MSI KA780G (MS-7551)

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 3%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 39%
Jet ski
Workstation
Workstation 3%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing below expectations (31st percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 69 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 39.9%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is poor.
Graphics0.37% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive37.4% is low SSD score. With a better SSD this system will boot faster, make applications more responsive and reduce IO wait 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.
Very high background CPU (54%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
SystemMICRO-STAR MS-7551
MotherboardMSI KA780G (MS-7551)  (all builds)
Memory5.7 GB free of 8 GB @ 0.4 GHz
Display1680 x 1050 - 32 Bit Farben
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20090518
Uptime0 Days
Run DateDec 12 '17 at 12:23
Run Duration123 Seconds
Run User DEU-User
Background CPU 54%

 PC Performing below expectations (31st percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD Athlon Dual Core 4850e
CPU1, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 2 threads
Base clock 2.5 GHz, turbo 2.5 GHz (avg)
Performing above expectations (83rd percentile)
39.9% Below average
Memory 67.7
1-Core 36.5
2-Core 70
39% 58.1 Pts
4-Core 73.5
8-Core 69.1
10% 71.3 Pts
64-Core 72.4
4% 72.4 Pts
Poor: 28%
This bench: 39.9%
Great: 45%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
ATI Radeon HD 3200
MSI(1462 7501) 512MB
Driver: aticfx64.dll Ver. 8.970.100.9001
Performing way below expectations (10th percentile)
0.37% Terrible
Lighting 0.5
Reflection 1.04
Parallax 0.22
0% 0.59 fps
MRender 0.38
Gravity 0.13
Splatting 0.52
0% 0.35 fps
Poor: 0%
This bench: 0.37%
Great: 1%
Drive BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
SiImage 120GB
93GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 0000
Performing way below expectations (9th percentile)
37.4% Below average
Read 354
Write 134
Mixed 196
50% 228 MB/s
4K Read 13.9
4K Write 19.4
4K Mixed 11.9
47% 15.1 MB/s
DQ Read 14.7
DQ Write 22.1
DQ Mixed 6.71
8% 14.5 MB/s
Poor: 35%
This bench: 37.4%
Great: 65%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown 4x2GB
4 of 4 slots used
8GB DIMM DDR2
Performing below potential (23rd percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
16.9% Very poor
MC Read 4.6
MC Write 5.6
MC Mixed 5.5
15% 5.23 GB/s
SC Read 4.4
SC Write 5.5
SC Mixed 4.6
14% 4.83 GB/s
Latency 107
38% 107 ns
Poor: 14%
This bench: 16.9%
Great: 45%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-13600K $273Nvidia RTX 4060 $300Crucial MX500 250GB $40
Intel Core i5-12400F $133Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-12600K $177Nvidia RTX 4070 $539Samsung 860 Evo 250GB $52
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $39Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $45SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $37Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $43SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $51G.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