Asrock FM2A75M-DGS R2.0

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 1%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 49%
Yacht
Workstation
Workstation 1%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (45th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 55 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 54.4%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is average.
Graphics2.17% 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.
Memory4GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and although it's sufficient for most games, some will benefit from up to 8GB of RAM. 4GB is also enough for modest file and system caches which allow for a 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 FM2A75M-DGS R2.0  (all builds)
Memory2.8 GB free of 4 GB @ 0.8 GHz
Display1280 x 1024 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 7
BIOS Date20130711
Uptime0.1 Days
Run DateApr 02 '21 at 19:45
Run Duration136 Seconds
Run User HUN-User
Background CPU0%

 PC Performing as expected (45th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD Athlon II X4 750K-$45
CPUSocket, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 3.4 GHz
Performing above expectations (69th percentile)
54.4% Above average
Memory 82.4
1-Core 62.7
2-Core 115
55% 86.7 Pts
4-Core 154
8-Core 170
21% 162 Pts
64-Core 164
10% 164 Pts
Poor: 40%
This bench: 54.4%
Great: 59%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD Radeon HD 6670
Sapphire(174B E194) 1GB
Driver: aticfx64.dll Ver. 15.301.1901.0
Relative performance (0th percentile)
2.17% Terrible
Lighting 0.2
Reflection 3.2
Parallax 7.2
0% 3.53 fps
MRender 8.8
Gravity 6.6
Splatting 7.1
6% 7.5 fps
Poor: 5%
This bench: 2.17%
Great: 7%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
WD Blue 1TB (2012)-$29
57GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 01.0
SusWrite @10s intervals: 97 97 96 95 95 96 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (9th percentile)
57.9% Above average
Read 105
Write 108
Mixed 98.5
SusWrite 96
76% 102 MB/s
4K Read 1.4
4K Write 2.6
4K Mixed 1.2
240% 1.73 MB/s
Poor: 52%
This bench: 57.9%
Great: 109%
WDC WD25 00BEVS-22UST0 250GB
36GB free, PID 0c15
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 34 35 34 35 35 35 MB/s
Performing above expectations (84th percentile)
18.1% Very poor
Read 31.7
Write 32.5
Mixed 22.8
SusWrite 34.6
41% 30.4 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 1.9
4K Mixed 0.8
94% 1.07 MB/s
Poor: 10%
This bench: 18.1%
Great: 19%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Crucial ST51264BA160B.16FK 1x4GB
1 of 2 slots used
4GB DIMM DDR3 800 MHz
Performing below potential (17th percentile) - ensure that an XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
23.4% Poor
MC Read 10.2
MC Write 4.1
MC Mixed 7.2
20% 7.17 GB/s
SC Read 7.9
SC Write 5.3
SC Mixed 7.8
20% 7 GB/s
Latency 76.2
52% 76.2 ns
Poor: 22%
This bench: 23.4%
Great: 34%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical FM2A75M-DGS R2.0 Builds (Compare 10 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 2%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 43%
Speed boat
Workstation
Workstation 2%
Tree trunk

Motherboard: Asrock FM2A75M-DGS R2.0

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 70% - Good Total price: $36
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketers operate thousands of reddit accounts. Our benchmarks expose their spiel so they attack our reputation.
Why don’t PC brands endorse UserBenchmark?
Brands make boatloads on flagships like the 4090 and 14900KS. We help users get similar real-world performance for less money.
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 $110Nvidia 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 $39SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $29Corsair 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