Asus P7P55D

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 14%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 44%
Speed boat
Workstation
Workstation 12%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing below expectations (28th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 72 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components. Use the charts in the benchmark sections of this report to identify problem areas.
ProcessorWith a relatively low single core score, this CPU can handle email, light web browsing and basic audio/video playback, but it will struggle to handle CPU intensive tasks. Finally, with a gaming score of 33.2%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is poor.
Graphics35.5% 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 Drive17.9% is an extremely low SSD score, this system will benefit from a faster SSD.
Memory16GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's more than sufficient for nearly all games. 16GB also allows for very large file and system caches, software development and batch photo editing/processing.
OS VersionAlthough Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
High background CPU (28%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
MotherboardAsus P7P55D  (all builds)
Memory4.4 GB free of 16 GB @ 1.3 GHz
Display1280 x 1024 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20111020
Uptime14.5 Days
Run DateJul 05 '21 at 01:10
Run Duration280 Seconds
Run User CAN-User
Background CPU 28%

 PC Performing below expectations (28th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i5-750-$72
LGA1156, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 2.75 GHz, turbo 2.7 GHz (avg)
Performing way below expectations (2nd percentile)
33.2% Below average
Memory 39.7
1-Core 52.3
2-Core 71
33% 54.3 Pts
4-Core 148
8-Core 192
22% 170 Pts
64-Core 222
14% 222 Pts
Poor: 48%
This bench: 33.2%
Great: 71%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD R9 380-$200
CLim: 1010 MHz, MLim: 1425 MHz, Ram: 4GB, Driver: 20.10.35.02
Performing way above expectations (99th percentile)
35.5% Below average
Lighting 45.3
Reflection 47.6
Parallax 57.9
37% 50.3 fps
MRender 45.6
Gravity 44.1
Splatting 33.3
33% 41 fps
Poor: 31%
This bench: 35.5%
Great: 35%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung 850 Evo 250GB-$100
168GB free (System drive)
Firmware: EMT02B6Q
SusWrite @10s intervals: 35 27 41 49 47 47 MB/s
Relative performance (0th percentile) - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable
17.9% Very poor
Read 137
Write 108
Mixed 154
SusWrite 41.2
25% 110 MB/s
4K Read 7.6
4K Write 8.1
4K Mixed 7.9
26% 7.87 MB/s
DQ Read 28.8
DQ Write 53.7
DQ Mixed 36.4
29% 39.6 MB/s
Poor: 72%
This bench: 17.9%
Great: 124%
WD Green 1TB (2010)-$139
25GB free
Firmware: 80.00A80
SusWrite @10s intervals: 50 51 51 52 52 52 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (4th percentile)
26.8% Poor
Read 41.6
Write 47.3
Mixed 40.9
SusWrite 51.4
34% 45.3 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.5
4K Mixed 0.6
124% 0.93 MB/s
Poor: 29%
This bench: 26.8%
Great: 59%
WD Green 1TB (2010)-$139
160GB free
Firmware: 50.0AB50
SusWrite @10s intervals: 77 81 81 83 83 84 MB/s
Performing as expected (52nd percentile)
43.9% Average
Read 71.2
Write 76.8
Mixed 51.4
SusWrite 81.5
52% 70.2 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.2
4K Mixed 0.7
129% 0.87 MB/s
Poor: 29%
This bench: 43.9%
Great: 59%
WD Green 2TB (2011)-$55
67GB free
Firmware: 51.0AB51
SusWrite @10s intervals: 52 51 60 60 60 56 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (9th percentile)
32.7% Below average
Read 57.5
Write 59.5
Mixed 38.9
SusWrite 56.3
39% 53 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1
4K Mixed 0.7
121% 0.77 MB/s
Poor: 31%
This bench: 32.7%
Great: 67%
Lexar USB Flash Drive 128GB
18GB free, PID a838
Operating at USB 2.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 18 19 19 1 7.1 19 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - benchmarks incomplete
Read 26.7
Write 9.2
Mixed 2.7
SusWrite 13.9
15% 13.1 MB/s
4K Read 1.2
4K Write 0.4
27% 0.8 MB/s
Poor: 9% Great: 37%
ST3000DM 001-1CH166 3TB
47GB free, PID 2551
Operating at USB 2.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 19 20 20 26 24 20 MB/s
Performing below expectations (25th percentile)
14.5% Very poor
Read 31.1
Write 26.3
Mixed 26.1
SusWrite 21.3
35% 26.2 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.7
4K Mixed 0.8
88% 1.07 MB/s
Poor: 14%
This bench: 14.5%
Great: 66%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown 16GB
1333, 1333, 1333, 1333 MHz
4096, 4096, 4096, 4096 MB
Performing way below expectations (3rd percentile)
22.3% Poor
MC Read 9.5
MC Write 6.7
MC Mixed 7.7
23% 7.97 GB/s
SC Read 6.3
SC Write 5.2
SC Mixed 6.4
17% 5.97 GB/s
Latency 204
20% 204 ns
Poor: 25%
This bench: 22.3%
Great: 54%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

 SkillBench Score 0: 0R 0G 0B (High Scores)

Measures user input accuracy relative to the given hardware

Score Hit Rate Shots EFps 0.1% Low Refresh Rate Screen Resolution Monitor
0% 0% 0 6 5 60 20" 1280 720 ACR0008 Acer X203W
Typical P7P55D Builds (Compare 1,217 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 20%
Surfboard
Desktop
Desktop 69%
Battle cruiser
Workstation
Workstation 16%
Surfboard

Motherboard: Asus P7P55D

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 88% - Excellent Total price: $159
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 youtubers extra to promote inferior products but UserBenchmark’s data exposes them.
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 keep returning.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170Nvidia RTX 4060 $293Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $122Nvidia 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) $28Corsair 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