Today's hottest deals

Asrock N68-GS

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 0%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 21%
Surfboard
Workstation
Workstation 0%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing below expectations (25th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 75 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 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 31.5%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is poor.
Graphics0.58% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Memory3GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and although it's sufficient for most games, some will benefit from up to 8GB of RAM. 3GB is also enough for modest file and system caches which allow for a responsive system.
OS VersionAlthough Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
Very high background CPU (44%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
MotherboardAsrock N68-GS  (all builds)
Memory0.7 GB free of 3 GB @ 0.4 GHz
DisplayЦвета: 1280 x 1024 - 32 Bit
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20090827
Uptime0 Days
Run DateOct 13 '21 at 21:25
Run Duration266 Seconds
Run User RUS-User
Background CPU 44%

 PC Performing below expectations (25th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD Athlon II X3 425
CPUSocket, 1 CPU, 3 cores, 3 threads
Base clock 2.7 GHz, turbo 2.7 GHz (avg)
Performing way below expectations (7th percentile)
31.5% Below average
Memory 49.2
1-Core 38.1
2-Core 58.6
32% 48.6 Pts
4-Core 80.9
8-Core 90.3
11% 85.6 Pts
64-Core 97.4
6% 97.4 Pts
Poor: 32%
This bench: 31.5%
Great: 50%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GeForce 210
Device(0000 0000) 512MB
Ram: 512MB, Driver: 342.01
Performing as expected (50th percentile)
0.58% Terrible
Lighting 0.5
Reflection 0.3
Parallax 0.4
0% 0.4 fps
MRender 1.3
Gravity 0.5
Splatting 1.4
1% 1.07 fps
Poor: 1%
This bench: 0.58%
Great: 1%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Fastdisk 064GB 63GB
2GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 2013
SusWrite @10s intervals: 0.2 10 47 44 52 56 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
Read 104
Write 10.5
SusWrite 35
36% 50 MB/s
4K Read 7
4K Write 1.3
4K Mixed 0.6
382% 2.97 MB/s
Poor: 22% Great: 37%
WD Blue 2.5" 250GB (2009)-$80
32GB free
Firmware: 01.0
SusWrite @10s intervals: 39 37 40 39 39 47 MB/s
Performing below expectations (36th percentile)
26% Poor
Read 50.1
Write 49.7
Mixed 36.7
SusWrite 40.2
33% 44.2 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 1.5
4K Mixed 0.8
138% 0.93 MB/s
Poor: 13%
This bench: 26%
Great: 41%
Samsung HM321HI 320GB-$40
219GB free
Firmware: 2AJ1
SusWrite @10s intervals: 64 71 72 71 69 71 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (17th percentile)
23.1% Poor
Read 10.9
Write 37.7
Mixed 24.6
SusWrite 69.7
26% 35.7 MB/s
4K Read 0.1
4K Write 0.7
4K Mixed 0.3
50% 0.37 MB/s
Poor: 11%
This bench: 23.1%
Great: 50%
TOSHIBA External USB 3.0 1TB
573GB free, PID 0900
Operating at USB 2.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 5 5.1 5.1 5.7 7.4 8.6 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (1st percentile)
4.6% Terrible
Read 15.9
Write 6
Mixed 7
SusWrite 6.1
10% 8.75 MB/s
4K Read 0.2
4K Write 0.3
4K Mixed 0.1
14% 0.2 MB/s
Poor: 15%
This bench: 4.6%
Great: 52%
EAGET F90 16GB
10GB free, PID 0917
Operating at USB 2.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 12 10 12 11 10 11 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
6.63% Terrible
Read 6.7
Write 11.4
Mixed 12.7
SusWrite 11.1
15% 10.5 MB/s
4K Read 2
4K Write 0.9
4K Mixed 0.8
65% 1.23 MB/s
Poor: 7%
This bench: 6.63%
Great: 12%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown 3GB
null MHz
2048, 1024 MB
Performing below expectations (37th percentile)
11.3% Very poor
MC Read 3.5
MC Write 3.7
MC Mixed 3.6
10% 3.6 GB/s
SC Read 2.2
SC Write 3.3
SC Mixed 2.8
8% 2.77 GB/s
Latency 164
24% 164 ns
Poor: 8%
This bench: 11.3%
Great: 23%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketers operate thousands of reddit accounts. Our benchmarks expose their spiel so they attack our reputation.
Why don’t PC brands endorse UserBenchmark?
Brands make boatloads on flagships like the 4090 and 14900KS. We help users get similar real-world performance for less money.
Why don’t youtubers promote UserBenchmark?
We don't pay youtubers, so they don't praise us. Moreover, our data obstructs youtubers who promote overpriced or inferior products.
Why does UserBenchmark have negative trustpilot reviews?
The 200+ trustpilot reviews are mostly written by virgin marketing accounts. Real users don't give a monkey's about big brands.
Why is UserBenchmark the gold standard for users?
Instead of pursuing brands for sponsorship, we've spent 13 years publishing real-world data for users.
The Best
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-13600K $210Nvidia RTX 4060 $290WD Black SN850X M.2 2TB $135
Intel Core i5-12400F $111Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $389WD Black SN850X M.2 1TB $84
Intel Core i5-12600K $167Nvidia RTX 4070 $500Crucial T700 M.2 4TB $400
Today's hottest deals
If you buy something via a price link, UserBenchmark may earn a commission
About  •  User Guide  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer  •  YouTube Feedback