Asrock Z77 Extreme4

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 26%
Raft
Desktop
Desktop 83%
Aircraft carrier
Workstation
Workstation 21%
Surfboard
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (48th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 52 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 79.9%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is good.
Graphics29.9% 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 Drive33.7% is low SSD score. With a better SSD this system will boot faster, make applications more responsive and reduce IO wait times.
Memory12GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's more than sufficient for nearly all games. 12GB 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.
Run History
MotherboardAsrock Z77 Extreme4  (all builds)
Memory6.8 GB free of 12 GB @ 1.3 GHz
Display1920 x 1200 - 32 Bit kolorów, 1920 x 1200 - 32 Bit kolorów
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20130711
Uptime8 Days
Run DateAug 27 '21 at 18:24
Run Duration215 Seconds
Run User POL-User
Background CPU3%

 PC Performing as expected (48th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i5-3570K-$30
CPUSocket, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 3.4 GHz, turbo 4.2 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (97th percentile)
79.9% Very good
Memory 84.2
1-Core 117
2-Core 232
81% 144 Pts
4-Core 432
8-Core 460
59% 446 Pts
64-Core 454
28% 454 Pts
Poor: 54%
This bench: 79.9%
Great: 79%
Graphics Cards Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Intel HD 4000 (Desktop 1.15 GHz)-$15
ASRock(1849 0162) 2GB
Driver: igdumdim64.dll Ver. 10.18.10.5161
Performing as expected (50th percentile)
3.27% Terrible
Lighting 4
Reflection 1.9
Parallax 2.8
3% 2.9 fps
MRender 4.5
Gravity 2.4
Splatting 4.9
3% 3.93 fps
Poor: 3%
This bench: 3.27%
Great: 3%
AMD R9 280X-$500
PwrHis(1787 3001) 3GB
CLim: 1000 MHz, MLim: 1500 MHz, Ram: 3GB, Driver: 19.20
Performing below potential (7th percentile) - GPU OC Guide
29.9% Poor
Lighting 39.8
Reflection 31.9
Parallax 51.8
32% 41.2 fps
MRender 28.7
Gravity 44.2
Splatting 22
25% 31.6 fps
Poor: 31%
This bench: 29.9%
Great: 39%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
GOODRAM 120GB
23GB free (System drive)
Firmware: SBFM21.1
SusWrite @10s intervals: 45 67 33 17 33 50 MB/s
Performing below potential (3rd percentile) - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable
33.7% Below average
Read 174
Write 93.1
Mixed 110
SusWrite 40.9
23% 104 MB/s
4K Read 17.3
4K Write 42.1
4K Mixed 12
64% 23.8 MB/s
DQ Read 90.1
DQ Write 154
DQ Mixed 90.7
78% 112 MB/s
Poor: 40%
This bench: 33.7%
Great: 97%
Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 500GB-$23
16GB free
Firmware: KC45
SusWrite @10s intervals: 121 125 124 122 98 124 MB/s
Performing above expectations (67th percentile)
64.3% Good
Read 105
Write 98.4
Mixed 60.3
SusWrite 119
70% 95.8 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 1
4K Mixed 0.8
128% 0.77 MB/s
Poor: 27%
This bench: 64.3%
Great: 88%
WD Blue 2.5" 640GB (2010)-$60
39GB free
Firmware: 01.01A01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 52 52 53 53 53 51 MB/s
Performing below expectations (36th percentile)
31.6% Below average
Read 57.5
Write 54
Mixed 41.4
SusWrite 52.3
38% 51.3 MB/s
4K Read 0.4
4K Write 1.7
4K Mixed 0.5
104% 0.87 MB/s
Poor: 19%
This bench: 31.6%
Great: 48%
WD Blue 250GB (2010)-$37
105GB free
Firmware: 17.01H17
SusWrite @10s intervals: 87 91 90 90 91 92 MB/s
Performing above expectations (63rd percentile)
56.5% Above average
Read 107
Write 102
Mixed 65.3
SusWrite 90
67% 90.9 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 2
4K Mixed 0.9
166% 1.2 MB/s
Poor: 21%
This bench: 56.5%
Great: 70%
Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB-$80
118GB free
Firmware: SD1A
SusWrite @10s intervals: 60 62 61 61 60 61 MB/s
Performing as expected (51st percentile)
46.5% Average
Read 101
Write 94.8
Mixed 57.7
SusWrite 61
58% 78.6 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.9
4K Mixed 0.9
164% 1.17 MB/s
Poor: 27%
This bench: 46.5%
Great: 59%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
GR1333D364L9/4G 075D 12GB
1333, 1333, 1333 MHz
4096, 4096, 4096 MB
Performing as expected (56th percentile)
38.7% Below average
MC Read 13.2
MC Write 13.3
MC Mixed 11.6
36% 12.7 GB/s
SC Read 11.6
SC Write 13
SC Mixed 12.9
36% 12.5 GB/s
Latency 73.1
55% 73.1 ns
Poor: 31%
This bench: 38.7%
Great: 51%

 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 8 7 60 24.1" 1280 720 NEC68D5 EA244WMi
Typical Z77 Extreme4 Builds (Compare 4,039 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 37%
Jet ski
Desktop
Desktop 77%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 29%
Raft

Motherboard: Asrock Z77 Extreme4 - $159

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 57% - Above average Total price: $465
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) $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