB free
Firmware: SC60
Relative performance n/a - benchmarks incomplete
Read 188
Mixed 85.7
103% 137 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.8
4K Mixed 0.9
162% 1.13 MB/s
Poor: 62% Great: 108%
Samsung FIT USB 3.0 32GB-$27
30GB free, PID 1000
Operating at USB 3.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 28 25 26 24 26 24 MB/s
Performing above expectations (62nd percentile)
73% Very good
Read 201
Write 42.9
Mixed 79.6
SusWrite 25.7
93% 87.4 MB/s
4K Read 8.5
4K Write 11.8
4K Mixed 10.7
797% 10.3 MB/s
DQ Read 15.8
DQ Write 19.5
DQ Mixed 12
1,130% 15.8 MB/s
Poor: 13%
This bench: 73%
Great: 90%
ST4000DM 004-2CV104 4TB
2.5TB free, PID 0611
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 165 166 161 159 162 167 MB/s
Performing above expectations (70th percentile)
59% Above average
Read 138
Write 142
Mixed 109
SusWrite 163
189% 138 MB/s
4K Read 5.2
4K Write 0.7
4K Mixed 0.4
57% 2.1 MB/s
Poor: 8%
This bench: 59%
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
Relative performance (0th percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
36.5% Below average
MC Read 15.1
MC Write 9.3
MC Mixed 13.1
36% 12.5 GB/s
SC Read 9.1
SC Write 9
SC Mixed 10.7
27% 9.6 GB/s
Latency 79.7
50% 79.7 ns
Poor: 39%
This bench: 36.5%
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