Gigabyte GA-F2A88XM-D3H

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 38%
Jet ski
Desktop
Desktop 66%
Battle cruiser
Workstation
Workstation 28%
Raft
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing above expectations (69th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 31 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 56.5%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is average.
Graphics63.9% is a good 3D score. This GPU can handle the majority of recent games at high resolutions and ultra detail levels.
Boot Drive88.1% is a very good SSD score. This drive is suitable for moderate workstation use, it will facilitate fast boots, responsive applications and ensure minimum IO wait times.
Memory12GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's more than sufficient for nearly all games. 12GB 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.
MotherboardGigabyte GA-F2A88XM-D3H  (all builds)
Memory9.8 GB free of 12 GB @ 1.6 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20150409
Uptime0.1 Days
Run DateSep 12 '18 at 11:52
Run Duration215 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU4%

 PC Performing above expectations (69th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD A10-7850K APU (2014 D.Ka)-$135
P0, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 3.7 GHz, turbo 3.9 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (99th percentile)
56.5% Above average
Memory 76.8
1-Core 69.1
2-Core 122
55% 89.2 Pts
4-Core 212
8-Core 209
28% 210 Pts
64-Core 205
13% 205 Pts
Poor: 33%
This bench: 56.5%
Great: 54%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 980-$500
CLim: 1455 MHz, MLim: 1752 MHz, Ram: 4GB, Driver: 391.35
Performing way above expectations (90th percentile)
63.9% Good
Lighting 81.5
Reflection 81.7
Parallax 79.3
66% 80.9 fps
MRender 79.4
Gravity 74
Splatting 65.6
59% 73 fps
Poor: 53%
This bench: 63.9%
Great: 66%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung 850 Evo 120GB-$80
78GB free (System drive)
Firmware: EMT01B6Q
SusWrite @10s intervals: 294 156 150 151 151 150 MB/s
Performing below expectations (25th percentile)
88.1% Excellent
Read 480
Write 435
Mixed 368
SusWrite 175
82% 364 MB/s
4K Read 32.4
4K Write 86.6
4K Mixed 43.9
151% 54.3 MB/s
DQ Read 270
DQ Write 233
DQ Mixed 248
187% 250 MB/s
Poor: 64%
This bench: 88.1%
Great: 115%
WD Black 1TB (2013)-$39
931GB free
Firmware: 01.01A01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 166 172 170 171 171 174 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (95th percentile)
107% Outstanding
Read 204
Write 148
Mixed 95.4
SusWrite 171
113% 154 MB/s
4K Read 1.4
4K Write 2.4
4K Mixed 1.1
225% 1.63 MB/s
Poor: 50%
This bench: 107%
Great: 108%
USB 2.0 Flash Disk 1GB
0GB free, PID 1234
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.6 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (100th percentile)
5.73% Terrible
Read 18.1
Write 4.2
Mixed 5.3
SusWrite 4.5
9% 8.02 MB/s
4K Read 7.7
4K Write 0.1
4K Mixed 0.2
39% 2.67 MB/s
Poor: 3%
This bench: 5.73%
Great: 6%
USB 2.0 Flash Drive 4GB
2GB free, PID 0000
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.3 5.7 MB/s
Performing as expected (49th percentile)
3.65% Terrible
Read 11.5
Write 3.7
Mixed 1.8
SusWrite 5.5
6% 5.62 MB/s
4K Read 3.3
4K Write 0
4K Mixed 0
12% 1.1 MB/s
Poor: 2%
This bench: 3.65%
Great: 7%
Verbatim STORE N GO 16GB
1GB free, PID 0302
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 1.6 1.9 2.4 4 3.4 3.6 MB/s
Performing as expected (44th percentile)
3.76% Terrible
Read 16.5
Write 6
Mixed 4.2
SusWrite 2.8
8% 7.38 MB/s
4K Read 3.2
4K Write 0
4K Mixed 0.1
15% 1.1 MB/s
Poor: 2%
This bench: 3.76%
Great: 9%
WDC WD10 EZEX-08M2NA0 1TB
493GB free, PID 2775
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 107 111 106 113 113 113 MB/s
Performing above expectations (75th percentile)
53.9% Above average
Read 153
Write 153
Mixed 90.6
SusWrite 110
168% 127 MB/s
4K Read 1.3
4K Write 2.4
4K Mixed 1.1
124% 1.6 MB/s
Poor: 17%
This bench: 53.9%
Great: 61%
WDC WD30 EZRZ-00Z5HB0 3TB
2TB free, PID 2775
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 107 111 106 113 113 113 MB/s
Performing above expectations (67th percentile)
47.3% Average
Read 110
Write 112
Mixed 73.3
SusWrite 110
137% 102 MB/s
4K Read 0.9
4K Write 2.3
4K Mixed 0.9
112% 1.37 MB/s
Poor: 16%
This bench: 47.3%
Great: 56%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Crucial BLS4G3D1609DS 3x4GB
3 of 4 slots used
12GB DIMM DDR3 clocked @ 1600 MHz
Performing as expected (48th percentile)
39% Below average
MC Read 17.5
MC Write 8
MC Mixed 15.8
39% 13.8 GB/s
SC Read 9.1
SC Write 7.7
SC Mixed 11.4
27% 9.4 GB/s
Latency 86.6
46% 86.6 ns
Poor: 27%
This bench: 39%
Great: 78%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical GA-F2A88XM-D3H Builds (Compare 332 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 8%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 48%
Yacht
Workstation
Workstation 7%
Tree trunk

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-F2A88XM-D3H

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 49% - Average Total price: $163
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