Galaxy A320M

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 8%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 63%
Destroyer
Workstation
Workstation 7%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing above expectations (62nd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 38 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 63.4%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
Graphics7.8% 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.
Memory12GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's more than sufficient for nearly all games. 12GB 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 (33%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
SystemGalaxy A320M  (all builds)
MotherboardGALAX GALAX A320M
Memory8.2 GB free of 12 GB @ 2.1 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date
Uptime1.3 Days
Run DateJun 21 '23 at 20:33
Run Duration122 Seconds
Run User IND-User
Background CPU 33%

 PC Performing above expectations (62nd percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD Ryzen 3 3200G-$75
AM4, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 3.6 GHz, turbo 3.7 GHz (avg)
Performing as expected (47th percentile)
63.4% Good
Memory 64.7
1-Core 114
2-Core 225
73% 134 Pts
4-Core 353
8-Core 386
49% 370 Pts
64-Core 384
24% 384 Pts
Poor: 46%
This bench: 63.4%
Great: 74%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GeForce GT 740
Asus(1043 84D8) 2GB
CLim: 1032 MHz, MLim: 1250 MHz, Ram: 2GB, Driver: 456.71
Performing above expectations (83rd percentile)
7.8% Terrible
Lighting 8.6
Reflection 11.2
Parallax 10.5
7% 10.1 fps
MRender 13
Gravity 11.4
Splatting 10.3
9% 11.6 fps
Poor: 6%
This bench: 7.8%
Great: 8%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
WD Blue 1TB (2012)-$29
774GB free
Firmware: 01.01A01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 179 181 180 183 187 186 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (97th percentile)
111% Outstanding
Read 204
Write 164
Mixed 114
SusWrite 183
122% 166 MB/s
4K Read 1.2
4K Write 3
4K Mixed 1.2
239% 1.8 MB/s
Poor: 52%
This bench: 111%
Great: 109%
Toshiba P300 1TB-$40
739GB free (System drive)
Firmware: MS2OA8R0
SusWrite @10s intervals: 128 135 142 129 147 141 MB/s
Performing as expected (43rd percentile)
82.5% Excellent
Read 150
Write 157
Mixed 25
SusWrite 137
85% 117 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.9
4K Mixed 0.5
120% 1.03 MB/s
Poor: 52%
This bench: 82.5%
Great: 107%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown CMK8GX4M1A2400C16 Adata 12GB
2133, 2400 MHz
8192, 4096 MB
Performing below potential (39th percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
58.1% Above average
MC Read 21.9
MC Write 20.4
MC Mixed 19.2
59% 20.5 GB/s
SC Read 17.7
SC Write 21.2
SC Mixed 19.8
56% 19.6 GB/s
Latency 114
35% 114 ns
Poor: 46%
This bench: 58.1%
Great: 70%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical A320M Builds (Compare 93 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 12%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 68%
Battle cruiser
Workstation
Workstation 10%
Tree trunk

System: Galaxy A320M

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 90% - Excellent Total price: $75
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 $122Nvidia 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