Asus M5A97 R2.0

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 38%
Jet ski
Desktop
Desktop 72%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 30%
Raft
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing above expectations (62nd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 38 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%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
Graphics53.4% is a reasonable 3D score (RTX 2060S = 100%). This GPU can handle the majority of recent games but it will struggle with resolutions greater than 1080p at ultra detail levels. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive62.1% is a good SSD score. This drive enables fast boots, responsive applications and ensures minimum system IO wait times.
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 M5A97 R2.0  (all builds)
Memory9.2 GB free of 16 GB @ 1.6 GHz
Display1600 x 1024 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20150626
Uptime2.9 Days
Run DateMar 01 '18 at 15:09
Run Duration461 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU 11%

 PC Performing above expectations (62nd percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD FX-6300-$90
Socket 942, 1 CPU, 3 cores, 6 threads
Base clock 4.5 GHz, turbo 4.5 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (99th percentile)
66% Good
Memory 84.3
1-Core 75.9
2-Core 146
62% 102 Pts
4-Core 262
8-Core 358
39% 310 Pts
64-Core 337
21% 337 Pts
Poor: 44%
This bench: 66%
Great: 62%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 970-$200
EVGA(3842 2978) ≥ 4GB
CLim: 1531 MHz, MLim: 1752 MHz, Ram: 4GB, Driver: 390.77
Performing way above expectations (92nd percentile)
53.4% Above average
Lighting 66.5
Reflection 73
Parallax 63.2
54% 67.6 fps
MRender 73
Gravity 63.2
Splatting 57.2
52% 64.5 fps
Poor: 43%
This bench: 53.4%
Great: 54%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
OCZ VERTEX3 60GB
38GB free
Firmware: 2.22 Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (8th percentile)
47.8% Average
Read 442
Write 77.4
Mixed 123
46% 214 MB/s
4K Read 23.3
4K Write 47.4
4K Mixed 11.2
75% 27.3 MB/s
DQ Read 92.8
DQ Write 78.5
DQ Mixed 10.8
28% 60.7 MB/s
Poor: 44%
This bench: 47.8%
Great: 70%
Crucial MX100 128GB-$74
31GB free (System drive)
Firmware: MU01 Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (11th percentile)
62.1% Good
Read 506
Write 185
Mixed 230
67% 307 MB/s
4K Read 24.8
4K Write 63.1
4K Mixed 17
93% 35 MB/s
DQ Read 26.2
DQ Write 118
DQ Mixed 43.4
42% 62.6 MB/s
Poor: 56%
This bench: 62.1%
Great: 89%
WD Blue 2.5" 320GB (2009)-$71
280GB free
Firmware: 13.01A13 Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s
Performing above expectations (76th percentile)
32.7% Below average
Read 55.1
Write 58.4
Mixed 58.2
43% 57.3 MB/s
4K Read 0.39
4K Write 1.92
4K Mixed 0.39
95% 0.9 MB/s
Poor: 15%
This bench: 32.7%
Great: 41%
Toshiba MQ01ABD100 1TB-$55
261GB free
Firmware: AX1P6E Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s
Performing as expected (53rd percentile)
49.3% Average
Read 85.8
Write 86
Mixed 91.6
66% 87.8 MB/s
4K Read 0.47
4K Write 1.49
4K Mixed 0.19
68% 0.72 MB/s
Poor: 23%
This bench: 49.3%
Great: 62%
WD Blue 320GB (2008)-$39
195GB free
Firmware: 40.00A40 Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s
Performing above expectations (64th percentile)
49.2% Average
Read 79.4
Write 91.8
Mixed 65.5
59% 78.9 MB/s
4K Read 0.42
4K Write 1.88
4K Mixed 0.24
79% 0.85 MB/s
Poor: 23%
This bench: 49.2%
Great: 60%
SanDisk Ultra USB 3.0 124GB
16GB free, PID 5595
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
Performing way above expectations (97th percentile)
44.8% Average
Read 145
Write 68.3
Mixed 89.7
117% 101 MB/s
4K Read 4.17
4K Write 2.54
4K Mixed 1.01
136% 2.57 MB/s
Poor: 10%
This bench: 44.8%
Great: 45%
Verbatim STORE N GO 2GB
2GB free, PID 0302
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
Performing above expectations (82nd percentile)
4.82% Terrible
Read 19.4
Write 4.35
Mixed 4.2
9% 9.33 MB/s
4K Read 4.35
4K Write 0.008
4K Mixed 0.009
17% 1.46 MB/s
Poor: 3%
This bench: 4.82%
Great: 6%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown 4GBH2X02E99924-165 Corsair CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9 4GBH2X02E99924-165 Corsair CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9 16GB
1600, 1600, 1600, 1600 MHz
4096, 4096, 4096, 4096 MB
Performing as expected (41st percentile)
44.7% Average
MC Read 18.8
MC Write 13.4
MC Mixed 15.5
45% 15.9 GB/s
SC Read 9.8
SC Write 8.6
SC Mixed 11.5
28% 9.97 GB/s
Latency 73
55% 73 ns
Poor: 22%
This bench: 44.7%
Great: 51%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical M5A97 R2.0 Builds (Compare 2,840 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 23%
Surfboard
Desktop
Desktop 69%
Battle cruiser
Workstation
Workstation 19%
Surfboard

Motherboard: Asus M5A97 R2.0 - $89

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 71% - Very good Total price: $354
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketing teams operate large numbers of reddit accounts. When UserBenchmark’s data contradicts their marketing spiel, they deflect by systematically attacking our reputation.
Why don’t large PC brands support UserBenchmark?
PC brands make a lot of their profit from flagship hardware sales: 4090, 14900KS, 7950X3D etc. We help consumers to choose hardware that offers similar 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 make positive content about us. Additionally, the brands with weaker products tend to spend more on youtube marketing, 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 that's open and accessible to all. Looking at its 200+ UserBenchmark reviews, which are mostly written by virgin accounts, it is glaringly obvious that they were created by a marketing team. Real users don’t have any time or interest to promote one brand over another.
Why is UserBenchmark so popular with users?
Instead of trying to win lucrative sponsorship deals with billion dollar PC brands, we have spent the last 13 years 100% focussed on providing comprehensive, accurate and relevant information for our users. As a result, most of our users return over and over again because collectively they save millions of dollars every year.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $159Nvidia RTX 4060 $280Crucial 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