Asrock 960GM-VGS3 FX

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 11%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 64%
Destroyer
Workstation
Workstation 8%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (49th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 51 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 58.1%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is average.
Graphics18.7% 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)
Memory8GB 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 VersionAlthough Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
MotherboardAsrock 960GM-VGS3 FX  (all builds)
Memory3.2 GB free of 8 GB @ 0.3 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20131002
Uptime0 Days
Run DateMay 09 '24 at 16:45
Run Duration132 Seconds
Run User ROU-User
Background CPU10%

 PC Performing as expected (49th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD FX-4320 Quad-Core
CPUSocket, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 4 GHz, turbo 3.95 GHz (avg)
Performing as expected (56th percentile)
58.1% Above average
Memory 84.4
1-Core 67.4
2-Core 125
58% 92.3 Pts
4-Core 191
8-Core 171
25% 181 Pts
64-Core 193
12% 193 Pts
Poor: 43%
This bench: 58.1%
Great: 64%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 750-Ti-$92
Gainward(10B0 1380) 2GB
CLim: 1476 MHz, MLim: 1502 MHz, Ram: 2GB, Driver: 551.86
Performing way above expectations (96th percentile)
18.7% Very poor
Lighting 22.6
Reflection 20.4
Parallax 23.3
18% 22.1 fps
MRender 28
Gravity 25.7
Splatting 18.9
19% 24.2 fps
Poor: 16%
This bench: 18.7%
Great: 19%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Kingston SSDNow V300 120GB-$33
5GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 603ABBF0
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 164
Write 124
Mixed 125
31% 138 MB/s
4K Read 15.3
4K Write 47.3
4K Mixed 27.2
83% 29.9 MB/s
DQ Read 25.9
DQ Write 69.3
DQ Mixed 32.9
29% 42.7 MB/s
Poor: 30% Great: 73%
WD Blue 1TB (2012)-$28
257GB free
Firmware: 02.01A02
SusWrite @10s intervals: 130 143 143 142 141 142 MB/s
Performing below expectations (30th percentile)
73.9% Very good
Read 117
Write 119
Mixed 76.6
SusWrite 140
83% 113 MB/s
4K Read 1.3
4K Write 2.5
4K Mixed 1.1
223% 1.63 MB/s
Poor: 52%
This bench: 73.9%
Great: 109%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
HyperX Fury DDR3 1866 C10 2x4GB-$35
2 of 2 slots used
8GB DIMM 333 MHz
Performing below potential (15th percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
35.9% Below average
MC Read 13.4
MC Write 11.5
MC Mixed 11.8
35% 12.2 GB/s
SC Read 8.5
SC Write 8.4
SC Mixed 10.3
26% 9.07 GB/s
Latency 75
53% 75 ns
Poor: 30%
This bench: 35.9%
Great: 67%

 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 69 57 60 21.5" 1280 720 ACI22C3 ASUS VP228
Typical 960GM-VGS3 FX Builds (Compare 214 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 19%
Surfboard
Desktop
Desktop 64%
Destroyer
Workstation
Workstation 15%
Tree trunk

Motherboard: Asrock 960GM-VGS3 FX - $59

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 81% - Excellent Total price: $236
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketers operate countless reddit accounts. UserBenchmark challenges their narrative so they attack our reputation with a co-ordinated charade.
Why don’t PC brands endorse UserBenchmark?
PC brands make a lot of profit on flagships like the 4090, 14900KS, and 7950X3D. We help users get similar real-world performance for less money.
Why don’t youtubers promote UserBenchmark?
We don't pay youtubers, so they don't praise us. Moreover, our data exposes the youtubers that are paid to promote overpriced/inferior products.
Why does UserBenchmark have negative trustpilot reviews?
The 200+ reviews on trustpilot are mostly written by virgin marketing accounts. Real users aren't incentivized to back brands.
Why is UserBenchmark popular with users?
Instead of chasing sponsorship with billion-dollar PC brands, we've spent 13 years publishing real-world data which collectively saves our users millions.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $174Nvidia 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 $549Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $44
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