Asrock 990FX Killer

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 17%
Surfboard
Desktop
Desktop 63%
Destroyer
Workstation
Workstation 14%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (52nd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 48 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 58.2%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is average.
Graphics28.2% 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)
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.
Sub-optimal background CPU (11%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
MotherboardAsrock 990FX Killer  (all builds)
Memory27 GB free of 32 GB @ 1.1 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20160106
Uptime0 Days
Run DateMar 06 '21 at 09:13
Run Duration207 Seconds
Run User IDN-User
Background CPU 11%

 PC Performing as expected (52nd percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD FX-8320-$75
CPUSocket, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 8 threads
Base clock 3.5 GHz, turbo 3.45 GHz (avg)
Performing as expected (45th percentile)
58.2% Above average
Memory 79
1-Core 62.7
2-Core 122
54% 87.8 Pts
4-Core 203
8-Core 388
35% 295 Pts
64-Core 384
24% 384 Pts
Poor: 47%
This bench: 58.2%
Great: 65%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 760-$209
MSI(1462 2847) 2GB
CLim: 1311 MHz, MLim: 1502 MHz, Ram: 2GB, Driver: 461.72
Performing way above expectations (95th percentile)
28.2% Poor
Lighting 32.5
Reflection 32.6
Parallax 42
26% 35.7 fps
MRender 42.1
Gravity 41.6
Splatting 33.7
31% 39.1 fps
Poor: 24%
This bench: 28.2%
Great: 28%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung 840 Evo 120GB-$85
44GB free (System drive)
Firmware: EXT0DB6Q
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 3,277
Write 1,926
Mixed 2,022
532% 2,408 MB/s
4K Read 190
4K Write 76.6
4K Mixed 77
427% 114 MB/s
DQ Read 301
DQ Write 302
DQ Mixed 346
248% 316 MB/s
Poor: 63% Great: 108%
Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 1TB-$25
592GB free
Firmware: CC4B
SusWrite @10s intervals: 132 148 152 152 151 153 MB/s
Performing below expectations (28th percentile)
80.6% Excellent
Read 133
Write 112
Mixed 95.9
SusWrite 148
90% 122 MB/s
4K Read 0.8
4K Write 1.2
4K Mixed 0.9
156% 0.97 MB/s
Poor: 55%
This bench: 80.6%
Great: 112%
Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 250GB-$33
134GB free
Firmware: CC37
SusWrite @10s intervals: 83 88 90 89 89 84 MB/s
Performing as expected (41st percentile)
47.7% Average
Read 79
Write 77.7
Mixed 54.1
SusWrite 87.1
55% 74.5 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1.7
4K Mixed 0.9
156% 1.07 MB/s
Poor: 19%
This bench: 47.7%
Great: 68%
WD Blue 160GB (2007)-$40
47GB free
Firmware: 58.01D58
SusWrite @10s intervals: 63 68 69 69 69 69 MB/s
Performing as expected (48th percentile)
38.6% Below average
Read 66.5
Write 67.3
Mixed 46.5
SusWrite 67.8
46% 62 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1.9
4K Mixed 0.9
160% 1.13 MB/s
Poor: 18%
This bench: 38.6%
Great: 59%
Generic Flash Disk 8GB
8GB free, PID 6387
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.1 MB/s
Performing below expectations (33rd percentile)
3.35% Terrible
Read 13.5
Write 4.2
Mixed 4.2
SusWrite 4.2
7% 6.53 MB/s
4K Read 2
4K Write 0
4K Mixed 0
7% 0.67 MB/s
Poor: 2%
This bench: 3.35%
Great: 7%
Seagate Backup+ BK 1TB
757GB free, PID ab21
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 92 98 98 98 99 99 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (90th percentile)
40.7% Average
Read 87
Write 63.4
Mixed 55.5
SusWrite 97.3
101% 75.8 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 2.2
4K Mixed 0.8
104% 1.17 MB/s
Poor: 11%
This bench: 40.7%
Great: 43%
Maxtor OneTouch III 80GB
74GB free, PID 7250
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 23 25 25 25 25 25 MB/s
Performing as expected (60th percentile)
11.8% Very poor
Read 24.5
Write 24.4
Mixed 20
SusWrite 24.4
32% 23.3 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 0.9
4K Mixed 0.5
50% 0.63 MB/s
Poor: 9%
This bench: 11.8%
Great: 15%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Corsair CMZ16GX3M2A1600C9 CMZ16GX3M2A1600C10 CMZ16GX3M2A1600C9 CMZ16GX3M2A1600C10 32GB
1066, 1066, 1066, 1066 MHz
8192, 8192, 8192, 8192 MB
Performing below potential (27th percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
38.5% Below average
MC Read 15.2
MC Write 13.2
MC Mixed 12.3
39% 13.6 GB/s
SC Read 9
SC Write 7.7
SC Mixed 10.5
26% 9.07 GB/s
Latency 82.3
49% 82.3 ns
Poor: 34%
This bench: 38.5%
Great: 49%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical 990FX Killer Builds (Compare 259 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 36%
Jet ski
Desktop
Desktop 69%
Battle cruiser
Workstation
Workstation 29%
Raft

Motherboard: Asrock 990FX Killer - $154

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 72% - Very good Total price: $490
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