Asrock FM2A68M-DG3+

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 1%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 43%
Speed boat
Workstation
Workstation 1%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (55th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 45 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 46.4%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is below average.
Graphics1.93% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (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.
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.
MotherboardAsrock FM2A68M-DG3+  (all builds)
Memory5.4 GB free of 8 GB @ 1.3 GHz
Display1366 x 768 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 7
BIOS Date20160112
Uptime0 Days
Run DateMar 16 '21 at 15:44
Run Duration166 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU2%

 PC Performing as expected (55th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD A4-4000 APU-$171
CPUSocket, 1 CPU, 1 cores, 2 threads
Base clock 3 GHz
Performing above expectations (79th percentile)
46.4% Average
Memory 78.7
1-Core 55.5
2-Core 71.1
47% 68.4 Pts
4-Core 84.8
8-Core 85.4
11% 85.1 Pts
64-Core 84.7
5% 84.7 Pts
Poor: 22%
This bench: 46.4%
Great: 50%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD Radeon HD 7480D
ASRock(1849 9993) 1GB
Driver: aticfx64.dll Ver. 15.301.1901.0
Performing as expected (50th percentile)
1.93% Terrible
Lighting 2.3
Reflection 3.8
Parallax 2.3
2% 2.8 fps
MRender 2.4
Gravity 2
Splatting 2.9
2% 2.43 fps
Poor: 2%
This bench: 1.93%
Great: 2%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Toshiba MQ01ABF032 320GB-$37
277GB free (System drive)
Firmware: AM001A
SusWrite @10s intervals: 91 93 86 90 93 89 MB/s
Performing above expectations (78th percentile)
49.1% Average
Read 80.9
Write 79.2
Mixed 29.8
SusWrite 90.3
51% 70.1 MB/s
4K Read 0.4
4K Write 1.3
4K Mixed 0.6
107% 0.77 MB/s
Poor: 19%
This bench: 49.1%
Great: 57%
WDC WD32 00BPVT-80JJ5T0 320GB
232GB free, PID 0578
Operating at USB 2.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 29 29 30 30 30 30 MB/s
Performing above expectations (63rd percentile)
15.4% Very poor
Read 29.5
Write 27.9
Mixed 23.6
SusWrite 29.5
38% 27.6 MB/s
4K Read 0.4
4K Write 1.5
4K Mixed 0.6
73% 0.83 MB/s
Poor: 13%
This bench: 15.4%
Great: 36%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Teikon TMT41GU6BFR8C-PBHJ 1x8GB
1 of 2 slots used
8GB DIMM DDR3 clocked @ 1333 MHz
Performing below potential (8th percentile) - ensure that an XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
22.2% Poor
MC Read 8.8
MC Write 4.8
MC Mixed 6.6
19% 6.73 GB/s
SC Read 7.6
SC Write 6
SC Mixed 7.6
20% 7.07 GB/s
Latency 82.9
48% 82.9 ns
Poor: 22%
This bench: 22.2%
Great: 34%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical FM2A68M-DG3+ Builds (Compare 547 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 9%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 46%
Yacht
Workstation
Workstation 9%
Tree trunk

Motherboard: Asrock FM2A68M-DG3+

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 21% - Poor Total price: $28
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketers operate thousands of reddit accounts. We expose their spiel so they attack our reputation.
Why don’t PC brands endorse UserBenchmark?
Brands make boatloads of money on flagships like the 4090 and 14900KS. We help users get similar real-world performance for less.
Why don’t youtubers promote UserBenchmark?
We don't pay youtubers, so they don't praise us. Moreover, our data exposes youtubers that promote overpriced/inferior products.
Why does UserBenchmark have negative trustpilot reviews?
The 200+ trustpilot reviews are mostly written by virgin marketing accounts. Real users don't give a monkey's about big brands.
Why is UserBenchmark popular with users?
Instead of pursuing brands for sponsorship, we've spent 13 years publishing real-world data for users.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $174Nvidia 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 $549Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $44
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 $45SanDisk 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