Asus VivoBook_ASUSLaptop X509DJ_M509DJ

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 11%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 61%
Destroyer
Workstation
Workstation 10%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing above expectations (64th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 36 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 59.2%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is average.
Graphics10.4% is a very low 3D score (RTX 2060S = 100%). This GPU can only handle very basic 3D games but it's fine for general computing tasks.
Boot Drive40.2% is a reasonable SSD score. This drive enables fast boots and responsive applications.
Memory20GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's far more than any current game requires. 20GB 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 (15%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
SystemAsus VivoBook_ASUSLaptop X509DJ_M509DJ  (all builds)
MotherboardASUSTeK X509DJ
Memory10.9 GB free of 20 GB @ 2.7 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colores,
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20200408
Uptime9 Days
Run DateDec 11 '21 at 23:09
Run Duration154 Seconds
Run User COL-User
Background CPU 15%

 PC Performing above expectations (64th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD Ryzen 5 3500U
FP5, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 8 threads
Base clock 2.1 GHz, turbo 2.7 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (86th percentile)
59.2% Above average
Memory 63.1
1-Core 92.6
2-Core 185
63% 114 Pts
4-Core 298
8-Core 459
47% 379 Pts
64-Core 341
21% 341 Pts
Poor: 30%
This bench: 59.2%
Great: 63%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GeForce MX230
Asus(1043 14CF) 2GB
Ram: 2GB, Driver: 20.10.44.05
Performing as expected (47th percentile)
10.4% Very poor
Lighting 12.7
Reflection 14.1
Parallax 11.2
10% 12.7 fps
MRender 14.8
Gravity 11.9
Splatting 12.3
10% 13 fps
Poor: 7%
This bench: 10.4%
Great: 12%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
WDC WDS480G2G0B-00EPW0 480GB
306GB free (System drive)
Firmware: UK220400
SusWrite @10s intervals: 224 86 48 54 139 106 MB/s
Performing below expectations (25th percentile)
40.2% Average
Read 395
Write 328
Mixed 275
SusWrite 109
62% 277 MB/s
4K Read 16
4K Write 28
4K Mixed 12.3
55% 18.8 MB/s
DQ Read 2.6
DQ Write 51.1
DQ Mixed 31.8
23% 28.5 MB/s
Poor: 32%
This bench: 40.2%
Great: 59%
WD WD10SPZX-00HKTT0 1TB
829GB free
Firmware: 04.01A04
SusWrite @10s intervals: 110 111 116 115 114 116 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (96th percentile)
80.4% Excellent
Read 167
Write 25.3
Mixed 45
SusWrite 114
64% 87.6 MB/s
4K Read 1.9
4K Write 1.2
4K Mixed 0.6
168% 1.23 MB/s
Poor: 26%
This bench: 80.4%
Great: 79%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Samsung M471A5244CB0-CTD J642GU44J9266ND 20GB
2667, 2667 MHz
4096, 16384 MB
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
48.5% Average
MC Read 19.9
MC Write 15.9
MC Mixed 15.7
49% 17.2 GB/s
SC Read 16
SC Write 14.2
SC Mixed 15.9
44% 15.4 GB/s
Latency 119
34% 119 ns
Poor: 45%
This bench: 48.5%
Great: 50%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical VivoBook_ASUSLaptop X509DJ_M509DJ Builds (Compare 50 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 11%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 55%
Yacht
Workstation
Workstation 10%
Tree trunk

System: Asus VivoBook_ASUSLaptop X509DJ_M509DJ

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 51% - Above average Total price: $60
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 so they keep returning.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $156Nvidia RTX 4060 $293Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $120Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $361Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-13600K $260Nvidia RTX 4070 $549Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $44
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