Asrock B450M-HDV R4.0

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 60%
Destroyer
Desktop
Desktop 88%
Aircraft carrier
Workstation
Workstation 53%
Yacht
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (59th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 41 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
ProcessorWith a brilliant single core score, this CPU is the business: It demolishes everyday tasks such as web browsing, office apps and audio/video playback. Additionally this processor can handle light workstation, and even some light server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 75.8%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is good.
Graphics72.4% is a good 3D score. This GPU can handle the majority of recent games at high resolutions and ultra detail levels.
Boot Drive207% is an exceptional SSD score. This drive is suitable for heavy workstation use, it will facilitate fast boots, responsive applications and allow for fast transfers of multi-gigabyte files.
Memory32GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's far more than any current game requires. 32GB 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
MotherboardAsrock B450M-HDV R4.0  (all builds)
Memory21.4 GB free of 32 GB @ 2.7 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colori
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20201218
Uptime0.7 Days
Run DateJan 06 '21 at 00:08
Run Duration276 Seconds
Run User JPN-User
Background CPU5%
Watch Gameplay: 1660 + 9600K How to compare your gameplay

 PC Performing as expected (59th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X-$150
AM4, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 8 threads
Base clock 3.8 GHz, turbo 3.9 GHz (avg)
Performing below expectations (25th percentile)
75.8% Very good
Memory 73.8
1-Core 139
2-Core 266
86% 160 Pts
4-Core 418
8-Core 658
66% 538 Pts
64-Core 642
40% 642 Pts
Poor: 69%
This bench: 75.8%
Great: 89%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 1660-$200
Nvidia(10DE 2184) ≥ 4GB
CLim: 2145 MHz, MLim: 2000 MHz, Ram: 6GB, Driver: 460.89
Performing way above expectations (91st percentile)
72.4% Very good
Lighting 96.3
Reflection 91.3
Parallax 79.6
78% 89.1 fps
MRender 66.8
Gravity 80.4
Splatting 73.7
60% 73.6 fps
Poor: 62%
This bench: 72.4%
Great: 73%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Plextor PX-256M9PeG 256GB
111GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 1.07
SusWrite @10s intervals: 369 169 177 161 160 148 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (95th percentile)
207% Outstanding
Read 1,932
Write 748
Mixed 946
SusWrite 197
210% 956 MB/s
4K Read 59.3
4K Write 143
4K Mixed 78.7
266% 93.7 MB/s
DQ Read 774
DQ Write 784
DQ Mixed 696
546% 751 MB/s
Poor: 102%
This bench: 207%
Great: 205%
Samsung 860 Evo 250GB-$52
38GB free
Firmware: RVT04B6Q
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 4,394
Write 3,879
Mixed 3,857
902% 4,044 MB/s
4K Read 542
4K Write 328
4K Mixed 392
1,497% 420 MB/s
DQ Read 1,594
DQ Write 1,242
DQ Mixed 1,294
1,002% 1,377 MB/s
Poor: 75% Great: 128%
Ngff 2242 120GB SSD
76GB free
Firmware: S0628A0
SusWrite @10s intervals: 405 405 407 254 54 48 MB/s
Performing above expectations (80th percentile)
80.1% Excellent
Read 479
Write 397
Mixed 344
SusWrite 262
83% 371 MB/s
4K Read 25
4K Write 108
4K Mixed 20.7
122% 51.4 MB/s
DQ Read 80.3
DQ Write 337
DQ Mixed 27.2
74% 148 MB/s
Poor: 38%
This bench: 80.1%
Great: 88%
Seagate ST2000LM007-1R8174 2TB
1TB free
Firmware: SBC1
SusWrite @10s intervals: 112 118 117 116 117 114 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (91st percentile)
64.4% Good
Read 108
Write 101
Mixed 66
SusWrite 116
72% 97.8 MB/s
4K Read 1
4K Write 2.2
4K Mixed 0.2
105% 1.13 MB/s
Poor: 22%
This bench: 64.4%
Great: 67%
Seagate ST2000DM005-2CW102 2TB
2TB free
Firmware: SC11
SusWrite @10s intervals: 183 183 181 180 178 182 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (99th percentile)
94.4% Outstanding
Read 146
Write 141
Mixed 60.1
SusWrite 181
96% 132 MB/s
4K Read 1.1
4K Write 5.9
4K Mixed 0.8
244% 2.6 MB/s
Poor: 38%
This bench: 94.4%
Great: 88%
I-O DATA HDEL-UT 3TB
817GB free, PID 0160
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 122 123 122 123 122 123 MB/s
Performing below expectations (38th percentile)
50.3% Above average
Read 114
Write 103
Mixed 39.2
SusWrite 122
125% 94.7 MB/s
4K Read 0.9
4K Write 2.2
4K Mixed 0.8
105% 1.3 MB/s
Poor: 33%
This bench: 50.3%
Great: 67%
BUFFALO HD-EDS-A 3TB
86GB free, PID 02cc
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 72 72 72 72 72 72 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (11th percentile)
35.8% Below average
Read 88.1
Write 90.7
Mixed 75
SusWrite 72.2
110% 81.5 MB/s
4K Read 1
4K Write 2.3
4K Mixed 0.9
112% 1.4 MB/s
Poor: 36%
This bench: 35.8%
Great: 80%
I-O DATA HDCZ-UT 3TB
1.5TB free, PID 016c
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 143 142 142 143 142 142 MB/s
Performing above expectations (75th percentile)
59.5% Above average
Read 142
Write 148
Mixed 93.5
SusWrite 143
178% 131 MB/s
4K Read 1
4K Write 2.5
4K Mixed 1
123% 1.5 MB/s
Poor: 37%
This bench: 59.5%
Great: 72%
BUFFALO External HDD 2TB
888GB free, PID 0286
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 199 204 207 206 207 208 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (98th percentile)
78% Very good
Read 190
Write 135
Mixed 81.5
SusWrite 205
201% 153 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.8
4K Mixed 0.8
91% 1.1 MB/s
Poor: 22%
This bench: 78%
Great: 76%
BUFFALO External HDD 2TB
259GB free, PID 024d
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 15 14 14 14 14 14 MB/s
Performing below expectations (20th percentile)
12.6% Very poor
Read 34.8
Write 26.8
Mixed 26.9
SusWrite 14.2
33% 25.7 MB/s
4K Read 0.8
4K Write 1.4
4K Mixed 0.9
81% 1.03 MB/s
Poor: 13%
This bench: 12.6%
Great: 19%
BUFFALO HD-PCFU3 500GB
116GB free, PID 0290
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 68 68 68 66 80 82 MB/s
Performing as expected (59th percentile)
33.3% Below average
Read 84.6
Write 86.7
Mixed 32.8
SusWrite 72.1
91% 69 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 1.7
4K Mixed 0.6
80% 0.93 MB/s
Poor: 17%
This bench: 33.3%
Great: 37%
I-O DATA HDPC-U 750GB
38GB free, PID 0135
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 10 13 12 13 13 11 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (13th percentile)
12.2% Very poor
Read 29.1
Write 21.5
Mixed 23.7
SusWrite 12
28% 21.6 MB/s
4K Read 0.4
4K Write 1.7
4K Mixed 0.7
83% 0.93 MB/s
Poor: 13%
This bench: 12.2%
Great: 22%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown KD4AGU88C-26N190A 2x16GB
2 of 2 slots used
32GB DIMM DDR4 clocked @ 2667 MHz
Performing below expectations (24th percentile)
80.8% Excellent
MC Read 34.3
MC Write 20.1
MC Mixed 32.9
83% 29.1 GB/s
SC Read 24.2
SC Write 19.7
SC Mixed 31.7
72% 25.2 GB/s
Latency 92.8
43% 92.8 ns
Poor: 69%
This bench: 80.8%
Great: 95%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical B450M-HDV R4.0 Builds (Compare 4,664 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 44%
Speed boat
Desktop
Desktop 79%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 41%
Speed boat

Motherboard: Asrock B450M-HDV R4.0 - $70

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 94% - Outstanding Total price: $418
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