MSI A320M-A PRO MAX (MS-7C52)

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 63%
Destroyer
Desktop
Desktop 87%
Aircraft carrier
Workstation
Workstation 74%
Battleship
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing below expectations (30th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 70 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components. Use the charts in the benchmark sections of this report to identify problem areas.
ProcessorWith a brilliant single core score, this CPU is the business: It demolishes everyday tasks such as web browsing, office apps and audio/video playback. Additionally this processor can handle intensive workstation, and even full-fledged server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 85.8%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is very good.
Graphics69.4% is a good 3D score. This GPU can handle the majority of recent games at high resolutions and ultra detail levels.
Boot Drive62.3% is a good SSD score. This drive enables fast boots, responsive applications and ensures minimum system IO wait times.
Memory64GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's far more than any current game requires. 64GB will also allow for large file and system caches, virtual machine hosting, software development, video editing and batch multimedia processing.
OS VersionAlthough Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
Run History
9 months ago, 5 months ago.
SystemMicro-Star MS-7C52
MotherboardMSI A320M-A PRO MAX (MS-7C52)  (all builds)
Memory57 GB free of 64 GB @ 2.1 GHz
Display3840 x 2160 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20200420
Uptime1.9 Days
Run DateAug 29 '23 at 22:01
Run Duration174 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU7%
Watch Gameplay: 2060 + 9600K How to compare your gameplay

 PC Performing below expectations (30th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X-$395
AM4, 1 CPU, 12 cores, 24 threads
Base clock 3.8 GHz, turbo 4.1 GHz (avg)
Performing as expected (42nd percentile)
85.8% Excellent
Memory 65.8
1-Core 145
2-Core 286
87% 165 Pts
4-Core 565
8-Core 1,063
97% 814 Pts
64-Core 2160
134% 2160 Pts
Poor: 80%
This bench: 85.8%
Great: 97%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia RTX 2060-$287
CLim: 2145 MHz, MLim: 3500 MHz, Ram: 6GB, Driver: 536.23
Performing below potential (1st percentile) - GPU OC Guide
69.4% Good
Lighting 96.4
Reflection 122
Parallax 0.1
79% 72.9 fps
MRender 126
Gravity 91.7
Splatting 0
52% 72.7 fps
Poor: 80%
This bench: 69.4%
Great: 97%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
SSD 1TB
53GB free (System drive)
Firmware: SBFM61.3
SusWrite @10s intervals: 14 71 38 76 38 76 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (19th percentile)
62.3% Good
Read 349
Write 104
Mixed 134
SusWrite 52.1
35% 160 MB/s
4K Read 26.5
4K Write 67.7
4K Mixed 32.6
118% 42.3 MB/s
DQ Read 142
DQ Write 252
DQ Mixed 207
154% 200 MB/s
Poor: 45%
This bench: 62.3%
Great: 103%
Samsung 860 QVO 1TB-$109
23GB free
Firmware: RVQ02B6Q
SusWrite @10s intervals: 358 261 81 81 80 80 MB/s
Performing below expectations (34th percentile)
82.9% Excellent
Read 374
Write 362
Mixed 330
SusWrite 157
69% 306 MB/s
4K Read 33.4
4K Write 89.3
4K Mixed 46.1
157% 56.3 MB/s
DQ Read 247
DQ Write 180
DQ Mixed 211
158% 213 MB/s
Poor: 49%
This bench: 82.9%
Great: 121%
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016)-$37
74GB free
Firmware: CC45
SusWrite @10s intervals: 127 124 126 127 126 123 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (9th percentile)
66.7% Good
Read 107
Write 109
Mixed 59.2
SusWrite 126
73% 100 MB/s
4K Read 1
4K Write 1.3
4K Mixed 0.8
155% 1.03 MB/s
Poor: 60%
This bench: 66.7%
Great: 113%
WD Blue 1TB (2012)-$28
141GB free
Firmware: 01.01A01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 150 148 149 150 149 147 MB/s
Performing as expected (42nd percentile)
80.1% Excellent
Read 130
Write 101
Mixed 79.5
SusWrite 149
84% 115 MB/s
4K Read 1.3
4K Write 2.2
4K Mixed 1.1
217% 1.53 MB/s
Poor: 52%
This bench: 80.1%
Great: 109%
WD Blue 1TB (2012)-$28
200GB free
Firmware: 01.01A01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 115 114 115 114 115 113 MB/s
Performing as expected (50th percentile)
83.6% Excellent
Read 177
Write 125
Mixed 99.5
SusWrite 114
95% 129 MB/s
4K Read 1.5
4K Write 2.7
4K Mixed 1.2
246% 1.8 MB/s
Poor: 52%
This bench: 83.6%
Great: 109%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown CL16-20-20 D4-3000 2x31.5GB
2 of 2 slots used
63GB DIMM DDR4 clocked @ 2133 MHz
Performing as expected (46th percentile)
76.5% Very good
MC Read 29.7
MC Write 27.2
MC Mixed 27.4
80% 28.1 GB/s
SC Read 21.6
SC Write 18.1
SC Mixed 26.4
63% 22 GB/s
Latency 112
36% 112 ns
Poor: 41%
This bench: 76.5%
Great: 109%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

 SkillBench Score 0: 0P 0R 0G 0B (High Scores)

Measures user input accuracy relative to the given hardware

Score Hit Rate Shots EFps 0.1% Low Refresh Rate Screen Resolution Monitor
0% 0% 0 70 60 30 36.1" 1280 720 ONN007E onn. TV
Typical A320M-A PRO MAX (MS-7C52) Builds (Compare 3,007 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 34%
Sail boat
Desktop
Desktop 74%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 28%
Raft

Motherboard: MSI A320M-A PRO MAX (MS-7C52)

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 82% - Excellent Total price: $298
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.
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) $28Corsair 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