HP OMEN by HP Desktop PC 880-p1xx

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 63%
Destroyer
Desktop
Desktop 98%
Nuclear submarine
Workstation
Workstation 57%
Gunboat
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing above expectations (73rd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 27 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
ProcessorWith an outstanding single core score, this CPU is the cat's whiskers: It demolishes everyday tasks such as web browsing, office apps and audio/video playback. Additionally this processor can handle typical workstation, and even moderate server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 97.8%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is excellent.
Graphics59.2% is a reasonable 3D score (RTX 2060S = 100%). This GPU can handle the majority of recent games but it will struggle with resolutions greater than 1080p at ultra detail levels. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive146% is an exceptional SSD score. This drive is suitable for heavy workstation use, it will facilitate fast boots, responsive applications and allow for fast transfers of multi-gigabyte files.
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 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
Very high background CPU (49%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
SystemHP OMEN by HP Desktop PC 880-p1xx  (all builds)
MotherboardHP 8437
Memory13.7 GB free of 16 GB @ 2.7 GHz
Display3840 x 2160 - 32 Bit kleuren
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20180625
Uptime0.2 Days
Run DateSep 14 '18 at 19:43
Run Duration163 Seconds
Run User NLD-User
Background CPU 49%
Watch Gameplay: 1060-6GB + 9600K How to compare your gameplay

 PC Performing above expectations (73rd percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i7-8700-$200
U3E1, 1 CPU, 6 cores, 12 threads
Base clock 3.2 GHz, turbo 4.15 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (100th percentile)
97.8% Outstanding
Memory 93.7
1-Core 139
2-Core 273
94% 169 Pts
4-Core 547
8-Core 884
88% 716 Pts
64-Core 998
62% 998 Pts
Poor: 75%
This bench: 97.8%
Great: 94%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 1060-6GB-$117
HP(103C 8439) ≥ 4GB
CLim: 1911 MHz, MLim: 2002 MHz, Ram: 6GB, Driver: 399.24
Performing way above expectations (91st percentile)
59.2% Above average
Lighting 74.5
Reflection 70.8
Parallax 64.3
61% 69.9 fps
MRender 70.7
Gravity 68.1
Splatting 67.8
56% 68.9 fps
Poor: 51%
This bench: 59.2%
Great: 60%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Toshiba XG5 NVMe PCIe M.2 256GB-$33
142GB free (System drive)
Firmware: AAHA4102 Max speed: PCIe 16,000 MB/s
SusWrite @10s intervals: 304 305 326 301 287 300 MB/s
Performing above expectations (77th percentile)
146% Outstanding
Read 1,342
Write 426
Mixed 861
SusWrite 304
162% 733 MB/s
4K Read 42.5
4K Write 111
4K Mixed 48.6
185% 67.2 MB/s
DQ Read 426
DQ Write 335
DQ Mixed 290
242% 350 MB/s
Poor: 73%
This bench: 146%
Great: 193%
Toshiba DT01ACA100 1TB-$29
688GB free
Firmware: MS2OA800
SusWrite @10s intervals: 155 141 153 152 157 155 MB/s
Performing as expected (54th percentile)
88.2% Excellent
Read 156
Write 124
Mixed 24.7
SusWrite 152
82% 114 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 0.7
4K Mixed 0.4
78% 0.53 MB/s
Poor: 47%
This bench: 88.2%
Great: 107%
WD Green 2TB (2011)-$70
897GB free
Firmware: 51.0AB51
SusWrite @10s intervals: 80 87 86 87 86 88 MB/s
Performing below expectations (34th percentile)
45.8% Average
Read 74
Write 77
Mixed 58.5
SusWrite 85.4
54% 73.7 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1.4
4K Mixed 0.6
118% 0.87 MB/s
Poor: 31%
This bench: 45.8%
Great: 67%
Seagate Expansion Desk 3TB
317GB free
Firmware: 0711
SusWrite @10s intervals: 165 164 166 164 166 166 MB/s
Performing above expectations (80th percentile)
88.7% Excellent
Read 144
Write 104
Mixed 71.5
SusWrite 165
89% 121 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.1
4K Mixed 0.7
127% 0.83 MB/s
Poor: 17%
This bench: 88.7%
Great: 103%
SanDisk Ultra Fit USB 3.0 16GB-$8
13GB free, PID 5583
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 13 15 11 14 14 15 MB/s
Performing above expectations (80th percentile)
27.7% Poor
Read 128
Write 42.8
Mixed 30
SusWrite 13.6
56% 53.7 MB/s
4K Read 6.5
4K Write 1.5
4K Mixed 1.6
130% 3.2 MB/s
Poor: 10%
This bench: 27.7%
Great: 31%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Micron 8ATF1G64AZ-2G6H1 2x8GB
2 of 4 slots used
16GB DIMM DDR4 clocked @ 2667 MHz
Performing above expectations (70th percentile)
81.1% Excellent
MC Read 32.4
MC Write 30
MC Mixed 22.6
81% 28.3 GB/s
SC Read 19.1
SC Write 31.9
SC Mixed 26.7
74% 25.9 GB/s
Latency 60.5
66% 60.5 ns
Poor: 52%
This bench: 81.1%
Great: 90%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical OMEN by HP Desktop PC 880-p1xx Builds (Compare 2,930 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 73%
Battleship
Desktop
Desktop 90%
Nuclear submarine
Workstation
Workstation 66%
Battle cruiser

System: HP OMEN by HP Desktop PC 880-p1xx

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 107% - Outstanding Total price: $366
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-13600K $273Nvidia RTX 4060 $300Crucial MX500 250GB $40
Intel Core i5-12400F $132Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-12600K $186Nvidia RTX 4070 $409Samsung 860 Evo 250GB $52
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $34Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $35Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $43SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $51G.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