MSI A320M-A PRO (MS-7C51)

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 7%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 51%
Yacht
Workstation
Workstation 6%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (47th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 53 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 52.4%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is average.
Graphics4.83% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive54% is a reasonable SSD score. This drive enables fast boots and responsive applications.
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.
Very high background CPU (38%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
SystemMicro-Star MS-7C51
MotherboardMSI A320M-A PRO (MS-7C51)  (all builds)
Memory8.4 GB free of 16 GB @ 2.7 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20191108
Uptime0.8 Days
Run DateJul 16 '22 at 17:27
Run Duration157 Seconds
Run User IRL-User
Background CPU 38%

 PC Performing as expected (47th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD Athlon 3000G-$52
AM4, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 3.5 GHz, turbo 3.45 GHz (avg)
Performing as expected (43rd percentile)
52.4% Above average
Memory 64
1-Core 88.4
2-Core 98.4
52% 83.6 Pts
4-Core 236
8-Core 245
32% 241 Pts
64-Core 250
16% 250 Pts
Poor: 37%
This bench: 52.4%
Great: 62%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD Radeon Vega 3 Graphics
MSI(1462 7C51) 2GB
Ram: 2GB, Driver: 21.30.23.04
Performing above expectations (72nd percentile)
4.83% Terrible
Lighting 5.4
Reflection 7.5
Parallax 7.3
4% 6.73 fps
MRender 5.4
Gravity 5.6
Splatting 8.9
6% 6.63 fps
Poor: 3%
This bench: 4.83%
Great: 6%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
2-power SSD2041B 128GB
20GB free (System drive)
Firmware: SBFM61.3
SusWrite @10s intervals: 109 73 2.6 12 12 19 MB/s
Performing below potential (31st percentile) - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable
54% Above average
Read 279
Write 212
Mixed 223
SusWrite 37.9
42% 188 MB/s
4K Read 25.1
4K Write 59.8
4K Mixed 24.8
102% 36.6 MB/s
DQ Read 174
DQ Write 266
DQ Mixed 155
136% 198 MB/s
Poor: 39%
This bench: 54%
Great: 82%
Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 320GB-$29
197GB free
Firmware: KC43
SusWrite @10s intervals: 96 100 98 97 98 98 MB/s
Performing above expectations (72nd percentile)
56.7% Above average
Read 100
Write 95.7
Mixed 60.4
SusWrite 97.5
65% 88.4 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1
4K Mixed 0.8
132% 0.8 MB/s
Poor: 26%
This bench: 56.7%
Great: 65%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown SP016GBLFU266B02 1x16GB
1 of 2 slots used
16GB DIMM DDR4 clocked @ 2667 MHz
Performing below potential (17th percentile) - ensure that an XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
42.4% Average
MC Read 16.5
MC Write 13.3
MC Mixed 14.2
42% 14.7 GB/s
SC Read 15.3
SC Write 12.8
SC Mixed 14.6
41% 14.2 GB/s
Latency 116
34% 116 ns
Poor: 38%
This bench: 42.4%
Great: 52%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical A320M-A PRO (MS-7C51) Builds (Compare 3,882 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 34%
Sail boat
Desktop
Desktop 78%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 31%
Sail boat

Motherboard: MSI A320M-A PRO (MS-7C51)

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 76% - Very good Total price: $300
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 youtubers extra to promote inferior products but UserBenchmark’s data exposes them.
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 keep returning.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170Nvidia RTX 4060 $293Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $122Nvidia 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 $45SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $28Corsair 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