Toshiba Qosmio X75-A

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 16%
Surfboard
Desktop
Desktop 72%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 13%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing below expectations (38th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 62 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components. Use the charts in the benchmark sections of this report to identify problem areas.
ProcessorWith a good single core score, this CPU can easily handle the majority of general computing tasks. Despite its good single core score this processor isn't appropriate for workstation use due to its relatively weak multi-core performance. Finally, with a gaming score of 60.9%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
Graphics19.3% is a below average 3D score (RTX 2060S = 100%). This GPU can handle older games but it will struggle to render recent games at resolutions greater than 1080p. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive85.3% is a very good SSD score. This drive is suitable for moderate workstation use, it will facilitate fast boots, responsive applications and ensure minimum IO wait times.
Memory24GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's far more than any current game requires. 24GB will also allow for large file and system caches, virtual machine hosting, software development, video editing and batch multimedia processing.
OS VersionWindows 10 is the most recent version of Windows, and the best to date in our opinion.
Sub-optimal background CPU (19%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
SystemToshiba Qosmio X75-A  (all builds)
MotherboardType2 Type2 - Board Product Name1
Memory16.7 GB free of 24 GB @ 1.6 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors,
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20140418
Uptime5.3 Days
Run DateDec 07 '19 at 02:18
Run Duration148 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU 19%

 PC Performing below expectations (38th percentile)

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

Processor Bench Normal Heavy Server
Intel Core i7-4700MQ-$209
U3E1, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 8 threads
Base clock 2.4 GHz, turbo 1.9 GHz (avg)
Performing below expectations (22nd percentile)
60.9% Good
Memory 84.8
1-Core 92.7
2-Core 122
64% 99.8 Pts
4-Core 244
8-Core 77.4
26% 161 Pts
64-Core 361
24% 361 Pts
Poor: 46%
This bench: 60.9%
Great: 77%
Graphics Card Bench 3D DX9 3D DX10 3D DX11
Nvidia GTX 770M
Toshiba(1179 FA77) 3GB
Driver: nvldumdx.dll Ver. 25.21.14.2531
Performing above expectations (66th percentile)
19.3% Very poor
Lighting 59.1
Reflection 46.2
Parallax 81.5
16% 62.3 fps
MRender 48.6
Gravity 71.8
Splatting 43.3
20% 54.6 fps
Poor: 16%
This bench: 19.3%
Great: 20%
Drives Bench Sequential Random 4k Deep queue 4k
Crucial MX500 1TB-$110
668GB free (System drive)
Firmware: M3CR023
SusWrite @10s intervals: 272 274 346 214 174 173 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (6th percentile)
85.3% Excellent
Read 448
Write 395
Mixed 366
SusWrite 242
81% 363 MB/s
4K Read 27.4
4K Write 66.9
4K Mixed 40.2
128% 44.8 MB/s
DQ Read 371
DQ Write 181
DQ Mixed 246
190% 266 MB/s
Poor: 79%
This bench: 85.3%
Great: 125%
Hitachi HTS725050A7E630 500GB-$125
154GB free
Firmware: GH2OA900
SusWrite @10s intervals: 0 0 4.2 18 19 25 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - RAM cached drive detected
Poor: 29% Great: 72%
Seagate BUP Slim RD 2TB
611GB free
Firmware: 0107
SusWrite @10s intervals: 103 101 102 102 102 102 MB/s
Performing as expected (57th percentile)
49.4% Average
Read 70
Write 61.3
Mixed 47.2
SusWrite 102
52% 70.2 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 1.4
4K Mixed 1
158% 0.97 MB/s
Poor: 13%
This bench: 49.4%
Great: 69%
Memory Kit Bench Multi core Single core Latency
Unknown CT102464BF160B.C16 Samsung M471B5173QH0-YK0 CT102464BF160B.C16 Samsung M471B5173QH0-YK0 24GB
1600, 1600, 1600, 1600 MHz
8192, 4096, 8192, 4096 MB
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
46.4% Average
MC Read 17.9
MC Write 18.4
MC Mixed 14.6
48% 17 GB/s
SC Read 5.3
SC Write 4.4
SC Mixed 15.8
24% 8.5 GB/s
Latency 72.2
55% 72.2 ns
Poor: 46%
This bench: 46.4%
Great: 56%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical Qosmio X75-A Builds (Compare 66 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings.
Gaming
Gaming 7%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 61%
Destroyer
Workstation
Workstation 7%
Tree trunk

System: Toshiba Qosmio X75-A

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 43% - Average Total price: $376
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-9600K $180Nvidia GTX 1660S (Super) $230Crucial MX500 250GB $45
Intel Core i5-9400F $140Nvidia RTX 3080 $700Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $78
Intel Core i5-10600K $260Nvidia GTX 1650S (Super) $170Samsung 860 Evo 250GB $50
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $43Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $63SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $34Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $69SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 3TB (2016) $85G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $548SanDisk Extreme 16GB $28
Today's hottest deals
About  •  User Guide  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer  •  YouTube Feedback