TEST
YOUR PC
ADD TO PC
BUILD

Asus M5A99FX PRO R2.0

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 21%
Surfboard
Desktop
Desktop 73%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 18%
Surfboard
Save results Copy results User guide
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (53rd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 47 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 66.2%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
Graphics25.4% 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 Drive55.9% is a reasonable SSD score. This drive enables fast boots and responsive applications.
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.
Sub-optimal background CPU (11%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
MotherboardAsus M5A99FX PRO R2.0  (all builds)
Memory13.5 GB free of 16 GB @ 1.6 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20140407
Uptime0 Days
Run DateJan 13 '23 at 22:29
Run Duration139 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU 11%

 PC Performing as expected (53rd percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD FX-8350-$130
Socket 942, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 8 threads
Base clock 4.4 GHz, turbo 4.35 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (90th percentile)
66.2% Good
Memory 86.8
1-Core 75.3
2-Core 148
63% 103 Pts
4-Core 248
8-Core 388
39% 318 Pts
64-Core 397
25% 397 Pts
Poor: 48% ↑
This bench: 66.2%
 Great: 68%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD HD 7950-$290
Asus(1043 041E) 3GB
CLim: 800 MHz, MLim: 1250 MHz, Ram: 3GB, Driver: 21.5.2
Performing below potential (25th percentile) - GPU OC Guide
25.4% Poor
Lighting 33.8
Reflection 29.2
Parallax 44.7
28% 35.9 fps
MRender 25.1
Gravity 35.1
Splatting 20.2
21% 26.8 fps
Poor: 25% ↑
This bench: 25.4%
 Great: 32%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Kingston A400 240GB-$28
178GB free (System drive)
Firmware: SBFKB1E1
SusWrite @10s intervals: 266 201 204 283 220 218 MB/s
Performing below expectations (35th percentile)
55.9% Above average
Read 295
Write 108
Mixed 156
SusWrite 232
44% 198 MB/s
4K Read 24.7
4K Write 40.4
4K Mixed 23.8
89% 29.6 MB/s
DQ Read 52.9
DQ Write 58
DQ Mixed 51
40% 54 MB/s
Poor: 33% ↑
This bench: 55.9%
 Great: 100%
Hitachi HTS541515A9E630 1.5TB
766GB free
Firmware: KA0OA520
SusWrite @10s intervals: 85 85 84 84 84 85 MB/s
Performing as expected (58th percentile)
47.2% Average
Read 79.8
Write 79.4
Mixed 18
SusWrite 84.5
47% 65.4 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1.7
4K Mixed 0.5
112% 0.93 MB/s
Poor: 26% ↑
This bench: 47.2%
 Great: 59%
TOSHIBA External USB 3.0 2TB
277GB free, PID 0200
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 70 70 71 71 70 70 MB/s
Performing below expectations (33rd percentile)
26.3% Poor
Read 45.3
Write 56
Mixed 21.7
SusWrite 70.3
67% 48.3 MB/s
4K Read 0.4
4K Write 1.4
4K Mixed 0.5
66% 0.77 MB/s
Poor: 12% ↑
This bench: 26.3%
 Great: 44%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Kingston KHX1600C9D3/4GX KHX1600C9D3/4GX Corsair CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9 Corsair CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9 16GB
1600, 1600, 1600, 1600 MHz
4096, 4096, 4096, 4096 MB
Performing above expectations (74th percentile)
51.6% Above average
MC Read 21.2
MC Write 16
MC Mixed 18.7
53% 18.6 GB/s
SC Read 11.3
SC Write 8.9
SC Mixed 13.9
32% 11.4 GB/s
Latency 70.7
57% 70.7 ns
Poor: 27% ↑
This bench: 51.6%
 Great: 84%
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 MBD
Typical M5A99FX PRO R2.0 Builds (Compare 1,067 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 34%
Sail boat
Desktop
Desktop 69%
Battle cruiser
Workstation
Workstation 28%
Raft

Motherboard: Asus M5A99FX PRO R2.0 - $200

CPU
FX-8350AMD  $130Bench 61%, 313,196 samples567x
FX-8320AMD  $75Bench 59%, 106,454 samples138x
FX-6300AMD  $90Bench 55%, 261,607 samples80x
GPU
GTX 970Nvidia  $200Bench 49%, 834,238 samples67x
RX 580AMD  $130Bench 52%, 360,351 samples62x
GTX 1070Nvidia  $278Bench 80%, 1,459,281 samples60x
SSD
860 Evo 500GBSamsung  $76Bench 105%, 762,998 samples42x
850 Evo 500GBSamsung  $94Bench 112%, 695,664 samples40x
850 Evo 250GBSamsung  $100Bench 103%, 951,591 samples33x
RAM
Fury DDR3 1866 C10 2x8GBHyperXBench 59%, 122,541 samples37x
Vengeance DDR3 1600 C9 4x4GBCorsairBench 53%, 34,385 samples24x
Fury DDR3 1600 C10 2x8GBHyperXBench 54%, 77,652 samples18x
EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 58% - Above average Total price: $606
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketing teams operate large numbers of reddit accounts. Because UserBenchmark’s data often contradicts their marketing spiel, they systematically attack our reputation.
Why don’t large PC brands support UserBenchmark?
PC brands make a lot of money on flagship hardware sales: 4090, 14900KS, 7950X3D etc. We help consumers get comparable real-world performance at a fraction of the cost.
Why don’t any youtubers promote UserBenchmark?
We don't sponsor youtubers, so they have no incentive to praise us. Additionally, brands spend more on marketing weaker products which puts their youtubers at odds with UserBenchmark.
Why does UserBenchmark have so many negative trustpilot reviews?
Trustpilot hosts user-generated reviews in an online community. 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 the last 13 years to providing comprehensive and accurate data to our users. As a result, most of our users return over and over again and collectively save millions every year.
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) $39Corsair 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
Amazon Ebay
deals
Build Test EFps
Can You Run It?
►
YouTube
*NEW*
About  •  User Guide  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer  •  YouTube Feedback