Acer Aspire X3950

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 19%
Surfboard
Desktop
Desktop 62%
Destroyer
Workstation
Workstation 14%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing above expectations (63rd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 37 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 53.3%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is average.
Graphics36.8% 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 DriveThe boot partition is located on a mechanical or hybrid drive. Moving the system to an SSD will yield far faster boot times, better system responsiveness and faster application load times.
Memory8GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's sufficient for the vast majority of games. 8GB is also enough for moderate file and system caches which result in a very 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.
Run History
SystemAcer Aspire X3950  (all builds)
MotherboardAcer Aspire X3950
Memory6.7 GB free of 8 GB @ 1.3 GHz
Display1280 x 720 - 32 Bit couleurs
OSWindows 7
BIOS Date20100505
Uptime0.2 Days
Run DateJan 03 '16 at 18:20
Run Duration741 Seconds
Run User FRA-User
Background CPU0%

 PC Performing above expectations (63rd percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i3 550-$110
CPU 1, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 3.2 GHz
Performing way above expectations (98th percentile)
53.3% Above average
Memory 71.7
1-Core 78.6
2-Core 156
59% 102 Pts
4-Core 204
8-Core 205
27% 204 Pts
64-Core 205
13% 205 Pts
Poor: 36%
This bench: 53.3%
Great: 53%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 960-$198
Gigabyte(1458 36D2) ≥ 4GB
Driver: nvd3dumx.dll Ver. 10.18.13.5362
Performing way above expectations (100th percentile)
36.8% Below average
Lighting 47.3
Reflection 47.6
Parallax 42
39% 45.7 fps
MRender 42
Gravity 42.8
Splatting 38.4
33% 41.1 fps
Poor: 30%
This bench: 36.8%
Great: 36%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1TB-$70
389GB free (System drive)
Firmware: CC44 Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s
Performing above expectations (78th percentile)
61.6% Good
Read 111
Write 104
Mixed 108
81% 107 MB/s
4K Read 0.66
4K Write 1.53
4K Mixed 0.43
104% 0.87 MB/s
Poor: 34%
This bench: 61.6%
Great: 68%
SanDisk Cruzer Blade 64GB
45GB free, PID 5567
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
Performing way below expectations (12th percentile)
6.21% Terrible
Read 10.6
Write 4.73
Mixed 5.55
8% 6.95 MB/s
4K Read 2.47
4K Write 1
4K Mixed 0.78
70% 1.42 MB/s
Poor: 5%
This bench: 6.21%
Great: 18%
USB DISK 2.0 32GB
30GB free, PID 4100
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
Performing as expected (43rd percentile)
5.29% Terrible
Read 13.7
Write 5.6
Mixed 8.26
10% 9.19 MB/s
4K Read 2.47
4K Write 0.49
4K Mixed 0.32
37% 1.09 MB/s
Poor: 3%
This bench: 5.29%
Great: 11%
USB DISK 2.0 32GB
26GB free, PID 4100
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
Performing as expected (43rd percentile)
5.24% Terrible
Read 13.7
Write 5.61
Mixed 6.27
9% 8.51 MB/s
4K Read 2.36
4K Write 0.48
4K Mixed 0.32
36% 1.05 MB/s
Poor: 3%
This bench: 5.24%
Great: 11%
USB DISK 2.0 8GB
7GB free, PID 3600
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
Performing above expectations (66th percentile)
5.88% Terrible
Read 19.3
Write 7.7
Mixed 9.41
13% 12.1 MB/s
4K Read 5.41
4K Write 0.04
4K Mixed 0.03
22% 1.83 MB/s
Poor: 3%
This bench: 5.88%
Great: 9%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Samsung M378B5673FH0-CH9 None VS2GB1333D3 M378B5673FH0-CH9 None VS2GB1333D3 8GB
1333, 1333, 1333, 1333 MHz
2048, 2048, 2048, 2048 MB
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
30.2% Below average
MC Read 10
MC Write 8.6
MC Mixed 12.6
30% 10.4 GB/s
SC Read 8.5
SC Write 6.2
SC Mixed 8.3
22% 7.67 GB/s
Latency 97.6
41% 97.6 ns
Poor: 23%
This bench: 30.2%
Great: 44%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical Aspire X3950 Builds (Compare 148 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 2%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 46%
Yacht
Workstation
Workstation 2%
Tree trunk

System: Acer Aspire X3950

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 70% - Good Total price: $60
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 deals
About  •  User Guide  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer  •  YouTube Feedback