Asrock B450M-HDV R4.0

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 65%
Battle cruiser
Desktop
Desktop 93%
Nuclear submarine
Workstation
Workstation 58%
Gunboat
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing above expectations (72nd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 28 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
ProcessorWith an outstanding single core score, this CPU is the cat's whiskers: It demolishes everyday tasks such as web browsing, office apps and audio/video playback. Additionally this processor can handle moderate workstation, and even light server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 82.4%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is very 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 Drive203% 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)
Memory28 GB free of 32 GB @ 2.9 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colori
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20201218
Uptime0 Days
Run DateJan 09 '21 at 06:22
Run Duration273 Seconds
Run User JPN-User
Background CPU0%
Watch Gameplay: 1660 + 9600K How to compare your gameplay

 PC Performing above expectations (72nd 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 4.2 GHz (avg)
Performing above expectations (65th percentile)
82.4% Excellent
Memory 76.4
1-Core 155
2-Core 295
94% 175 Pts
4-Core 475
8-Core 748
75% 612 Pts
64-Core 746
46% 746 Pts
Poor: 69%
This bench: 82.4%
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: 461.09
Performing way above expectations (93rd percentile)
72.4% Very good
Lighting 96.6
Reflection 92
Parallax 79.5
79% 89.4 fps
MRender 66.7
Gravity 80.6
Splatting 72.8
60% 73.4 fps
Poor: 62%
This bench: 72.4%
Great: 73%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Plextor PX-256M9PeG 256GB
114GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 1.07
SusWrite @10s intervals: 300 237 220 260 216 219 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (94th percentile)
203% Outstanding
Read 1,907
Write 779
Mixed 944
SusWrite 242
213% 968 MB/s
4K Read 61
4K Write 159
4K Mixed 83.5
284% 101 MB/s
DQ Read 772
DQ Write 281
DQ Mixed 457
356% 503 MB/s
Poor: 102%
This bench: 203%
Great: 205%
Samsung 860 Evo 250GB-$52
38GB free
Firmware: RVT04B6Q
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 7600
Write 7,591
Mixed 7,464
1,689% 7,552 MB/s
4K Read 608
4K Write 364
4K Mixed 421
1,654% 464 MB/s
DQ Read 1,713
DQ Write 1,414
DQ Mixed 1,396
1,091% 1,508 MB/s
Poor: 75% Great: 128%
Ngff 2242 120GB SSD
76GB free
Firmware: S0628A0
SusWrite @10s intervals: 406 406 407 406 135 50 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (89th percentile)
83.4% Excellent
Read 477
Write 398
Mixed 302
SusWrite 302
83% 370 MB/s
4K Read 24
4K Write 112
4K Mixed 22.4
124% 52.8 MB/s
DQ Read 81.4
DQ Write 337
DQ Mixed 27.5
74% 148 MB/s
Poor: 38%
This bench: 83.4%
Great: 88%
Seagate ST2000LM007-1R8174 2TB
1TB free
Firmware: SBC1
SusWrite @10s intervals: 111 117 115 117 119 119 MB/s
Performing above expectations (71st percentile)
55.4% Above average
Read 76.6
Write 128
Mixed 46.2
SusWrite 116
67% 91.9 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1.4
4K Mixed 0.2
73% 0.73 MB/s
Poor: 22%
This bench: 55.4%
Great: 67%
Seagate ST2000DM005-2CW102 2TB
2TB free
Firmware: SC11
SusWrite @10s intervals: 182 176 182 183 180 185 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (99th percentile)
93.4% Outstanding
Read 143
Write 151
Mixed 56.5
SusWrite 181
97% 133 MB/s
4K Read 1.3
4K Write 5.9
4K Mixed 0.7
241% 2.63 MB/s
Poor: 38%
This bench: 93.4%
Great: 88%
I-O DATA HDEL-UT 3TB
907GB free, PID 0160
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 167 165 164 169 168 169 MB/s
Performing above expectations (81st percentile)
59.6% Above average
Read 112
Write 112
Mixed 38.7
SusWrite 167
146% 107 MB/s
4K Read 0.9
4K Write 2.2
4K Mixed 0.8
105% 1.3 MB/s
Poor: 33%
This bench: 59.6%
Great: 67%
BUFFALO HD-EDS-A 3TB
52GB free, PID 02cc
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 89 91 91 90 90 90 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (11th percentile)
39.8% Below average
Read 90.9
Write 94.9
Mixed 74.7
SusWrite 90.1
120% 87.7 MB/s
4K Read 1
4K Write 2.2
4K Mixed 0.9
109% 1.37 MB/s
Poor: 36%
This bench: 39.8%
Great: 80%
I-O DATA HDCZ-UT 3TB
1.5TB free, PID 016c
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 143 142 142 143 142 143 MB/s
Performing above expectations (75th percentile)
59.8% Above average
Read 143
Write 148
Mixed 107
SusWrite 143
184% 135 MB/s
4K Read 1
4K Write 2.5
4K Mixed 1
123% 1.5 MB/s
Poor: 37%
This bench: 59.8%
Great: 72%
BUFFALO External HDD 2TB
888GB free, PID 0286
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 193 199 196 199 199 200 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (90th percentile)
76.1% Very good
Read 190
Write 152
Mixed 78
SusWrite 198
203% 154 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.7
4K Mixed 0.8
88% 1.07 MB/s
Poor: 22%
This bench: 76.1%
Great: 76%
BUFFALO External HDD 2TB
234GB free, PID 024d
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 15 14 14 14 14 14 MB/s
Performing as expected (40th percentile)
13.6% Very poor
Read 35.3
Write 26.7
Mixed 27.3
SusWrite 13.9
33% 25.8 MB/s
4K Read 0.8
4K Write 1.7
4K Mixed 0.9
91% 1.13 MB/s
Poor: 13%
This bench: 13.6%
Great: 19%
BUFFALO HD-PCFU3 500GB
110GB free, PID 0290
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 68 68 68 68 81 82 MB/s
Performing above expectations (80th percentile)
33.5% Below average
Read 85.2
Write 86.7
Mixed 34.5
SusWrite 72.5
92% 69.7 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 1.7
4K Mixed 0.7
84% 0.97 MB/s
Poor: 17%
This bench: 33.5%
Great: 37%
I-O DATA HDPC-U 750GB
36GB free, PID 0135
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 13 13 13 13 13 13 MB/s
Relative performance (0th percentile)
11.7% Very poor
Read 32.6
Write 23.7
Mixed 24
SusWrite 13.3
30% 23.4 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 1.3
4K Mixed 0.6
66% 0.8 MB/s
Poor: 13%
This bench: 11.7%
Great: 22%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown KD4AGU88C-26N190A 2x16GB
2 of 2 slots used
32GB DIMM DDR4 clocked @ 2866 MHz
Performing as expected (46th percentile)
86.6% Excellent
MC Read 36.4
MC Write 21.5
MC Mixed 35.2
89% 31 GB/s
SC Read 26.8
SC Write 21.7
SC Mixed 34.7
79% 27.7 GB/s
Latency 87.5
46% 87.5 ns
Poor: 69%
This bench: 86.6%
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