Gigabyte GA-F2A68HM-H

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 6%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 50%
Yacht
Workstation
Workstation 5%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (52nd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 48 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 45.5%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is below average.
Graphics4.84% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive58.2% is a reasonable SSD score. This drive enables fast boots and responsive applications.
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 7 is still a viable option, it's now 14 years and 10 months old. This system should be upgraded to Windows 10 which is generally faster and has an improved set of core utilities including better versions of explorer and task manager.
MotherboardGigabyte GA-F2A68HM-H  (all builds)
Memory5.9 GB free of 8 GB @ 1.6 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 7
BIOS Date20160119
Uptime0.1 Days
Run DateFeb 13 '17 at 02:29
Run Duration129 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU4%

 PC Performing as expected (52nd percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD A6-7400K APU (2014 D.Ka)
P0, 1 CPU, 1 cores, 2 threads
Base clock 3.5 GHz
Performing way above expectations (97th percentile)
45.5% Average
Memory 73.4
1-Core 68.9
2-Core 104
52% 82.1 Pts
4-Core 104
8-Core 105
14% 105 Pts
64-Core 106
7% 106 Pts
Poor: 20%
This bench: 45.5%
Great: 45%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD Radeon R5 Graphics
Gigabyte(1458 D000) 1GB
Ram: 1GB, Driver: 16.12.2
Performing way above expectations (94th percentile)
4.84% Terrible
Lighting 5.43
Reflection 7.96
Parallax 6.56
4% 6.65 fps
MRender 6.33
Gravity 4.8
Splatting 8.78
6% 6.64 fps
Poor: 3%
This bench: 4.84%
Great: 5%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
PNY CS1311 120GB-$63
79GB free (System drive)
Firmware: CS131122 Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (13th percentile)
58.2% Above average
Read 427
Write 300
Mixed 239
71% 322 MB/s
4K Read 24.5
4K Write 49.6
4K Mixed 7.84
74% 27.3 MB/s
DQ Read 25.9
DQ Write 65.9
DQ Mixed 8.78
17% 33.5 MB/s
Poor: 48%
This bench: 58.2%
Great: 91%
SanDisk Extreme Pro USB 3.0 128GB-$60
114GB free, PID 5588
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
Performing as expected (45th percentile)
87.7% Excellent
Read 183
Write 124
Mixed 103
162% 137 MB/s
4K Read 11.4
4K Write 10.3
4K Mixed 4.76
553% 8.8 MB/s
DQ Read 11.7
DQ Write 10.8
DQ Mixed 4.95
580% 9.16 MB/s
Poor: 23%
This bench: 87.7%
Great: 123%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Crucial BLS4G3D1609ES 2x4GB
2 of 4 slots used
8GB DIMM DDR3 clocked @ 1600 MHz
Performing below potential (11th percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
31.6% Below average
MC Read 12.2
MC Write 7.5
MC Mixed 12.1
30% 10.6 GB/s
SC Read 8.5
SC Write 7.7
SC Mixed 12.1
27% 9.43 GB/s
Latency 93.7
43% 93.7 ns
Poor: 32%
This bench: 31.6%
Great: 52%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical GA-F2A68HM-H Builds (Compare 371 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 6%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 44%
Speed boat
Workstation
Workstation 6%
Tree trunk

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-F2A68HM-H

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 21% - Poor Total price: $28
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 more to market weaker products which puts their youtubers at odds with UserBenchmark.
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 return repeatedly.
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