ADD TO PC
BUILD

AZW GT-R

Performance Results


Gaming 13% Tree trunk	Desktop 68% Battle cruiser	Workstation 12% Tree trunk


PC Status	Overall this PC is performing as expected (59th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 41 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
Processor	With 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 61.8%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
Graphics	11.2% 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 Drive	115% is an exceptional SSD score. This drive is suitable for heavy workstation use, it will facilitate fast boots, responsive applications and allow for fast transfers of multi-gigabyte files.
Memory	16GB 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 Version	Windows 11 is the most recent version of Windows.

Run History

16 months ago, 16 months ago, 16 months ago.

System	AZW GT-R (all builds)
Motherboard	AZW GT-R
Memory	8.4 GB free of 16 GB @ 2.7 GHz
Display	1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OS	Windows 11
BIOS Date	20210719
Uptime	0.9 Days
Run Date	Jan 13 '23 at 16:15
Run Duration	233 Seconds
Run User	CAN-User
Background CPU	4%

PC Performing as expected (59^th percentile)

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

Processor	Bench	Normal	Heavy	Server
AMD Ryzen 5 3550H 57,853 User benchmarks, average bench 53% FP5, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 8 threads Base clock 2.1 GHz, turbo 3.25 GHz (avg) Performing above expectations (79^th percentile)	61.8% Good	Memory 68.5 1-Core 109 2-Core 194 70% 124 Pts	4-Core 297 8-Core 489 48% 393 Pts	64-Core 491 30% 491 Pts
Poor: 32% ↑ This bench: 61.8% Great: 66%

Graphics Card	Bench	3D DX9	3D DX10	3D DX11
AMD Radeon Vega 8 Graphics 115,953 User benchmarks, average bench 10% AMD(1002 0123) 2GB Ram: 2GB, Driver: 22.20.27.07 Performing above expectations (75^th percentile)	11.2% Very poor	Lighting 14 Reflection 12.5 Parallax 19.4 11% 15.3 fps	MRender 10.1 Gravity 16.3 Splatting 12.6 11% 13 fps
Poor: 6% ↑ This bench: 11.2% Great: 13%

Drives	Bench	Sequential	Random 4k	Deep queue 4k
SSD 256GB 256GB 9,229 User benchmarks, average bench 77% 79GB free (System drive) Firmware: T0928A0 SusWrite @10s intervals: 504 238 93 134 96 77 MB/s Performing way above expectations (87^th percentile)	115% Outstanding	Read 1,357 Write 718 Mixed 695 SusWrite 190 163% 740 MB/s	4K Read 35.1 4K Write 60.8 4K Mixed 19.5 110% 38.5 MB/s	DQ Read 574 DQ Write 200 DQ Mixed 106 152% 293 MB/s
Poor: 33% ↑ This bench: 115% Great: 166%
Seagate Expansion Desk 10TB 100 User benchmarks, average bench 78% 3TB free Firmware: 0915 SusWrite @10s intervals: 43 45 45 46 46 46 MB/s Relative performance n/a - RAM cached drive detected
Poor: 20% Great: 107%
Fujitsu MJA2500BH G2 500GB 1,681 User benchmarks, average bench 33% 389GB free Firmware: 00400018 SusWrite @10s intervals: 75 78 81 81 81 82 MB/s Performing way above expectations (94^th percentile)	45.6% Average	Read 79 Write 62 Mixed 38.7 SusWrite 79.6 48% 64.8 MB/s	4K Read 0.5 4K Write 1.8 4K Mixed 0.6 121% 0.97 MB/s
Poor: 10% ↑ This bench: 45.6% Great: 47%
WDC WD10 EAVS-00D7B1 1TB 2 User benchmarks, average bench 29% 76GB free, PID 0569 Operating at USB 3.0 Speed SusWrite @10s intervals: 60 62 63 63 63 65 MB/s Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples	27.8% Poor	Read 56.5 Write 55.7 Mixed 38.5 SusWrite 62.6 72% 53.3 MB/s	4K Read 0.4 4K Write 1.9 4K Mixed 0.8 93% 1.03 MB/s
Poor: 28% ↑ This bench: 27.8% Great: 30%
WD Elements 2TB 35,768 User benchmarks, average bench 24% 180GB free, PID 1021 Operating at USB 2.0 Speed SusWrite @10s intervals: 25 30 29 27 31 27 MB/s Performing below expectations (32^nd percentile)	16.5% Very poor	Read 53.8 Write 28.9 Mixed 24.7 SusWrite 28.2 42% 33.9 MB/s	4K Read 1.9 4K Write 0.7 4K Mixed 0.7 55% 1.1 MB/s
Poor: 11% ↑ This bench: 16.5% Great: 44%
ASMT 2105 500GB 584 User benchmarks, average bench 42% 423GB free, PID 55aa Operating at USB 3.0 Speed SusWrite @10s intervals: 62 62 59 62 60 60 MB/s Performing way above expectations (91^st percentile)	120% Outstanding	Read 316 Write 322 Mixed 261 SusWrite 61 311% 240 MB/s	4K Read 16.3 4K Write 18.4 4K Mixed 16.4 1,244% 17 MB/s	DQ Read 19.3 DQ Write 29.7 DQ Mixed 22.1 1,834% 23.7 MB/s
Poor: 12% ↑ This bench: 120% Great: 171%
TOSHIBA DT01ACA200V 2TB 1TB free, PID 2773 Operating at USB 3.0 Speed SusWrite @10s intervals: 52 52 53 53 53 53 MB/s Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples	42.3% Average	Read 169 Write 187 Mixed 91.5 SusWrite 52.5 161% 125 MB/s	4K Read 0.8 4K Write 2 4K Mixed 0.6 91% 1.13 MB/s

ST16000N M001G-2KK103 16TB 5 User benchmarks, average bench 97% 2.5TB free, PID 2773 Operating at USB 3.0 Speed SusWrite @10s intervals: 52 52 53 52 53 53 MB/s Performing below expectations (20^th percentile)	71.2% Very good	Read 216 Write 211 Mixed 117 SusWrite 52.3 188% 149 MB/s	4K Read 16.4 4K Write 8 4K Mixed 1.3 377% 8.57 MB/s
Poor: 71% ↑ This bench: 71.2% Great: 129%
WD My Book 1230 6TB 1,283 User benchmarks, average bench 48% 1.5TB free, PID 1230 Operating at USB 3.0 Speed SusWrite @10s intervals: 71 71 73 74 75 77 MB/s Performing below expectations (36^th percentile)	44.6% Average	Read 138 Write 147 Mixed 83.6 SusWrite 73.6 145% 111 MB/s	4K Read 0.9 4K Write 2.7 4K Mixed 1 129% 1.53 MB/s
Poor: 18% ↑ This bench: 44.6% Great: 68%

Memory Kit	Bench	Multi core	Single core	Latency
Samsung 4ATF1G64HZ-2G6E1 CT8G4SFS824A.C8FP 16GB 6 User benchmarks, average bench 66% 2667, 2400 MHz 8192, 8192 MB Performing below potential (16^th percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP	61.5% Good	MC Read 24.1 MC Write 19.6 MC Mixed 20.5 61% 21.4 GB/s	SC Read 19.1 SC Write 24.9 SC Mixed 21.5 62% 21.8 GB/s	Latency 105 38% 105 ns
Poor: 61% ↑ This bench: 61.5% Great: 69%

Take a copy of your results How to check your in-game FPS

System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Custom PC Builder (Explore upgrades for this PC) Build your perfect PC: compare component prices, popularity, speed and value for money

CHOOSE AN UPGRADE:

CPU

GPU

SSD

HDD

RAM

Typical GT-R Builds (Compare 76 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings

Gaming

Gaming 11%

Tree trunk

Desktop

Desktop 59%

Gunboat

Workstation

Workstation 11%

Tree trunk

System: AZW GT-R

CPU
Ryzen 5 3550HAMDBench 53%, 57,853 samples	41x
Ryzen 7 3750HAMDBench 54%, 42,271 samples	35x

GPU
Radeon Vega 8 GraphicsAMDBench 10%, 115,953 samples	41x
Radeon RX Vega 10 GraphicsAMDBench 10%, 37,264 samples	35x

SSD
512GB 512GBNvmeBench 181%, 2,208 samples	15x
512GB 512GBSSDBench 87%, 6,819 samples	11x
256GB 256GBSSDBench 77%, 9,229 samples	11x

RAM
CBD26D4S9D8K1C-16 1x16GBKingstonBench 54%, 35 samples	6x
CT8G4SFS6266.C4FE 2x8GBCrucialBench 58%, 8 samples	6x
DDR4 16GB 2666MHz 1x16GBUnknownBench 40%, 244 samples	4x

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER

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.

CPU	GPU	SSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170	Nvidia RTX 4060 $293	Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $120	Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385	Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-13600K $260	Nvidia RTX 4070 $550	Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $45

HDD	RAM	USB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $37	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40	SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $29	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $48	SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $62	G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $351	SanDisk Ultra Fit 32GB $16

If you make a purchase via one of these links, our site may earn a commission

Today's hottest

Amazon Ebay

deals

CPU GPU SSD HDD USB RAM MBD

Build

Test

EFps

Can You Run It?

►
YouTube
*NEW*

About • User Guide • FAQs • Email • Privacy • Developer • YouTube Feedback