Biostar Hi-Fi A85W

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 3%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 51%
Yacht
Workstation
Workstation 2%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (43rd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 57 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 55.7%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is average.
Graphics4.35% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
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.
Memory16GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's more than sufficient for nearly all games. 16GB also allows for very large file and system caches, software development and batch photo editing/processing.
OS VersionAlthough 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.
Sub-optimal background CPU (17%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
MotherboardBiostar Hi-Fi A85W  (all builds)
Memory11.8 GB free of 16 GB @ 0.7 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 7
BIOS Date20120918
Uptime1 Days
Run DateFeb 28 '18 at 16:44
Run Duration358 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU 17%

 PC Performing as expected (43rd percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD A8-5600K APU-$250
P0, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 3.6 GHz
Performing above expectations (83rd percentile)
55.7% Above average
Memory 78.1
1-Core 65
2-Core 124
55% 89.1 Pts
4-Core 194
8-Core 199
26% 197 Pts
64-Core 203
13% 203 Pts
Poor: 34%
This bench: 55.7%
Great: 59%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD Radeon HD 7560D
Biostar(1565 1708) 512MB
Driver: aticfx64.dll Ver. 15.201.1151.1005
Performing above expectations (72nd percentile)
4.35% Terrible
Lighting 5.2
Reflection 7.65
Parallax 4.66
4% 5.84 fps
MRender 4.76
Gravity 3.97
Splatting 7.26
5% 5.33 fps
Poor: 3%
This bench: 4.35%
Great: 4%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 3TB-$67
1TB free (System drive)
Firmware: CC27 Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (11th percentile)
62.8% Good
Read 117
Write 103
Mixed 86.8
76% 102 MB/s
4K Read 0.41
4K Write 1.04
4K Mixed 0.28
68% 0.58 MB/s
Poor: 56%
This bench: 62.8%
Great: 113%
Hitachi HDS721010CLA330 1TB
208GB free
Firmware: JP4OA3MA Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (13th percentile)
45.1% Average
Read 81.9
Write 75.1
Mixed 36.7
48% 64.5 MB/s
4K Read 0.67
4K Write 1.28
4K Mixed 0.39
95% 0.78 MB/s
Poor: 39%
This bench: 45.1%
Great: 76%
WD Blue 320GB (2007)-$65
194GB free
Firmware: 01.03E01 Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (86th percentile)
54.4% Above average
Read 87.4
Write 102
Mixed 26.5
52% 72 MB/s
4K Read 0.57
4K Write 1.83
4K Mixed 0.32
94% 0.91 MB/s
Poor: 23%
This bench: 54.4%
Great: 58%
WD Blue 500GB (2008)-$29
169GB free
Firmware: 05.01D05 Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s
Performing above expectations (75th percentile)
56.2% Above average
Read 95.9
Write 100
Mixed 56.8
62% 84.3 MB/s
4K Read 0.55
4K Write 1.31
4K Mixed 0.28
78% 0.71 MB/s
Poor: 28%
This bench: 56.2%
Great: 69%
Hitachi HDT725032VLA380 320GB-$36
61GB free
Firmware: V54OA7BA Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s
Performing as expected (48th percentile)
31.8% Below average
Read 54.4
Write 56.2
Mixed 19.1
32% 43.2 MB/s
4K Read 0.4
4K Write 1.73
4K Mixed 0.35
88% 0.83 MB/s
Poor: 17%
This bench: 31.8%
Great: 40%
FANTOM HDS5C3020ALA632 2TB
872GB free, PID 1340
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
Performing below expectations (20th percentile)
13% Very poor
Read 26.4
Write 24.9
Mixed 25.5
33% 25.6 MB/s
4K Read 0.29
4K Write 1.19
4K Mixed 0.18
48% 0.56 MB/s
Poor: 11%
This bench: 13%
Great: 20%
WDC WD50 00AAVS-00G9B0 500GB
102GB free, PID ce17
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
Performing way below expectations (13th percentile)
14% Very poor
Read 26.8
Write 23.7
Mixed 25
32% 25.2 MB/s
4K Read 0.37
4K Write 1.57
4K Mixed 0.25
63% 0.73 MB/s
Poor: 13%
This bench: 14%
Great: 22%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
G.SKILL Value DDR3 1333 C9 2x8GB
2 of 4 slots used
16GB DIMM DDR3 667 MHz
Performing below potential (10th percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
32.5% Below average
MC Read 15.8
MC Write 6.3
MC Mixed 11
32% 11 GB/s
SC Read 8.6
SC Write 7
SC Mixed 10.3
25% 8.63 GB/s
Latency 84.1
48% 84.1 ns
Poor: 27%
This bench: 32.5%
Great: 54%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical Hi-Fi A85W Builds (Compare 29 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 8%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 51%
Yacht
Workstation
Workstation 7%
Tree trunk

Motherboard: Biostar Hi-Fi A85W

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 63% - Good Total price: $119
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 so they keep returning.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $156Nvidia RTX 4060 $293Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $120Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $361Samsung 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 $45SanDisk 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