Asrock A320M/ac

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 11%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 32%
Sail boat
Workstation
Workstation 12%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing below expectations (34th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 66 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components. Use the charts in the benchmark sections of this report to identify problem areas.
ProcessorWith an extremely low single core score, this CPU can barely handle email and light web browsing. Finally, with a gaming score of 18%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is terrible.
Graphics42.9% is a reasonable 3D score (RTX 2060S = 100%). This GPU can handle the majority of recent games but it will struggle with resolutions greater than 1080p at ultra detail levels. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive24.9% is an extremely low SSD score, this system will benefit from a faster SSD.
Memory24GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's far more than any current game requires. 24GB will also allow for large file and system caches, virtual machine hosting, software development, video editing and batch multimedia processing.
OS VersionWindows 11 is the most recent version of Windows.
Very high background CPU (100%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
21 months ago, 21 months ago.
MotherboardAsrock A320M/ac  (all builds)
Memory19.2 GB free of 24 GB @ 2.4 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 11
BIOS Date20200716
Uptime1.7 Days
Run DateAug 19 '22 at 14:16
Run Duration344 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU 100%
Watch Gameplay: 1650 + 9600K How to compare your gameplay

 PC Performing below expectations (34th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD Ryzen 3 3100
AM4, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 8 threads
Base clock 3.6 GHz, turbo 3.9 GHz (avg)
Performing way below expectations (0th percentile)
18% Very poor
Memory 12.6
1-Core 39
2-Core 60
20% 37.2 Pts
4-Core 125
8-Core 194
20% 159 Pts
64-Core 393
24% 393 Pts
Poor: 63%
This bench: 18%
Great: 83%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 1650-$155
PNY(196E 1361) ≥ 4GB
CLim: 2100 MHz, MLim: 3000 MHz, Ram: 4GB, Driver: 516.94
Performing below potential (66th percentile) - GPU OC Guide
42.9% Average
Lighting 53.9
Reflection 54
Parallax 50.1
44% 52.7 fps
MRender 60.9
Gravity 47.7
Splatting 44.3
41% 51 fps
Poor: 39%
This bench: 42.9%
Great: 46%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
PNY CS900 500GB SSD
317GB free (System drive)
Firmware: CS9006B3
SusWrite @10s intervals: 129 145 76 76 87 73 MB/s
Relative performance (0th percentile) - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable
24.9% Poor
Read 154
Write 118
Mixed 114
SusWrite 97.6
27% 121 MB/s
4K Read 5.9
4K Write 8.3
4K Mixed 4.2
19% 6.13 MB/s
DQ Read 219
DQ Write 107
DQ Mixed 102
92% 142 MB/s
Poor: 46%
This bench: 24.9%
Great: 96%
Seagate Photo Drive 2TB
1.5TB free
Firmware: 9340
SusWrite @10s intervals: 40 50 57 50 41 39 MB/s
Performing below expectations (24th percentile)
24.7% Poor
Read 39.9
Write 56.8
Mixed 37.8
SusWrite 46.2
33% 45.2 MB/s
4K Read 0.3
4K Write 0.9
4K Mixed 0.5
85% 0.57 MB/s
Poor: 14%
This bench: 24.7%
Great: 70%
WD Elements 2621 2TB
878GB free, PID 2621
Operating at USB 3.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 68 78 86 83 81 81 MB/s
Performing below expectations (32nd percentile)
36.4% Below average
Read 67.5
Write 81
Mixed 51.9
SusWrite 79.5
97% 70 MB/s
4K Read 0.4
4K Write 3
4K Mixed 0.5
120% 1.3 MB/s
Poor: 19%
This bench: 36.4%
Great: 64%
WD Elements 25A2 2TB
357GB free, PID 25a2
Operating at USB 3.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 67 61 66 57 51 50 MB/s
Performing below expectations (22nd percentile)
23.8% Poor
Read 60.4
Write 64.8
Mixed 37.9
SusWrite 58.6
75% 55.4 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 0.7
4K Mixed 0.6
46% 0.63 MB/s
Poor: 15%
This bench: 23.8%
Great: 61%
USB DISK 2.0 16GB
15GB free, PID 4200
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 8.4 9.3 9.5 9.4 9.3 8.2 MB/s
Performing above expectations (84th percentile)
6.82% Terrible
Read 21.9
Write 8.2
Mixed 8.2
SusWrite 9
14% 11.8 MB/s
4K Read 1.9
4K Write 0.4
4K Mixed 0.6
41% 0.97 MB/s
Poor: 3%
This bench: 6.82%
Great: 10%
USB DISK 3.0 124GB
115GB free, PID 1931
Operating at USB 3.2 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 7 1 4.7 1 4 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (11th percentile)
7.37% Terrible
Read 34
Write 16.2
Mixed 22.6
SusWrite 3.7
23% 19.1 MB/s
4K Read 0.4
4K Write 0.5
4K Mixed 0.4
32% 0.43 MB/s
Poor: 7%
This bench: 7.37%
Great: 22%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Adata DDR4 3000 Kingston KF3600C18D4/16GX 24GB
2400, 2400 MHz
8192, 16384 MB
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
39.3% Below average
MC Read 18.1
MC Write 13.1
MC Mixed 16.4
45% 15.9 GB/s
SC Read 5.2
SC Write 6.4
SC Mixed 6.2
17% 5.93 GB/s
Latency 381
10% 381 ns
Poor: 39%
This bench: 39.3%
Great: 96%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical A320M/ac Builds (Compare 1,740 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 43%
Speed boat
Desktop
Desktop 86%
Aircraft carrier
Workstation
Workstation 41%
Speed boat

Motherboard: Asrock A320M/ac

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 89% - Excellent Total price: $314
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 more to market weaker products which puts their youtubers at odds with UserBenchmark.
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 return repeatedly.
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 $40SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $29Corsair 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