ADD TO PC
BUILD

Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD3

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing CPU, RAM
Gaming 0% Incomplete	Desktop 0% Incomplete	Workstation 0% Incomplete


PC Status	Overall this PC is performing as expected (46th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 54 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
Graphics	13.3% 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 Drive	56.1% is a reasonable SSD score. This drive enables fast boots and responsive applications.
Memory	8GB 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 Version	Although Windows 7 is still a viable option, it's now 14 years and 10 months old. This system should be upgraded to Windows 10 which is generally faster and has an improved set of core utilities including better versions of explorer and task manager.

Run History

9 years ago, 9 years ago.

Motherboard	Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD3 (all builds)
Memory	6.2 GB free of 8 GB @ 1.3 GHz
Display	1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit Farben
OS	Windows 7
BIOS Date	20100810
Uptime	0.4 Days
Run Date	Sep 24 '14 at 00:43
Run Duration	189 Seconds
Run User	DEU-User
Background CPU	1%

PC Performing as expected (46^th percentile)

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

Processor	Bench	Normal	Heavy	Server
Intel Core i5 760-$100 34,495 User benchmarks, average bench 64% Socket 1156, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 4 threads Base clock 2.8 GHz Relative performance n/a - benchmarks incomplete		1-Core 71.6 2-Core 143 49% 107 Pts	4-Core 264 8-Core 262 35% 263 Pts	64-Core 277 17% 277 Pts
Poor: 50% Great: 72%

Graphics Card	Bench	3D DX9	3D DX10	3D DX11
AMD HD 6850 31,600 User benchmarks, average bench 12% Sapphire(174B E174) 1GB Driver: aticfx64.dll Ver. 14.100.0.0 Performing way above expectations (91^st percentile)	13.3% Very poor	Lighting 17.4 Reflection 14 Parallax 14.6 14% 15.3 fps	MRender 12 Gravity 11.5 Splatting 17.4 12% 13.6 fps
Poor: 11% ↑ This bench: 13.3% Great: 13%

Drives	Bench	Sequential	Random 4k	Deep queue 4k
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB-$100 217,115 User benchmarks, average bench 96% 133GB free (System drive) Firmware: EXT0BB6Q Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s Performing way below expectations (2^nd percentile) (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (05) Reallocated sector count 100 100 0 (09) Power-on hours count 99 99 293 (0C) Power cycle count 99 99 103 (B1) Unknown 99 99 2 (B3) Unknown 100 100 0 (B5) Unknown 100 100 0 (B6) Unknown 100 100 0 (B7) Unknown 100 100 0 (BB) vendor-specific 100 100 0 (BE) vendor-specific 59 48 41 (C3) Hardware ECC recovered 200 200 0 (C7) UDMA CRC error rate 100 100 0 (EB) Unknown 99 99 20 (F1) Unknown 99 99 1580382624	56.1% Above average	Read 371 Write 161 Mixed 173 51% 235 MB/s	4K Read 29 4K Write 28 4K Mixed 18.3 82% 25.1 MB/s	DQ Read 195 DQ Write 111 DQ Mixed 60.3 70% 122 MB/s
Poor: 64% ↑ This bench: 56.1% Great: 118%
WD Blue 640GB (2008)-$33 94,563 User benchmarks, average bench 50% 330GB free Firmware: 01.03B01 Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s Performing above expectations (70^th percentile) (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (01) Raw read error rate 200 200 0 (03) Spinup time 159 158 5025 (04) Start/Stop count 98 98 2094 (05) Reallocated sector count 200 200 0 (07) Seek error rate 100 253 0 (09) Power-on hours count 94 94 4481 (0A) Spinup retry count 100 100 0 (0B) Calibration retry count 100 100 0 (0C) Power cycle count 98 98 2004 (C0) Power-off retract count 200 200 401 (C1) Load/Unload cycle count 200 200 2094 (C2) HDA temperature 101 94 46 (C4) Reallocation count 200 200 0 (C5) Current pending sector count 200 200 0 (C6) Offline scan uncorrectable count 200 200 1 (C7) UDMA CRC error rate 200 200 0 (C8) Write error rate 200 200 1	55% Above average	Read 94.9 Write 96.4 Mixed 64.9 64% 85.4 MB/s	4K Read 0.6 4K Write 2.05 4K Mixed 0.38 105% 1.01 MB/s
Poor: 31% ↑ This bench: 55% Great: 62%
WDC WD10 EAVS-00D7B1 1TB 81 User benchmarks, average bench 18% 102GB free, PID 2329 Operating at USB 2.0 Speed Performing way below expectations (19^th percentile)	15.4% Very poor	Read 27.5 Write 27.2 Mixed 20.5 32% 25.1 MB/s	4K Read 0.37 4K Write 1.75 4K Mixed 0.26 70% 0.79 MB/s
Poor: 15% ↑ This bench: 15.4% Great: 22%
TOSHIBA USB 3.5"-HDD 1.5TB 258 User benchmarks, average bench 16% 30GB free, PID 0b09 Operating at USB 2.0 Speed Performing as expected (48^th percentile)	14.6% Very poor	Read 28.8 Write 27.7 Mixed 28.2 36% 28.2 MB/s	4K Read 0.56 4K Write 1.37 4K Mixed 0.3 59% 0.75 MB/s
Poor: 11% ↑ This bench: 14.6% Great: 19%

Take a copy of your results How to check your in-game FPS

Custom PC Builder (Explore upgrades for this PC) Build your perfect PC: compare component prices, popularity, speed and value for money

CHOOSE AN UPGRADE:

CPU

GPU

SSD

HDD

RAM

Typical GA-P55A-UD3 Builds (Compare 519 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings

Gaming

Gaming 22%

Surfboard

Desktop

Desktop 71%

Battleship

Workstation

Workstation 17%

Surfboard

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD3

CPU
Core i5 760Intel $100Bench 64%, 34,495 samples	140x
Core i5-750Intel $72Bench 62%, 43,796 samples	128x
Core i7 870Intel $100Bench 66%, 37,228 samples	88x

GPU
GTX 1050-TiNvidia $59Bench 29%, 946,701 samples	31x
GTX 1060-6GBNvidia $117Bench 56%, 1,368,019 samples	26x
GTX 970Nvidia $200Bench 49%, 834,238 samples	20x

SSD
A400 240GBKingston $28Bench 66%, 424,288 samples	23x
850 Evo 250GBSamsung $100Bench 103%, 951,591 samples	16x
840 Evo 250GBSamsung $100Bench 96%, 217,115 samples	16x

RAM
4x4GBUnknownBench 43%, 106,178 samples	112x
4x2GBUnknownBench 25%, 183,252 samples	95x
12GBUnknownBench 35%, 85,415 samples	78x

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER

Value: 85% - Excellent

Total price: $187

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 youtubers extra to promote inferior products but UserBenchmark’s data exposes them.

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 keep returning.

The Best.

CPU	GPU	SSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170	Nvidia RTX 4060 $293	Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $120	Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $361	Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-13600K $260	Nvidia RTX 4070 $550	Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $45

HDD	RAM	USB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $37	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $45	SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $28	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $48	SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $62	G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $351	SanDisk Ultra Fit 32GB $16

If you make a purchase via one of these links, our site may earn a commission

Today's hottest

Amazon Ebay

deals

CPU GPU SSD HDD USB RAM MBD

Build

Test

EFps

Can You Run It?

►
YouTube
*NEW*

About • User Guide • FAQs • Email • Privacy • Developer • YouTube Feedback