Asrock 970A-G/3.1

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 7%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 58%
Gunboat
Workstation
Workstation 6%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing below expectations (39th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 61 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components. Use the charts in the benchmark sections of this report to identify problem areas.
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 61.1%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
Graphics11.3% 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 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 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
High background CPU (24%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
MotherboardAsrock 970A-G/3.1  (all builds)
Memory3.4 GB free of 8 GB @ 1.3 GHz
Display2560 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20160112
Uptime3.6 Days
Run DateSep 18 '17 at 22:40
Run Duration128 Seconds
Run User BRA-User
Background CPU 24%

 PC Performing below expectations (39th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD FX-8320E-$87
CPUSocket, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 8 threads
Base clock 3.2 GHz, turbo 3.3 GHz (avg)
Performing above expectations (78th percentile)
61.1% Good
Memory 83.9
1-Core 58.2
2-Core 117
54% 86.2 Pts
4-Core 209
8-Core 308
32% 258 Pts
64-Core 337
21% 337 Pts
Poor: 47%
This bench: 61.1%
Great: 65%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD HD 7850-$174
Gigabyte(1458 2553) 2GB
CLim: 975 MHz, MLim: 1200 MHz, Ram: 2GB, Driver: 17.1.1
Relative performance (0th percentile)
11.3% Very poor
Lighting 13.6
Reflection 14.6
Parallax 16.2
11% 14.8 fps
MRender 13.6
Gravity 10.8
Splatting 17.2
12% 13.8 fps
Poor: 18%
This bench: 11.3%
Great: 21%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016)-$37
606GB free
Firmware: CC43 Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s
Performing as expected (53rd percentile)
97% Outstanding
Read 177
Write 162
Mixed 92
106% 143 MB/s
4K Read 0.95
4K Write 1.55
4K Mixed 0.32
104% 0.94 MB/s
Poor: 60%
This bench: 97%
Great: 113%
WD Blue 500GB (2010)-$25
5GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 15.01H15 Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (19th percentile)
41.2% Average
Read 69.6
Write 74
Mixed 66.9
53% 70.2 MB/s
4K Read 0.26
4K Write 1.32
4K Mixed 0.31
69% 0.63 MB/s
Poor: 24%
This bench: 41.2%
Great: 69%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Kingston 99U5458-005.A00LF 8GB
1333, 1333 MHz
4096, 4096 MB
Performing below potential (5th percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
26.2% Poor
MC Read 8.6
MC Write 8.3
MC Mixed 7.7
23% 8.2 GB/s
SC Read 7.2
SC Write 7.4
SC Mixed 8.1
22% 7.57 GB/s
Latency 73.7
54% 73.7 ns
Poor: 26%
This bench: 26.2%
Great: 53%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical 970A-G/3.1 Builds (Compare 353 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 20%
Surfboard
Desktop
Desktop 68%
Battle cruiser
Workstation
Workstation 17%
Surfboard

Motherboard: Asrock 970A-G/3.1

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 71% - Very good Total price: $265
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.
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) $29Corsair 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