Asrock K10N780SLIX3-WiFi

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 0%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 13%
Tree trunk
Workstation
Workstation 0%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (47th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 53 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
ProcessorWith a relatively low single core score, this CPU can handle email, light web browsing and basic audio/video playback, but it will struggle to handle CPU intensive tasks. Finally, with a gaming score of 27.7%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is very poor.
Graphics1.87% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (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.
Memory2GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows however a minimum of 4GB is recommended for gaming or any other RAM intensive tasks such as photo/video editing. This system will also be a little more responsive with 4GB of RAM.
OS VersionAlthough Windows 7 is still a viable option, it's now 14 years and 9 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.
High background CPU (24%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
MotherboardAsrock K10N780SLIX3-WiFi  (all builds)
Memory0.8 GB free of 2 GB @ 0.2 GHz
Display1024 x 768 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 7
BIOS Date20100430
Uptime1.1 Days
Run DateFeb 16 '18 at 17:20
Run Duration111 Seconds
Run User ROU-User
Background CPU 24%

 PC Performing as expected (47th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD Athlon Dual Core 4450e
CPUSocket, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 2 threads
Base clock 2.3 GHz
Performing way below expectations (12th percentile)
27.7% Poor
Memory 45.5
1-Core 32.3
2-Core 49.8
28% 42.5 Pts
4-Core 59.2
8-Core 63.7
8% 61.5 Pts
64-Core 65.5
4% 65.5 Pts
Poor: 23%
This bench: 27.7%
Great: 45%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GeForce 8600 GT
Device(0000 0000) 512MB
Ram: 512MB, Driver: 342.0
Performing above expectations (75th percentile)
1.87% Terrible
Lighting 2.13
Reflection 4.27
Parallax 0.75
2% 2.38 fps
MRender 3.52
Gravity 1.53
Splatting 2.74
2% 2.6 fps
Poor: 1%
This bench: 1.87%
Great: 2%
Drive BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
WD WD800JB-00JJC0 80GB
17GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 05.01C05 Max speed: UDMA 100 100 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (99th percentile)
31.6% Below average
Read 55.1
Write 54.5
Mixed 54
41% 54.5 MB/s
4K Read 0.62
4K Write 1.67
4K Mixed 0.47
109% 0.92 MB/s
Poor: 6%
This bench: 31.6%
Great: 31%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown 1x2GB
1 of 4 slots used
2GB DIMM DDR2
Performing way below expectations (3rd percentile)
8.59% Terrible
MC Read 2.4
MC Write 2.6
MC Mixed 2.5
7% 2.5 GB/s
SC Read 2.7
SC Write 2.8
SC Mixed 2.5
8% 2.67 GB/s
Latency 178
22% 178 ns
Poor: 7%
This bench: 8.59%
Great: 26%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-13600K $273Nvidia RTX 4060 $295Crucial MX500 250GB $40
Intel Core i5-12400F $133Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-12600K $179Nvidia RTX 4070 $539Samsung 860 Evo 250GB $52
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $39Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $37Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $43SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $51G.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