User System

Performance Results

Benchmarks - excluding HDD
Gaming
Gaming 13%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 28%
Raft
Workstation
Workstation 15%
Surfboard
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (57th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 43 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 33.4%, this CPUs suitability for 3D gaming is below average.
Graphics4.6% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive31.2% is low SSD score. With a better SSD this system will boot faster, make applications more responsive and reduce IO wait times.
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 7 is still a viable option, it's now 9 years and 2 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.
Run History
Systempowerspec B629
Motherboardecs G31T-M5
Memory1.8 GB free of 4 GB @ 0.8 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 7
BIOS Date20100420
Uptime0 Days
Run DateAug 11 '18 at 01:25
Run Duration108 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU10%

 PC Performing as expected (57th percentile)

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

Processor Bench Single core Quad core Multi core
Intel Core2 Quad Q8300-$95
CPU 1, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 2.5 GHz
Performing above expectations (68th percentile)
33.4% Below average
SC Int 60.5
SC Float 35.7
SC Mixed 41.6
37% 45.9 Pts
QC Int 244
QC Float 141
QC Mixed 181
43% 188 Pts
MC Int 242
MC Float 143
MC Mixed 180
29% 188 Pts
Poor: 24%
This bench: 33.4%
Great: 36%
Graphics Card Bench 3D DX9 3D DX10 3D DX11
Nvidia GeForce GT 710
MSI(1462 8C93) 1GB
CLim: 954 MHz, MLim: 450 MHz, Ram: 1GB, Driver: 381.65
Performing above expectations (81st percentile)
4.6% Terrible
Lighting 13.6
Reflection 11.4
Parallax 14
4% 13 fps
MRender 9.4
Gravity 11.7
Splatting 14.2
5% 11.8 fps
Poor: 4%
This bench: 4.6%
Great: 5%
Drive Bench Sequential Random 4k Deep queue 4k
Sandisk PLUS 480 GB 480GB
391GB free (System drive)
Firmware: UG4500RL
SusWrite @10s intervals: 154 137 3 74 161 179 MB/s
Performing below potential (10th percentile) - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable
31.2% Below average
Read 226
Write 171
Mixed 146
SusWrite 118
37% 165 MB/s
4K Read 16
4K Write 7.3
4K Mixed 15.2
48% 12.8 MB/s
Poor: 29%
This bench: 31.2%
Great: 58%
Memory Kit Bench Multi core Single core Latency
Unknown 2x2GB
2 of 2 slots used
4GB DIMM DDR2
Performing above expectations (70th percentile)
20.7% Poor
MC Read 6.9
MC Write 6.7
MC Mixed 6.3
19% 6.63 GB/s
SC Read 5.9
SC Write 6.6
SC Mixed 6.4
18% 6.3 GB/s
Latency 108
37% 108 ns
Poor: 10%
This bench: 20.7%
Great: 44%
Take a copy of your results

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i7-8700K $370Nvidia GTX 1070 $329Samsung 850 Evo 250GB $78
AMD Ryzen 5 1600 $155Nvidia GTX 1060-6GB $249Samsung 850 Evo 500GB $105
Intel Core i7-7700K $360AMD RX 480 $280Samsung 850 Pro 256GB $163
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $45Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $140SanDisk Extreme 64GB $42
Seagate Barracuda 3TB (2016) $80G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $869SanDisk Extreme 32GB $30
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $55Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $145SanDisk Ultra Fit 32GB $12
Today's hottest deals
User Guide  •  About  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer Feedback