AMD Trinity Comal Form Factor Platform

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 0%
Incomplete
Desktop
Desktop 0%
Incomplete
Workstation
Workstation 0%
Incomplete
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (48th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 52 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
ProcessorWith an average single core score, this CPU can handle browsing the web, email, video playback and the majority of general computing tasks including light gaming when coupled with an appropriate GPU. Finally, with a gaming score of 50.4%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is average.
Graphics5.25% is a very low 3D score (RTX 2060S = 100%). This GPU can only handle very basic 3D games but it's fine for general computing tasks.
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.
Run History
5 years ago, 5 years ago.
SystemAMD Trinity Comal Form Factor Platform  (all builds)
MotherboardAMD AMD Trinity Comal Form Factor Platform
Memory14 GB free of 16 GB @ 0.9 GHz
Display1366 x 768 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 7
BIOS Date20120229
Uptime0 Days
Run DateOct 03 '18 at 14:02
Run Duration145 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU0%

 PC Performing as expected (48th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD Eng Sample, ZM232863C4451_32/23/16_9900_685
P0, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 2.3 GHz
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
50.4% Above average
Memory 76.2
1-Core 54.6
2-Core 85.7
48% 72.2 Pts
4-Core 145
8-Core 146
20% 146 Pts
64-Core 143
9% 143 Pts
Poor: 49%
This bench: 50.4%
Great: 52%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD Radeon HD 7660G
Dell(1028 3685) 512MB
Driver: aticfx64.dll Ver. 8.945.0.0
Performing above expectations (79th percentile)
5.25% Terrible
Lighting 6.37
Reflection 7.46
Parallax 6.12
5% 6.65 fps
MRender 5.71
Gravity 5.43
Splatting 7.91
5% 6.35 fps
Poor: 3%
This bench: 5.25%
Great: 5%
Drive BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Kingston SV200S3128G 128GB
13GB free (System drive)
Firmware: E111
SusWrite @10s intervals: 78 57 18 3.3 2.9 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - benchmarks incomplete
Read 77.6
Write 54.7
Mixed 50
SusWrite 27.9
39% 52.5 MB/s
DQ Write 5.3
DQ Mixed 17.4
174% 11.4 MB/s
4K Read 10.1
4K Write 8.4
865% 9.25 MB/s
Poor: 5% Great: 78%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Micron 16KTF1G64HZ-1G9P1 16KTF1G64HZ-1G9P1 16GB
933, 933 MHz
8192, 8192 MB
Performing way below expectations (17th percentile)
34% Below average
MC Read 17.3
MC Write 6.5
MC Mixed 11.6
34% 11.8 GB/s
SC Read 8.5
SC Write 6.6
SC Mixed 10.3
24% 8.47 GB/s
Latency 87.8
46% 87.8 ns
Poor: 34%
This bench: 34%
Great: 65%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

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 and they keep returning.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170Nvidia RTX 4060 $293Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $122Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-13600K $260Nvidia RTX 4070 $550Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $45
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