Galaxy A320M Ver1.0

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 36%
Jet ski
Desktop
Desktop 78%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 33%
Sail boat
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (48th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 52 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. Additionally this processor can handle light workstation, and even some light server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 73.9%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is good.
Graphics39.1% 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)
Boot Drive40.9% 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.
Run History
17 months ago, 17 months ago.
SystemGalaxy A320M Ver1.0  (all builds)
MotherboardGALAX GALAX A320M DRAGON GENERAL Ver1.0
Memory12.1 GB free of 16 GB @ 2.4 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date
Uptime0.1 Days
Run DateDec 22 '22 at 04:08
Run Duration136 Seconds
Run User AUS-User
Background CPU0%
Watch Gameplay: 1650 + 9600K How to compare your gameplay

 PC Performing as expected (48th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD Ryzen 5 2600-$145
AM4, 1 CPU, 6 cores, 12 threads
Base clock 3.4 GHz, turbo 3.65 GHz (avg)
Performing above expectations (71st percentile)
73.9% Very good
Memory 74
1-Core 106
2-Core 210
72% 130 Pts
4-Core 397
8-Core 621
63% 509 Pts
64-Core 848
52% 848 Pts
Poor: 67%
This bench: 73.9%
Great: 81%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 1650-$155
Device(7377 0000) ≥ 4GB
CLim: 2100 MHz, MLim: 3000 MHz, Ram: 4GB, Driver: 527.56
Performing below potential (11th percentile) - GPU OC Guide
39.1% Below average
Lighting 50.5
Reflection 70.3
Parallax 43.2
41% 54.7 fps
MRender 54
Gravity 31.6
Splatting 43.3
35% 43 fps
Poor: 39%
This bench: 39.1%
Great: 46%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
WDC WDS480G2G0B-00EPW0 480GB
157GB free (System drive)
Firmware: UK430400
SusWrite @10s intervals: 192 121 95 2.1 38 MB/s
Performing below expectations (29th percentile)
40.9% Average
Read 428
Write 381
Mixed 315
SusWrite 82.4
67% 302 MB/s
4K Read 18.7
4K Write 29.6
4K Mixed 9.8
57% 19.4 MB/s
DQ Read 68.9
DQ Write 31.1
DQ Mixed 33.3
29% 44.4 MB/s
Poor: 32%
This bench: 40.9%
Great: 59%
WDC WD20EZBX-00AYRA0 2TB
539GB free
Firmware: 01.01A01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 164 148 169 168 168 166 MB/s
Performing as expected (57th percentile)
36.7% Below average
Read 240
Write 211
Mixed 134
SusWrite 164
42% 187 MB/s
4K Read 36
4K Write 13.3
4K Mixed 1.3
63% 16.9 MB/s
DQ Read 1.4
DQ Write 9.8
DQ Mixed 1.2
2% 4.13 MB/s
Poor: 22%
This bench: 36.7%
Great: 46%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown VMA44UG-MIC1U22L1 2x8GB
2 of 2 slots used
16GB DIMM DDR4 clocked @ 2400 MHz
Performing above expectations (71st percentile)
85.6% Excellent
MC Read 33.3
MC Write 31.5
MC Mixed 28.4
89% 31.1 GB/s
SC Read 22.3
SC Write 30.4
SC Mixed 25.4
74% 26 GB/s
Latency 92.6
43% 92.6 ns
Poor: 72%
This bench: 85.6%
Great: 101%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical A320M Ver1.0 Builds (Compare 59 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 39%
Jet ski
Desktop
Desktop 80%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 36%
Jet ski

System: Galaxy A320M Ver1.0

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 85% - Excellent Total price: $275
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 $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) $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