Gigabyte GA-A320M-S2H-CF

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 19%
Surfboard
Desktop
Desktop 70%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 16%
Surfboard
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (59th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 41 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 65.8%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
Graphics21.9% is a below average 3D score (RTX 2060S = 100%). This GPU can handle older games but it will struggle to render recent games at resolutions greater than 1080p. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
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.
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.
Sub-optimal background CPU (19%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
SystemGigabyte A320M-S2H
MotherboardGigabyte GA-A320M-S2H-CF  (all builds)
Memory11.5 GB free of 16 GB @ 2.4 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20191128
Uptime6.1 Days
Run DateAug 02 '20 at 21:50
Run Duration107 Seconds
Run User GBR-User
Background CPU 19%

 PC Performing as expected (59th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD Ryzen 3 1200-$100
AM4, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 3.1 GHz, turbo 3.05 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (93rd percentile)
65.8% Good
Memory 71.3
1-Core 93
2-Core 188
66% 117 Pts
4-Core 350
8-Core 344
46% 347 Pts
64-Core 341
21% 341 Pts
Poor: 37%
This bench: 65.8%
Great: 68%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 570-$350
Gigabyte(1458 3513) 1.2GB
CLim: 780 MHz, MLim: 950 MHz, Ram: 1.2GB, Driver: 391.35
Performing way above expectations (98th percentile)
21.9% Poor
Lighting 25.9
Reflection 39.8
Parallax 29.2
21% 31.6 fps
MRender 39
Gravity 21.5
Splatting 26.9
24% 29.1 fps
Poor: 18%
This bench: 21.9%
Great: 22%
Drive BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Seagate ST2000LM003 HN-M201RAD 2TB
705GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 2BC10001
SusWrite @10s intervals: 53 60 65 71 83 70 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (17th percentile)
37.6% Below average
Read 64
Write 82.5
Mixed 19.2
SusWrite 67.1
42% 58.2 MB/s
4K Read 0.2
4K Write 0.9
4K Mixed 0.7
103% 0.6 MB/s
Poor: 23%
This bench: 37.6%
Great: 70%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown BLS8G4D240FSC.16FBD2 BLS8G4D240FSE.16FBD2 16GB
2400, 2400 MHz
8192, 8192 MB
Performing below potential (29th percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
85.9% Excellent
MC Read 33.1
MC Write 31.2
MC Mixed 30.2
90% 31.5 GB/s
SC Read 20
SC Write 30.1
SC Mixed 24.7
71% 24.9 GB/s
Latency 98.3
41% 98.3 ns
Poor: 73%
This bench: 85.9%
Great: 108%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical GA-A320M-S2H-CF Builds (Compare 7,702 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 39%
Jet ski
Desktop
Desktop 79%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 36%
Jet ski

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-A320M-S2H-CF - $70

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 90% - Excellent Total price: $418
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) $39Corsair 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