Asrock A320M-DVS R4.0

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 2%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 42%
Speed boat
Workstation
Workstation 2%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall 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.
ProcessorWith a below average single core score, this CPU can handle email, web browsing and audio/video playback but it will struggle to handle modern 3D games or workstation tasks such as video editing. Finally, with a gaming score of 38.2%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is poor.
Graphics4.13% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive44.8% is a reasonable SSD score. This drive enables fast boots and responsive applications.
Memory4GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and although it's sufficient for most games, some will benefit from up to 8GB of RAM. 4GB is also enough for modest file and system caches which allow for a responsive system.
OS VersionAlthough Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
Sub-optimal background CPU (12%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
MotherboardAsrock A320M-DVS R4.0  (all builds)
Memory0.1 GB free of 4 GB @ 2.4 GHz
Display1920x1080x4294967296 szín
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20200716
Uptime0 Days
Run DateMay 12 '24 at 16:52
Run Duration147 Seconds
Run User UKR-User
Background CPU 12%

 PC Performing as expected (46th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD A6-9500E APU (2016 D.BR)
AM4, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 2 threads
Base clock 3 GHz, turbo 3.4 GHz (avg)
Performing above expectations (61st percentile)
38.2% Below average
Memory 61.2
1-Core 58.9
2-Core 90.7
44% 70.3 Pts
4-Core 91.1
8-Core 90.8
12% 90.9 Pts
64-Core 90.3
6% 90.3 Pts
Poor: 19%
This bench: 38.2%
Great: 47%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD Radeon R5 Graphics
AMD(1002 1E51) 80MB
Ram: 80MB, Driver: 22.6.1
Performing as expected (43rd percentile)
4.13% Terrible
Lighting 4.8
Reflection 5.5
Parallax 6.6
4% 5.63 fps
MRender 3.6
Gravity 5.5
Splatting 6.9
5% 5.33 fps
Poor: 3%
This bench: 4.13%
Great: 7%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
R5SL120G 120GB
23GB free (System drive)
Firmware: S1022A0
SusWrite @10s intervals: 119 30 49 24 55 39 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (15th percentile)
44.8% Average
Read 402
Write 341
Mixed 91.4
SusWrite 52.6
49% 222 MB/s
4K Read 14.7
4K Write 53.9
4K Mixed 10.5
64% 26.4 MB/s
DQ Read 164
DQ Write 141
DQ Mixed 1.5
42% 102 MB/s
Poor: 37%
This bench: 44.8%
Great: 89%
Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 500GB-$23
408GB free
Firmware: KC45
SusWrite @10s intervals: 108 98 113 112 113 114 MB/s
Performing above expectations (63rd percentile)
63% Good
Read 110
Write 106
Mixed 62
SusWrite 110
71% 96.9 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1
4K Mixed 0.9
148% 0.87 MB/s
Poor: 27%
This bench: 63%
Great: 88%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown D12.2318CS.002 1x4GB
1 of 2 slots used
4GB DIMM DDR4 clocked @ 2400 MHz
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
15.2% Very poor
MC Read 5.8
MC Write 5.4
MC Mixed 4.5
15% 5.23 GB/s
SC Read 5.1
SC Write 4.4
SC Mixed 0.7
10% 3.4 GB/s
Latency 163
24% 163 ns

 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 66 53 60 23" 1280 720 PHLC0B3 Philips 236V4
Typical A320M-DVS R4.0 Builds (Compare 762 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 38%
Jet ski
Desktop
Desktop 79%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 35%
Sail boat

Motherboard: Asrock A320M-DVS R4.0

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 83% - Excellent Total price: $364
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketers operate countless reddit accounts. UserBenchmark’s data exposes their marketing charade so they attack our reputation.
Why don’t PC brands endorse UserBenchmark?
PC brands profit a lot from 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 sponsor youtubers, so they've no incentive to praise us. Moreover, brands pay youtubers extra to market inferior products. UserBenchmark's data challenges the marketing and exposes the youtubers' biases.
Why does UserBenchmark have negative trustpilot reviews?
Trustpilot hosts user-generated online reviews. The 200+ UserBenchmark reviews, are mostly written by virgin marketing accounts. Real users aren't interested in promoting billon-dollar brands.
Why is UserBenchmark popular with users?
Instead of chasing lucrative sponsorships with billion-dollar PC brands, we've dedicated 13 years to publishing accurate real-world data which saves our users millions every year.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $176Nvidia 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