Asrock FM2A55M-VG3+

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing GPU, SSD
Gaming
Gaming 0%
Incomplete
Desktop
Desktop 0%
Incomplete
Workstation
Workstation 0%
Incomplete
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (49th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 51 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
ProcessorWith an average single core score, this CPU can handle browsing the web, email, video playback and the majority of general computing tasks including light gaming when coupled with an appropriate GPU. Finally, with a gaming score of 48.1%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is below average.
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.
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 (52%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
MotherboardAsrock FM2A55M-VG3+  (all builds)
Memory5.3 GB free of 8 GB @ 1.6 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20131119
Uptime0.3 Days
Run DateNov 30 '16 at 06:25
Run Duration199 Seconds
Run User CAN-User
Background CPU 52%
Watch Gameplay: 1070 + 9600K How to compare your gameplay

 PC Performing as expected (49th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD Athlon II X4 760K (2013 D.Ri)-$59
CPUSocket, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 3.8 GHz, turbo 4 GHz (avg)
Performing below expectations (32nd percentile)
48.1% Average
Memory 65.6
1-Core 56.8
2-Core 116
48% 79.3 Pts
4-Core 181
8-Core 167
24% 174 Pts
64-Core 178
11% 178 Pts
Poor: 39%
This bench: 48.1%
Great: 61%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 1070-$278
CLim: 1911 MHz, MLim: 2002 MHz, Ram: 8GB, Driver: 376.9
Relative performance n/a - benchmarks incomplete
Lighting 91.3
Reflection 96.8
Parallax 75.4
74% 87.8 fps
Gravity 92.6
Splatting 97.1
84% 94.8 fps
Poor: 71% Great: 88%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Toshiba DT01ACA100 1TB-$28
887GB free (System drive)
Firmware: MS2OA750 Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s
Performing above expectations (82nd percentile)
100% Outstanding
Read 164
Write 185
Mixed 165
129% 171 MB/s
4K Read 0.71
4K Write 1.94
4K Mixed 0.19
87% 0.95 MB/s
Poor: 47%
This bench: 100%
Great: 107%
MIMOBOT 8GB
4GB free, PID 0004
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
Performing above expectations (75th percentile)
5.84% Terrible
Read 25.9
Write 7.9
Mixed 12.2
16% 15.3 MB/s
4K Read 0.04
4K Write 0.12
4K Mixed 0.008
4% 0.05 MB/s
Poor: 5%
This bench: 5.84%
Great: 6%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
G.SKILL Aegis DDR3 1600 C11 1x8GB
1 of 2 slots used
8GB DIMM DDR3 clocked @ 1600 MHz
Performing below potential (8th percentile) - ensure that an XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
17.7% Very poor
MC Read 7.7
MC Write 3.4
MC Mixed 5.7
16% 5.6 GB/s
SC Read 6.3
SC Write 3.2
SC Mixed 5.7
14% 5.07 GB/s
Latency 112
36% 112 ns
Poor: 19%
This bench: 17.7%
Great: 35%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical FM2A55M-VG3+ Builds (Compare 70 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 2%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 44%
Speed boat
Workstation
Workstation 2%
Tree trunk

Motherboard: Asrock FM2A55M-VG3+

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 45% - Average Total price: $171
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketing teams operate large numbers of reddit accounts. Because UserBenchmark’s data often contradicts their marketing spiel, they systematically attack our reputation.
Why don’t large PC brands support UserBenchmark?
PC brands make a lot of money on flagship hardware sales: 4090, 14900KS, 7950X3D etc. We help consumers get comparable real-world performance at a fraction of the cost.
Why don’t any youtubers promote UserBenchmark?
We don't sponsor youtubers, so they have no incentive to praise us. Additionally, brands spend more on marketing weaker products which puts their youtubers at odds with UserBenchmark.
Why does UserBenchmark have so many negative trustpilot reviews?
Trustpilot hosts user-generated reviews in an online community. 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 the last 13 years to providing comprehensive and accurate data to our users. As a result, most of our users return over and over again and collectively save millions every year.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170Nvidia RTX 4060 $293Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $120Nvidia 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) $29Corsair 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