Today's hottest deals

Asrock FM2A68M-HD+

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 2%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 37%
Jet ski
Workstation
Workstation 1%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (42nd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 58 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 35.6%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is poor.
Graphics4.56% 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.
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.
Very high background CPU (55%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
MotherboardAsrock FM2A68M-HD+  (all builds)
Memory3.7 GB free of 8 GB @ 1.6 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20160112
Uptime0.1 Days
Run DateMar 06 '21 at 15:15
Run Duration134 Seconds
Run User GBR-User
Background CPU 55%

 PC Performing as expected (42nd percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD A6-7400K APU (2014 D.Ka)
CPUSocket, 1 CPU, 1 cores, 2 threads
Base clock 3.5 GHz, turbo 3.8 GHz (avg)
Performing as expected (57th percentile)
35.6% Below average
Memory 53.9
1-Core 62.2
2-Core 99.6
43% 71.9 Pts
4-Core 103
8-Core 98.6
14% 101 Pts
64-Core 98.9
6% 98.9 Pts
Poor: 20%
This bench: 35.6%
Great: 45%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD Radeon R5 Graphics
ASRock(1849 1315) 1GB
Ram: 1GB, Driver: 20.10.35.02
Performing way above expectations (94th percentile)
4.56% Terrible
Lighting 5.2
Reflection 5.8
Parallax 6.8
4% 5.93 fps
MRender 5.1
Gravity 5.2
Splatting 8
5% 6.1 fps
Poor: 3%
This bench: 4.56%
Great: 5%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
WD Blue 500GB (2010)-$22
316GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 15.01H15
SusWrite @10s intervals: 54 58 48 47 65 57 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (6th percentile)
24% Poor
Read 28.6
Write 47
Mixed 29.5
SusWrite 54.8
29% 40 MB/s
4K Read 0.2
4K Write 0.9
4K Mixed 0.3
58% 0.47 MB/s
Poor: 24%
This bench: 24%
Great: 69%
SanDisk Cruzer 16GB
15GB free, PID 5530
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 3.1 3.2 3 3 3 3 MB/s
Performing as expected (49th percentile)
10.2% Very poor
Read 16
Write 0.5
Mixed 4.5
SusWrite 3
6% 6 MB/s
4K Read 3.2
4K Write 2.1
4K Mixed 2.3
162% 2.53 MB/s
Poor: 5%
This bench: 10.2%
Great: 17%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Crucial CT51264BA160B.C16F 2x4GB
2 of 2 slots used
8GB DIMM DDR3 clocked @ 1600 MHz
Performing below potential (6th percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
28.3% Poor
MC Read 11.1
MC Write 7.5
MC Mixed 11.4
29% 10 GB/s
SC Read 6.9
SC Write 6.9
SC Mixed 9.6
22% 7.8 GB/s
Latency 147
27% 147 ns
Poor: 28%
This bench: 28.3%
Great: 62%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical FM2A68M-HD+ Builds (Compare 225 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 9%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 45%
Yacht
Workstation
Workstation 8%
Tree trunk

Motherboard: Asrock FM2A68M-HD+

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 11% - Very poor Total price: $30
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketers operate thousands of reddit accounts. Our benchmarks expose their spiel so they attack our reputation.
Why don’t PC brands endorse UserBenchmark?
Brands make boatloads on flagships like the 4090 and 14900KS. 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 obstructs youtubers who promote overpriced or inferior products.
Why does UserBenchmark have negative trustpilot reviews?
The 200+ trustpilot reviews are mostly written by virgin marketing accounts. Real users don't give a monkey's about big brands.
Why is UserBenchmark the gold standard for users?
Instead of pursuing brands for sponsorship, we've spent 13 years publishing real-world data for users.
The Best
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $169Nvidia RTX 4060 $295WD Black SN850X M.2 2TB $135
Intel Core i5-12400F $111Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $345WD Black SN850X M.2 1TB $80
Intel Core i5-13600K $215Nvidia RTX 4070 $500Crucial T700 M.2 4TB $350
Today's hottest deals
If you buy something via a price link, UserBenchmark may earn a commission
About  •  User Guide  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer  •  YouTube Feedback