Asus G53JW

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 7%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 64%
Destroyer
Workstation
Workstation 6%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing above expectations (66th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 34 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 61.7%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
Graphics8.27% 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 Drive48.8% is a reasonable SSD score. This drive enables fast boots and responsive applications.
Memory6GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's sufficient for the vast majority of games. 6GB is also enough for moderate file and system caches which result in a very responsive system.
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.
SystemAsus G53JW  (all builds)
MotherboardASUSTeK G53JW
Memory3.7 GB free of 6 GB @ 1.3 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20110128
Uptime0 Days
Run DateMay 31 '20 at 21:30
Run Duration126 Seconds
Run User CAN-User
Background CPU4%

 PC Performing above expectations (66th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i7 Q 740-$190
Socket 989, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 8 threads
Base clock 1.75 GHz, turbo 1.8 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (98th percentile)
61.7% Good
Memory 94
1-Core 76.8
2-Core 129
63% 99.9 Pts
4-Core 163
8-Core 231
25% 197 Pts
64-Core 235
15% 235 Pts
Poor: 38%
This bench: 61.7%
Great: 62%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GeForce GTX 460M
Asus(1043 2043) 1.5GB
CLim: 775 MHz, MLim: 775 MHz, Ram: 1.5GB, Driver: 391.35
Performing way above expectations (100th percentile)
8.27% Terrible
Lighting 9.3
Reflection 11
Parallax 7.75
8% 9.36 fps
MRender 12.8
Gravity 9.7
Splatting 12.5
10% 11.7 fps
Poor: 6%
This bench: 8.27%
Great: 7%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
OCZ ARC 100 240GB-$120
112GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 1.01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 220 217 219 201 220 219 MB/s
Performing below potential (0th percentile) - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable
48.8% Average
Read 222
Write 212
Mixed 197
SusWrite 216
48% 212 MB/s
4K Read 13.2
4K Write 37.6
4K Mixed 16.8
61% 22.5 MB/s
DQ Read 174
DQ Write 181
DQ Mixed 167
128% 174 MB/s
Poor: 65%
This bench: 48.8%
Great: 101%
Seagate Momentus 2.5" 500GB-$49
40GB free
Firmware: 0002SDM1
SusWrite @10s intervals: 66 72 79 86 92 82 MB/s
Performing as expected (60th percentile)
45.8% Average
Read 80
Write 73.6
Mixed 49.7
SusWrite 79.5
52% 70.7 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.1
4K Mixed 0.8
138% 0.87 MB/s
Poor: 18%
This bench: 45.8%
Great: 58%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown HMT325S6BFR8C-H9 80AD HMT325S6BFR8C-H9 80CE M471B5773CHS-CH9 6GB
1333, 1333, 1333 MHz
2048, 2048, 2048 MB
Performing above expectations (70th percentile)
37.9% Below average
MC Read 14.3
MC Write 11.2
MC Mixed 11.2
35% 12.2 GB/s
SC Read 11.6
SC Write 11
SC Mixed 11
32% 11.2 GB/s
Latency 59.8
67% 59.8 ns
Poor: 36%
This bench: 37.9%
Great: 39%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical G53JW Builds (Compare 39 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 6%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 54%
Yacht
Workstation
Workstation 5%
Tree trunk

System: Asus G53JW

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 40% - Average Total price: $310
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