Acer AST690/APFH/APSK50

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 1%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 16%
Surfboard
Workstation
Workstation 1%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing way below expectations (17th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 83 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 an extremely low single core score, this CPU can barely handle email and light web browsing. Finally, with a gaming score of 20.3%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is very poor.
Graphics1.1% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive4.73% is an extremely low SSD score, this system will benefit from a faster SSD.
Memory3GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and although it's sufficient for most games, some will benefit from up to 8GB of RAM. 3GB is also enough for modest file and system caches which allow for a responsive system.
OS VersionAlthough Windows 7 is still a viable option, it's now 14 years and 10 months old. This system should be upgraded to Windows 10 which is generally faster and has an improved set of core utilities including better versions of explorer and task manager.
Very high background CPU (58%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
SystemAcer AST690/APFH/APSK50  (all builds)
MotherboardAcer E946GZ
Memory0.7 GB free of 3 GB @ 0.7 GHz
Display1440 x 900 - 32 Bit colori
OSWindows 7
BIOS Date20070530
Uptime0.2 Days
Run DateNov 12 '21 at 01:00
Run Duration286 Seconds
Run User ITA-User
Background CPU 58%

 PC Performing way below expectations (17th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core2 4300-$70
Socket 775, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 2 threads
Base clock 1.8 GHz
Performing way below expectations (6th percentile)
20.3% Poor
Memory 34.8
1-Core 19
2-Core 26
19% 26.6 Pts
4-Core 35.5
8-Core 37
5% 36.2 Pts
64-Core 36.3
2% 36.3 Pts
Poor: 19%
This bench: 20.3%
Great: 38%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
ATI Radeon HD 4300
MSI(1462 1618) 512MB
Driver: aticfx64.dll Ver. 8.970.100.1100
Performing as expected (50th percentile)
1.1% Terrible
Lighting 1.4
Reflection 2.5
Parallax 1.5
1% 1.8 fps
MRender 1.4
Gravity 0.8
Splatting 1.5
1% 1.23 fps
Poor: 1%
This bench: 1.1%
Great: 1%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Emtec X150 120GB
17GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 0200I211
SusWrite @10s intervals: 30 6.3 20 26 18 2.6 MB/s
Relative performance (0th percentile) - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable
4.73% Terrible
Read 0.5
Write 40.8
Mixed 0.3
SusWrite 17.1
3% 14.7 MB/s
4K Read 0.4
4K Write 12.7
4K Mixed 0.7
8% 4.6 MB/s
DQ Read 1.2
DQ Write 60
DQ Mixed 28.4
23% 29.9 MB/s
Poor: 37%
This bench: 4.73%
Great: 85%
WD Blue 2.5" 320GB (2010)-$18
44GB free
Firmware: 01.01A01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 0 24 25 16 19 20 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (10th percentile)
18.7% Very poor
Read 48
Write 52
Mixed 25.4
SusWrite 17.2
26% 35.7 MB/s
4K Read 0.4
4K Write 0.4
4K Mixed 0.4
68% 0.4 MB/s
Poor: 15%
This bench: 18.7%
Great: 47%
WD Blue 160GB (2007)-$37
58GB free
Firmware: 01.03A01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 40 37 37 32 19 5.8 MB/s
Performing below expectations (21st percentile)
29.8% Poor
Read 74.9
Write 59.5
Mixed 47.8
SusWrite 28.6
39% 52.7 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.6
4K Mixed 1
170% 1.1 MB/s
Poor: 18%
This bench: 29.8%
Great: 59%
Maxtor 6 164GB
42GB free
Firmware: YAR4
SusWrite @10s intervals: 27 28 27 23 18 25 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
15.4% Very poor
Read 28.3
Write 26.9
Mixed 19.3
SusWrite 24.7
18% 24.8 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 2
4K Mixed 0.8
151% 1.13 MB/s
Poor: 15%
This bench: 15.4%
Great: 33%
Seagate ST3320820AS 320GB-$55
71GB free
Firmware: 3.AAD
SusWrite @10s intervals: 54 37 27 22 19 24 MB/s
Performing below expectations (23rd percentile)
26.8% Poor
Read 62.4
Write 34.7
Mixed 38.4
SusWrite 30.5
31% 41.5 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1.4
4K Mixed 0.9
151% 0.97 MB/s
Poor: 14%
This bench: 26.8%
Great: 44%
WD Elements 25A2 1TB
42GB free, PID 25a2
Operating at USB 2.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 14 16 14 12 11 16 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (1st percentile)
5.24% Terrible
Read 6.3
Write 18.3
Mixed 12.2
SusWrite 13.9
19% 12.7 MB/s
4K Read 0.3
4K Write 0.4
4K Mixed 0.3
25% 0.33 MB/s
Poor: 14%
This bench: 5.24%
Great: 63%
Kingston DataTraveler 100 G3 USB 3.0 32GB-$9
21GB free, PID 1666
Operating at USB 2.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 7.3 6.8 6.8 6.5 4.8 6.8 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (7th percentile)
4.8% Terrible
Read 16
Write 9.4
Mixed 2
SusWrite 6.5
10% 8.48 MB/s
4K Read 3.2
4K Write 0.1
4K Mixed 0.9
46% 1.4 MB/s
Poor: 6%
This bench: 4.8%
Great: 28%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown 3GB
null MHz
2048, 1024 MB
Performing way below expectations (20th percentile)
9.2% Terrible
MC Read 3.9
MC Write 2.4
MC Mixed 2.3
8% 2.87 GB/s
SC Read 3.1
SC Write 2.8
SC Mixed 3.1
9% 3 GB/s
Latency 228
18% 228 ns
Poor: 8%
This bench: 9.2%
Great: 23%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical AST690/APFH/APSK50 Builds (Compare 1 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 1%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 24%
Surfboard
Workstation
Workstation 1%
Tree trunk

System: Acer AST690/APFH/APSK50

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 48% - Average Total price: $70
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