Asus M5A97 EVO

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 6%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 54%
Yacht
Workstation
Workstation 5%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (41st percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 59 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 58%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is average.
Graphics8.21% 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.
Memory24GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's far more than any current game requires. 24GB will also allow for large file and system caches, virtual machine hosting, software development, video editing and batch multimedia processing.
OS VersionAlthough Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
MotherboardAsus M5A97 EVO  (all builds)
Memory15.5 GB free of 24 GB @ 1.3 GHz
Display1280 x 800 - 32 Bit couleurs
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20121016
Uptime0 Days
Run DateMar 05 '18 at 16:54
Run Duration376 Seconds
Run User FRA-User
Background CPU0%

 PC Performing as expected (41st percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD FX-6100-$68
Socket 942, 1 CPU, 3 cores, 6 threads
Base clock 3.3 GHz, turbo 3.3 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (89th percentile)
58% Above average
Memory 81.9
1-Core 62.7
2-Core 112
54% 85.4 Pts
4-Core 191
8-Core 245
28% 218 Pts
64-Core 244
15% 244 Pts
Poor: 41%
This bench: 58%
Great: 60%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 960-$198
Device(0000 0000) ≥ 4GB
CLim: 783 MHz, MLim: 850 MHz, Ram: 4GB, Driver: 372.70
Relative performance (0th percentile) - GPU OC Guide
8.21% Terrible
Lighting 9.53
Reflection 11.2
Parallax 8
8% 9.56 fps
MRender 12.7
Gravity 10.1
Splatting 10.7
9% 11.2 fps
Poor: 30%
This bench: 8.21%
Great: 36%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Hitachi HDS722020ALA330 2TB-$71
39GB free (System drive)
Firmware: JKAOA3MA Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s
Performing below expectations (25th percentile)
48% Average
Read 81.8
Write 85.4
Mixed 78.1
62% 81.8 MB/s
4K Read 0.56
4K Write 1.07
4K Mixed 0.33
79% 0.65 MB/s
Poor: 35%
This bench: 48%
Great: 69%
Samsung Spinpoint F2 1TB-$60
9GB free
Firmware: 1AG01118 Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (13th percentile)
31.3% Below average
Read 59.9
Write 49
Mixed 52.7
41% 53.9 MB/s
4K Read 0.55
4K Write 1.31
4K Mixed 0.39
91% 0.75 MB/s
Poor: 28%
This bench: 31.3%
Great: 58%
TOSHIBA External USB 3.0 3TB
2TB free, PID a202
Performing above expectations (81st percentile)
47.4% Average
Read 112
Write 115
Mixed 73.3
126% 100 MB/s
4K Read 0.51
4K Write 1.92
4K Mixed 0.17
73% 0.87 MB/s
Poor: 15%
This bench: 47.4%
Great: 53%
ST375052 8AS 750GB
113GB free, PID 5106
Operating at USB 2.1 Speed
Performing below expectations (25th percentile)
14.8% Very poor
Read 30.5
Write 28.9
Mixed 7.82
26% 22.4 MB/s
4K Read 0.77
4K Write 1.26
4K Mixed 0.44
60% 0.82 MB/s
Poor: 15%
This bench: 14.8%
Great: 32%
TOSHIBA External USB 3.0 2TB
71GB free, PID b207
Performing below expectations (27th percentile)
29.4% Poor
Read 66
Write 66.8
Mixed 22.6
62% 51.8 MB/s
4K Read 0.48
4K Write 1.68
4K Mixed 0.16
64% 0.77 MB/s
Poor: 16%
This bench: 29.4%
Great: 51%
Seagate FreeAgent 1.5TB
29GB free, PID 3008
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
Performing below expectations (28th percentile)
13.8% Very poor
Read 26.3
Write 25.9
Mixed 18.4
30% 23.6 MB/s
4K Read 0.43
4K Write 1.39
4K Mixed 0.34
60% 0.72 MB/s
Poor: 10%
This bench: 13.8%
Great: 20%
TOSHIBA External USB 3.0 1TB
17GB free, PID b206
Performing below expectations (30th percentile)
24.2% Poor
Read 56.9
Write 53.2
Mixed 36
60% 48.7 MB/s
4K Read 0.45
4K Write 1.38
4K Mixed 0.17
55% 0.67 MB/s
Poor: 13%
This bench: 24.2%
Great: 45%
WD USB Elements Device 250GB
5GB free, PID 6031
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
Performing below expectations (28th percentile)
12% Very poor
Read 26.1
Write 25.3
Mixed 5.89
22% 19.1 MB/s
4K Read 0.41
4K Write 0.85
4K Mixed 0.3
41% 0.52 MB/s
Poor: 3%
This bench: 12%
Great: 19%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown 24GB
1333, 1333, 1333 MHz
8192, 8192, 8192 MB
Performing above expectations (62nd percentile)
42.5% Average
MC Read 16.9
MC Write 13.3
MC Mixed 15.2
43% 15.1 GB/s
SC Read 7.8
SC Write 8.6
SC Mixed 11.9
27% 9.43 GB/s
Latency 77
52% 77 ns
Poor: 25%
This bench: 42.5%
Great: 72%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical M5A97 EVO Builds (Compare 84 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 34%
Sail boat
Desktop
Desktop 67%
Battle cruiser
Workstation
Workstation 27%
Raft

Motherboard: Asus M5A97 EVO - $69

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 77% - Very good Total price: $360
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-13600K $254Nvidia RTX 4060 $300Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $133Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-12600K $163Nvidia 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 $37SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $79G.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