MSI A320M-A PRO MAX (MS-7C52)

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 0%
Incomplete
Desktop
Desktop 0%
Incomplete
Workstation
Workstation 0%
Incomplete
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing above expectations (83rd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 17 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
ProcessorWith an outstanding single core score, this CPU is the cat's whiskers: It demolishes everyday tasks such as web browsing, office apps and audio/video playback. Additionally this processor can handle typical workstation, and even moderate server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 91.5%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is excellent.
Graphics16.8% 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)
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.
Sub-optimal background CPU (16%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
SystemMicro-Star MS-7C52
MotherboardMSI A320M-A PRO MAX (MS-7C52)  (all builds)
Memory4.9 GB free of 8 GB @ 2.7 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20201207
Uptime0 Days
Run DateJul 16 '21 at 11:37
Run Duration213 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU 16%

 PC Performing above expectations (83rd percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD Ryzen 5 3500-$140
AM4, 1 CPU, 6 cores, 6 threads
Base clock 3.6 GHz, turbo 4 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (99th percentile)
91.5% Outstanding
Memory 76.5
1-Core 139
2-Core 288
90% 168 Pts
4-Core 572
8-Core 846
88% 709 Pts
64-Core 844
52% 844 Pts
Poor: 65%
This bench: 91.5%
Great: 90%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 750-Ti-$92
Nvidia(10DE 105F) ≥ 4GB
CLim: 1293 MHz, MLim: 1350 MHz, Ram: 4GB, Driver: 466.11
Performing as expected (58th percentile)
16.8% Very poor
Lighting 20.7
Reflection 17.9
Parallax 20.4
17% 19.7 fps
MRender 24.5
Gravity 22.4
Splatting 16.4
17% 21.1 fps
Poor: 16%
This bench: 16.8%
Great: 19%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Ccboot iSCSI 64GB
33GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 0
SusWrite @10s intervals: 16 17 19 19 18 19 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable
Poor: 37% Great: 104%
Ccboot iSCSI 937GB
693GB free
Firmware: 0
SusWrite @10s intervals: 16 17 19 19 18 19 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Kingston 99U5471-033.A00LF 1x8GB
1 of 2 slots used
8GB DIMM DDR4 clocked @ 2667 MHz
Performing way above expectations (94th percentile)
52.8% Above average
MC Read 19.2
MC Write 17.9
MC Mixed 17.9
52% 18.3 GB/s
SC Read 16.3
SC Write 16.6
SC Mixed 17.8
48% 16.9 GB/s
Latency 87.4
46% 87.4 ns
Poor: 18%
This bench: 52.8%
Great: 53%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

 SkillBench Score 0: 0R 0G 0B (High Scores)

Measures user input accuracy relative to the given hardware

Score Hit Rate Shots EFps 0.1% Low Refresh Rate Screen Resolution Monitor
0% 0% 1 232 189 60 23.8" 1920 1080 AOC2490 G2490W1G4
Typical A320M-A PRO MAX (MS-7C52) Builds (Compare 3,006 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 34%
Sail boat
Desktop
Desktop 74%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 28%
Raft

Motherboard: MSI A320M-A PRO MAX (MS-7C52)

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 82% - Excellent Total price: $298
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 $280Crucial 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