Asus M5A99X EVO

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 22%
Surfboard
Desktop
Desktop 74%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 18%
Surfboard
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (54th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 46 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 68.3%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
Graphics26.6% is a below average 3D score (RTX 2060S = 100%). This GPU can handle older games but it will struggle to render recent games at resolutions greater than 1080p. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive58.1% is a reasonable SSD score. This drive enables fast boots and responsive applications.
Memory24GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's far more than any current game requires. 24GB will also allow for large file and system caches, virtual machine hosting, software development, video editing and batch multimedia processing.
OS VersionAlthough Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
Run History
MotherboardAsus M5A99X EVO  (all builds)
Memory20 GB free of 24 GB @ 1.6 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit 色彩, 1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit 色彩
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20130410
Uptime0 Days
Run DateJan 29 '20 at 08:12
Run Duration201 Seconds
Run User HKG-User
Background CPU7%

 PC Performing as expected (54th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD FX-6300-$90
Socket 942, 1 CPU, 3 cores, 6 threads
Base clock 4.2 GHz, turbo 4.15 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (100th percentile)
68.3% Good
Memory 91.9
1-Core 74.3
2-Core 143
64% 103 Pts
4-Core 247
8-Core 332
37% 289 Pts
64-Core 326
20% 326 Pts
Poor: 44%
This bench: 68.3%
Great: 62%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD RX 470-$126
CLim: 1242 MHz, MLim: 1650 MHz, Ram: 8GB, Driver: 20.1.3
Relative performance (0th percentile) - GPU OC Guide
26.6% Poor
Lighting 20.1
Reflection 23
Parallax 81.4
16% 41.5 fps
MRender 62
Gravity 60
Splatting 51.3
47% 57.7 fps
Poor: 32%
This bench: 26.6%
Great: 47%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Kingston SSDNow V300 60GB-$76
9GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 505ABBF1
SusWrite @10s intervals: 75 73 75 79 83 74 MB/s
Performing above expectations (76th percentile)
58.1% Above average
Read 390
Write 76.2
Mixed 127
SusWrite 76.2
36% 167 MB/s
4K Read 25.4
4K Write 59.6
4K Mixed 30.8
110% 38.6 MB/s
DQ Read 100
DQ Write 77.4
DQ Mixed 88.9
66% 88.9 MB/s
Poor: 27%
This bench: 58.1%
Great: 69%
SGT S800 128GB SSD
80GB free
Firmware: N1126K
SusWrite @10s intervals: 145 145 145 145 145 144 MB/s
Performing as expected (50th percentile)
70.6% Very good
Read 489
Write 145
Mixed 204
SusWrite 145
54% 246 MB/s
4K Read 24.1
4K Write 61.5
4K Mixed 30.8
108% 38.8 MB/s
DQ Read 241
DQ Write 144
DQ Mixed 142
119% 176 MB/s
Poor: 64%
This bench: 70.6%
Great: 81%
WD Blue 500GB (2010)-$25
326GB free
Firmware: 19.01H19
SusWrite @10s intervals: 78 80 80 81 80 81 MB/s
Performing below expectations (37th percentile)
48.8% Average
Read 90
Write 93
Mixed 63.8
SusWrite 79.9
60% 81.7 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.9
4K Mixed 0.9
164% 1.17 MB/s
Poor: 24%
This bench: 48.8%
Great: 69%
WDC WD10 EZEX-08M2NA0 1TB
113GB free, PID 9561
SusWrite @10s intervals: 16 12 12 12 11 11 MB/s
Performing below expectations (39th percentile)
29.4% Poor
Read 131
Write 82.7
Mixed 69.8
SusWrite 12.4
88% 74 MB/s
4K Read 1.3
4K Write 2.4
4K Mixed 1.2
127% 1.63 MB/s
Poor: 26%
This bench: 29.4%
Great: 70%
WDC WD64 00AAKS-00A7B0 640GB
187GB free, PID 9561
SusWrite @10s intervals: 85 88 88 88 87 87 MB/s
Performing as expected (50th percentile)
40.7% Average
Read 102
Write 102
Mixed 62.3
SusWrite 87.2
118% 88.4 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 2.2
4K Mixed 1
111% 1.3 MB/s
Poor: 39%
This bench: 40.7%
Great: 44%
ST2000DM 006-2DM164 2TB
320GB free, PID 9561
SusWrite @10s intervals: 2.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 2.3 MB/s
Performing as expected (42nd percentile)
23.3% Poor
Read 135
Write 141
Mixed 57.5
SusWrite 1
103% 83.7 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 1.1
4K Mixed 0.7
63% 0.77 MB/s
Poor: 15%
This bench: 23.3%
Great: 73%
TOSHIBA DT01ACA200 2TB
651GB free, PID 9561
SusWrite @10s intervals: 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 1.4 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (15th percentile)
32.2% Below average
Read 171
Write 174
Mixed 64.2
SusWrite 0.4
124% 102 MB/s
4K Read 1.1
4K Write 2.3
4K Mixed 0.8
110% 1.4 MB/s
Poor: 32%
This bench: 32.2%
Great: 66%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown 24GB
1600, 1600, 1600, 1600 MHz
8192, 4096, 8192, 4096 MB
Performing above expectations (76th percentile)
47.6% Average
MC Read 20.2
MC Write 14.1
MC Mixed 16.1
48% 16.8 GB/s
SC Read 10.6
SC Write 8.8
SC Mixed 12.5
30% 10.6 GB/s
Latency 64.2
62% 64.2 ns
Poor: 25%
This bench: 47.6%
Great: 72%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical M5A99X EVO Builds (Compare 322 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 21%
Surfboard
Desktop
Desktop 67%
Battle cruiser
Workstation
Workstation 17%
Surfboard

Motherboard: Asus M5A99X EVO - $300

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 80% - Very good Total price: $517
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 more to market weaker products which puts their youtubers at odds with UserBenchmark.
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 return repeatedly.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170Nvidia RTX 4060 $293Crucial 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) $29Corsair 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