Asus F1A75-M

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 5%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 41%
Speed boat
Workstation
Workstation 5%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing below expectations (30th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 70 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 below average single core score, this CPU can handle email, web browsing and audio/video playback but it will struggle to handle modern 3D games or workstation tasks such as video editing. Finally, with a gaming score of 42.8%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is below average.
Graphics4.03% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive36% is low SSD score. With a better SSD this system will boot faster, make applications more responsive and reduce 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.
Run History
3 years ago, 3 years ago.
MotherboardAsus F1A75-M  (all builds)
Memory11.3 GB free of 16 GB @ 1.3 GHz
Display1366 x 768 - 32 Bit colores
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20140526
Uptime1 Days
Run DateApr 19 '21 at 12:17
Run Duration135 Seconds
Run User ARG-User
Background CPU9%

 PC Performing below expectations (30th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD A8-3870 APU-$81
FM1 , 1 CPU, 4 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 3.3 GHz, turbo 3.25 GHz (avg)
Performing below expectations (32nd percentile)
42.8% Average
Memory 51.1
1-Core 50.9
2-Core 101
40% 67.7 Pts
4-Core 201
8-Core 201
27% 201 Pts
64-Core 199
12% 199 Pts
Poor: 35%
This bench: 42.8%
Great: 56%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD Radeon HD 6550D
Asus(1043 84C8) 512MB
Driver: aticfx64.dll Ver. 15.201.1151.0
Performing above expectations (73rd percentile)
4.03% Terrible
Lighting 4.9
Reflection 4.6
Parallax 5.2
4% 4.9 fps
MRender 4.4
Gravity 4.6
Splatting 5.7
4% 4.9 fps
Poor: 2%
This bench: 4.03%
Great: 5%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Kingston A400 240GB-$28
110GB free (System drive)
Firmware: S1Z40102
SusWrite @10s intervals: 321 29 89 10 50 35 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (8th percentile)
36% Below average
Read 463
Write 383
Mixed 27.1
SusWrite 89
53% 240 MB/s
4K Read 16.9
4K Write 13.7
4K Mixed 0.7
34% 10.4 MB/s
DQ Read 126
DQ Write 9.5
DQ Mixed 37.2
35% 57.6 MB/s
Poor: 33%
This bench: 36%
Great: 100%
WD Blue 1TB (2012)-$28
62GB free
Firmware: 15.01H15
SusWrite @10s intervals: 112 117 121 124 125 124 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (6th percentile)
54.5% Above average
Read 69.2
Write 77.3
Mixed 57.4
SusWrite 120
60% 81.1 MB/s
4K Read 1
4K Write 2.1
4K Mixed 1
192% 1.37 MB/s
Poor: 52%
This bench: 54.5%
Great: 109%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Kingston 99U5474-038.A00LF 99U5474-038.A00LF 99U5474-038.A00LF 9905471-011.A00LF 16GB
1333, 1333, 1333, 1333 MHz
4096, 4096, 4096, 4096 MB
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
33% Below average
MC Read 13.4
MC Write 12.6
MC Mixed 11.1
35% 12.4 GB/s
SC Read 5.5
SC Write 6.2
SC Mixed 8.5
19% 6.73 GB/s
Latency 157
26% 157 ns
Poor: 33%
This bench: 33%
Great: 34%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical F1A75-M Builds (Compare 26 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 7%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 45%
Yacht
Workstation
Workstation 6%
Tree trunk

Motherboard: Asus F1A75-M

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 54% - Above average Total price: $109
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 youtubers extra to promote inferior products but UserBenchmark’s data exposes them.
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 keep returning.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170Nvidia RTX 4060 $293Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $122Nvidia 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) $28Corsair 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