Samsung 300E4C/300E5C/300E7C

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 6%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 53%
Yacht
Workstation
Workstation 6%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (47th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 53 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 53.6%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is average.
Graphics3.33% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive30.5% is low SSD score. With a better SSD this system will boot faster, make applications more responsive and reduce IO wait 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 (35%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
4 years ago, 4 years ago.
SystemSamsung 300E4C/300E5C/300E7C  (all builds)
MotherboardSAMSUNG NP300E4C-AD4BR
Memory3.8 GB free of 8 GB @ 1.6 GHz
Display1366 x 768 - 32 Bit cores
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20130625
Uptime0 Days
Run DateNov 09 '19 at 21:39
Run Duration128 Seconds
Run User BRA-User
Background CPU 35%

 PC Performing as expected (47th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i5-3210M-$52
CPU Socket - U3E1, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 2.5 GHz, turbo 2.9 GHz (avg)
Performing above expectations (85th percentile)
53.6% Above average
Memory 80.2
1-Core 64.4
2-Core 111
54% 85.3 Pts
4-Core 157
8-Core 171
22% 164 Pts
64-Core 174
11% 174 Pts
Poor: 31%
This bench: 53.6%
Great: 57%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Intel HD 4000 (Mobile 1.25 GHz)
Sanyo(144D C652) 2GB
Driver: igdumdim64.dll Ver. 10.18.10.5069
Performing as expected (57th percentile)
3.33% Terrible
Lighting 3.97
Reflection 5.27
Parallax 2.75
3% 4 fps
MRender 3.76
Gravity 2.03
Splatting 6.3
4% 4.03 fps
Poor: 2%
This bench: 3.33%
Great: 4%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Sandisk PLUS 240GB
174GB free (System drive)
Firmware: UF2204RL
SusWrite @10s intervals: 159 105 99 105 115 114 MB/s
Performing below potential (3rd percentile) - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable
30.5% Below average
Read 227
Write 194
Mixed 184
SusWrite 116
40% 180 MB/s
4K Read 13.6
4K Write 9.3
4K Mixed 10.5
39% 11.1 MB/s
DQ Read 71.4
DQ Write 36.7
DQ Mixed 31.1
29% 46.4 MB/s
Poor: 33%
This bench: 30.5%
Great: 56%
SAMSUNG HM321HI 320GB
256GB free, PID 1068
Operating at USB 2.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 26 25 25 25 27 27 MB/s
Performing as expected (43rd percentile)
14.5% Very poor
Read 31
Write 20.5
Mixed 24.7
SusWrite 25.7
34% 25.5 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 1.4
4K Mixed 0.7
73% 0.87 MB/s
Poor: 7%
This bench: 14.5%
Great: 48%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown SH564128FJ8NZRNSDR 0194 SH564128FJ8NWRNSQR 8GB
1600, 1600 MHz
4096, 4096 MB
Performing as expected (48th percentile)
46.3% Average
MC Read 16
MC Write 16.8
MC Mixed 16.1
47% 16.3 GB/s
SC Read 9.8
SC Write 13
SC Mixed 13.7
35% 12.2 GB/s
Latency 80.2
50% 80.2 ns
Poor: 32%
This bench: 46.3%
Great: 55%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical 300E4C/300E5C/300E7C Builds (Compare 1,058 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 2%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 48%
Yacht
Workstation
Workstation 2%
Tree trunk

System: Samsung 300E4C/300E5C/300E7C

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 57% - Above average Total price: $80
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 more to market weaker products which puts their youtubers at odds with UserBenchmark.
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 return repeatedly.
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) $29Corsair 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