Gigabyte GA-A320M-HD2-CF

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 0%
Incomplete
Desktop
Desktop 0%
Incomplete
Workstation
Workstation 0%
Incomplete
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 an extremely low single core score, this CPU can barely handle email and light web browsing. Finally, with a gaming score of 11.4%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is terrible.
Graphics7.67% 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.
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 (73%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
SystemGigabyte A320M-HD2
MotherboardGigabyte GA-A320M-HD2-CF  (all builds)
Memory12.2 GB free of 16 GB @ 2.4 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20170626
Uptime0.5 Days
Run DateJan 29 '23 at 10:08
Run Duration199 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU 73%

 PC Performing as expected (51st percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD A6-9500 APU (2016 D.BR)
AM4, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 2 threads
Base clock 3.5 GHz, turbo 3.8 GHz (avg)
Performing way below expectations (2nd percentile)
11.4% Very poor
Memory 9.6
1-Core 62.6
2-Core 69
25% 47.1 Pts
4-Core 74.8
8-Core 82
10% 78.4 Pts
64-Core 72.2
4% 72.2 Pts
Poor: 17%
This bench: 11.4%
Great: 44%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD Radeon R5 Graphics
Gigabyte(1458 D000) 512MB
Ram: 512MB, Driver: 21.5.2
Performing way above expectations (99th percentile)
7.67% Terrible
Lighting 9.3
Reflection 10.5
Parallax 13.3
8% 11 fps
MRender 8.1
Gravity 10.4
Splatting 10
8% 9.5 fps
Poor: 3%
This bench: 7.67%
Great: 7%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
WDC WDBNCE2500PNC-WRSN 250GB
87GB free (System drive)
Firmware: X41110WD
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 303
Write 52.6
Mixed 186
39% 180 MB/s
4K Read 12.5
4K Write 29.8
4K Mixed 19
59% 20.4 MB/s
DQ Read 176
DQ Write 113
DQ Mixed 116
94% 135 MB/s
Poor: 55% Great: 100%
Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB-$80
425GB free
Firmware: SD14
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 300
Write 13.7
Mixed 61.8
92% 125 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.6
4K Mixed 0.7
137% 1 MB/s
Poor: 27% Great: 59%
Seagate ST31000333AS 1TB-$750
631GB free
Firmware: CC3H
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 93.8
Write 102
Mixed 55.9
62% 84 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.8
4K Mixed 0.9
162% 1.13 MB/s
Poor: 33% Great: 66%
Generic STORAGE DEVICE 16GB
5GB free, PID 0748
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 66.1
Write 19.1
Mixed 9.7
30% 31.6 MB/s
4K Read 1.8
4K Write 0.8
4K Mixed 1.3
78% 1.3 MB/s
Poor: 6% Great: 33%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown CT8G4DFS824A.C8FJ CT8G4DFS824A.C8FBR1 16GB
2400, 2400 MHz
8192, 8192 MB
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
17.4% Very poor
MC Read 7.4
MC Write 5
MC Mixed 7.6
19% 6.67 GB/s
SC Read 2.7
SC Write 3.5
SC Mixed 4
10% 3.4 GB/s
Latency 407
10% 407 ns
Poor: 21%
This bench: 17.4%
Great: 25%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical GA-A320M-HD2-CF Builds (Compare 198 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 24%
Surfboard
Desktop
Desktop 69%
Battle cruiser
Workstation
Workstation 21%
Surfboard

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-A320M-HD2-CF

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 97% - Outstanding Total price: $227
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketing teams operate large numbers of reddit accounts. Because UserBenchmark’s data often contradicts their marketing spiel, they systematically attack our reputation.
Why don’t large PC brands support UserBenchmark?
PC brands make a lot of money on flagship hardware sales: 4090, 14900KS, 7950X3D etc. We help consumers get comparable real-world performance at a fraction of the cost.
Why don’t any youtubers promote UserBenchmark?
We don't sponsor youtubers, so they have no incentive to praise us. Additionally, brands spend more on marketing weaker products which puts their youtubers at odds with UserBenchmark.
Why does UserBenchmark have so many negative trustpilot reviews?
Trustpilot hosts user-generated reviews in an online community. 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 the last 13 years to providing comprehensive and accurate data to our users. As a result, most of our users return over and over again and collectively save millions every year.
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) $39Corsair 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