Asrock FM2A55M-DGS R2.0

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 4%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 53%
Yacht
Workstation
Workstation 3%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (42nd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 58 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 57.4%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is average.
Graphics5.67% is a very low 3D score (RTX 2060S = 100%). This GPU can only handle very basic 3D games but it's fine for general computing tasks.
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.
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.
Very high background CPU (42%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
21 months ago, 21 months ago.
MotherboardAsrock FM2A55M-DGS R2.0  (all builds)
Memory3 GB free of 8 GB @ 0.8 GHz
Display1360 x 768 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20131001
Uptime12.2 Days
Run DateSep 14 '22 at 04:02
Run Duration159 Seconds
Run User CAN-User
Background CPU 42%

 PC Performing as expected (42nd percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD A10-6790K APU (2013 D.Ri)
CPUSocket, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 4 GHz, turbo 4.15 GHz (avg)
Performing above expectations (76th percentile)
57.4% Above average
Memory 86.4
1-Core 59.6
2-Core 110
55% 85.4 Pts
4-Core 171
8-Core 153
22% 162 Pts
64-Core 187
12% 187 Pts
Poor: 42%
This bench: 57.4%
Great: 62%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD Radeon HD 8670D
ASRock(1849 9901) 512MB
Driver: aticfx64.dll Ver. 15.201.1151.1008
Performing above expectations (81st percentile)
5.67% Terrible
Lighting 7.1
Reflection 8.6
Parallax 7.4
6% 7.7 fps
MRender 5.2
Gravity 6.7
Splatting 7.6
6% 6.5 fps
Poor: 3%
This bench: 5.67%
Great: 6%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
WD Blue 4TB (2015)-$85
2.5TB free (System drive)
Firmware: 80.00A80
SusWrite @10s intervals: 89 17 63 112 114 122 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (13th percentile)
58.2% Above average
Read 117
Write 68.7
Mixed 73.3
SusWrite 86.1
64% 86.3 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 0.6
4K Mixed 0.2
54% 0.43 MB/s
Poor: 49%
This bench: 58.2%
Great: 101%
WD Green 2TB (2012)-$50
61GB free
Firmware: 80.00A80
SusWrite @10s intervals: 93 92 93 94 90 72 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (15th percentile)
48.4% Average
Read 79.4
Write 88.5
Mixed 58.5
SusWrite 88.9
58% 78.8 MB/s
4K Read 1
4K Write 2.2
4K Mixed 0.9
182% 1.37 MB/s
Poor: 40%
This bench: 48.4%
Great: 84%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown 1866 CL9 Series 8GB
800, 800 MHz
4096, 4096 MB
Performing below potential (26th percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
32.7% Below average
MC Read 15.1
MC Write 6.5
MC Mixed 10.9
31% 10.8 GB/s
SC Read 8.1
SC Write 7.6
SC Mixed 10
24% 8.57 GB/s
Latency 70.9
56% 70.9 ns
Poor: 29%
This bench: 32.7%
Great: 44%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical FM2A55M-DGS R2.0 Builds (Compare 17 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 FM2A55M-DGS R2.0

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 33% - Below average Total price: $209
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) $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