Asrock FM2A75 Pro4

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 5%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 56%
Gunboat
Workstation
Workstation 5%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (51st percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 49 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 58.2%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is average.
Graphics3.33% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive52.8% is a reasonable SSD score. This drive enables fast boots and responsive applications.
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 (11%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
MotherboardAsrock FM2A75 Pro4  (all builds)
Memory6 GB free of 8 GB @ 0.8 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit renk
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20130711
Uptime0 Days
Run DateSep 01 '22 at 00:58
Run Duration149 Seconds
Run User TUR-User
Background CPU 11%

 PC Performing as expected (51st percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD A10-5800K APU (2012 D.Tr)-$119
CPUSocket, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 3.8 GHz, turbo 3.9 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (91st percentile)
58.2% Above average
Memory 81.6
1-Core 69.7
2-Core 135
58% 95.3 Pts
4-Core 204
8-Core 205
27% 205 Pts
64-Core 205
13% 205 Pts
Poor: 37%
This bench: 58.2%
Great: 60%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GeForce GT 430
Asus(1043 836D) 1GB
CLim: 700 MHz, MLim: 400 MHz, Ram: 1GB, Driver: 376.54
Performing as expected (56th percentile)
3.33% Terrible
Lighting 4
Reflection 6
Parallax 1.2
3% 3.73 fps
MRender 5.6
Gravity 4.3
Splatting 3.3
4% 4.4 fps
Poor: 2%
This bench: 3.33%
Great: 4%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Hi-level Ultra Series 120GB
94GB free (System drive)
Firmware: HPS1A30F
SusWrite @10s intervals: 293 293 325 143 99 80 MB/s
Performing below expectations (24th percentile)
52.8% Above average
Read 349
Write 270
Mixed 148
SusWrite 206
54% 243 MB/s
4K Read 28
4K Write 57.9
4K Mixed 8.8
84% 31.6 MB/s
DQ Read 32.5
DQ Write 81.7
DQ Mixed 11.2
22% 41.8 MB/s
Poor: 47%
This bench: 52.8%
Great: 102%
WD Blue 1TB (2012)-$28
521GB free
Firmware: 01.01A01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 160 158 160 160 162 161 MB/s
Performing above expectations (74th percentile)
95.5% Outstanding
Read 172
Write 146
Mixed 93.7
SusWrite 160
105% 143 MB/s
4K Read 1.4
4K Write 2.7
4K Mixed 1.2
242% 1.77 MB/s
Poor: 52%
This bench: 95.5%
Great: 109%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Kingston 99U5471-039.A00LF 1x8GB
1 of 4 slots used
8GB DIMM DDR3 800 MHz clocked @ 1280 MHz
Performing below potential (8th percentile) - ensure that an XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
24.3% Poor
MC Read 10.7
MC Write 4.5
MC Mixed 7.2
21% 7.47 GB/s
SC Read 9.1
SC Write 6.1
SC Mixed 7.5
22% 7.57 GB/s
Latency 77.7
52% 77.7 ns
Poor: 23%
This bench: 24.3%
Great: 35%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical FM2A75 Pro4 Builds (Compare 32 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 12%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 61%
Destroyer
Workstation
Workstation 9%
Tree trunk

Motherboard: Asrock FM2A75 Pro4 - $128

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 68% - Good Total price: $405
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