ADD TO PC
BUILD

Biostar J3160NH

Performance Results


Gaming 4% Tree trunk	Desktop 29% Raft	Workstation 4% Tree trunk


PC Status	Overall this PC is performing as expected (45th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 55 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
Processor	With a relatively low single core score, this CPU can handle email, light web browsing and basic audio/video playback, but it will struggle to handle CPU intensive tasks. Finally, with a gaming score of 29.1%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is very poor.
Graphics	1.79% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive	47.2% is a reasonable SSD score. This drive enables fast boots and responsive applications.
Memory	8GB 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 Version	Although Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.

Run History

4 years ago, 4 years ago, 4 years ago.

Motherboard	Biostar J3160NH (all builds)
Memory	5.9 GB free of 8 GB @ 1.3 GHz
Display	1680 x 1050 - 32 Bit colors
OS	Windows 10
BIOS Date	20180706
Uptime	0.1 Days
Run Date	May 03 '20 at 14:17
Run Duration	195 Seconds
Run User	GBR-User
Background CPU	5%

PC Performing as expected (45^th percentile)

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

Processor	Bench	Normal	Heavy	Server
Intel Celeron J3160 625 User benchmarks, average bench 27% SOCKET 0, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 4 threads Base clock 1.6 GHz, turbo 1.95 GHz (avg) Performing as expected (59^th percentile)	29.1% Poor	Memory 44.5 1-Core 22.4 2-Core 44.7 25% 37.2 Pts	4-Core 80.3 8-Core 86 11% 83.2 Pts	64-Core 84.2 5% 84.2 Pts
Poor: 14% ↑ This bench: 29.1% Great: 33%

Graphics Card	Bench	3D DX9	3D DX10	3D DX11
Intel HD Graphics 60,712 User benchmarks, average bench 1% Biostar(1565 1114) 1GB Driver: igdumdim64.dll Ver. 20.19.15.4531 Performing above expectations (75^th percentile)	1.79% Terrible	Lighting 1.9 Reflection 2.77 Parallax 2.72 2% 2.46 fps	MRender 2.67 Gravity 1.97 Splatting 3.39 2% 2.67 fps
Poor: 1% ↑ This bench: 1.79% Great: 2%

Drives	Bench	Sequential	Random 4k	Deep queue 4k
Intel X25-E Extreme 64GB 175 User benchmarks, average bench 43% 31GB free (System drive) Firmware: 045C8860 SusWrite @10s intervals: 161 163 169 140 177 177 MB/s Performing above expectations (71^st percentile)	47.2% Average	Read 241 Write 49.7 Mixed 193 SusWrite 164 36% 162 MB/s	4K Read 16.2 4K Write 36.9 4K Mixed 20.1 70% 24.4 MB/s	DQ Read 146 DQ Write 116 DQ Mixed 118 92% 127 MB/s
Poor: 29% ↑ This bench: 47.2% Great: 56%
WD Blue 500GB (2008)-$25 203,744 User benchmarks, average bench 48% 155GB free Firmware: 03.0 SusWrite @10s intervals: 20 21 20 20 19 20 MB/s Performing below expectations (23^rd percentile)	36.7% Below average	Read 108 Write 53.5 Mixed 55.7 SusWrite 19.9 44% 59.2 MB/s	4K Read 0.8 4K Write 1.5 4K Mixed 1 172% 1.1 MB/s
Poor: 28% ↑ This bench: 36.7% Great: 69%
WD Green 500GB (2009)-$23 63,281 User benchmarks, average bench 41% 72GB free Firmware: 01.0 SusWrite @10s intervals: 74 75 76 76 75 76 MB/s Performing above expectations (81^st percentile)	48.5% Average	Read 93.5 Write 85.2 Mixed 58.5 SusWrite 75.3 58% 78.1 MB/s	4K Read 0.6 4K Write 1.9 4K Mixed 0.9 160% 1.13 MB/s
Poor: 20% ↑ This bench: 48.5% Great: 54%
WD Green 500GB (2009)-$23 63,281 User benchmarks, average bench 41% 72GB free Firmware: 01.0 SusWrite @10s intervals: 57 57 59 58 58 58 MB/s Performing as expected (43^rd percentile)	39.2% Below average	Read 78.5 Write 61 Mixed 41 SusWrite 57.8 44% 59.6 MB/s	4K Read 0.6 4K Write 2.2 4K Mixed 0.8 155% 1.2 MB/s
Poor: 20% ↑ This bench: 39.2% Great: 54%
WD Green 500GB (2009)-$23 63,281 User benchmarks, average bench 41% 155GB free Firmware: 01.0 SusWrite @10s intervals: 21 20 20 20 19 22 MB/s Performing way below expectations (12^th percentile)	26.9% Poor	Read 72.8 Write 62.7 Mixed 46 SusWrite 20.4 37% 50.5 MB/s	4K Read 0.6 4K Write 1.9 4K Mixed 0.7 138% 1.07 MB/s
Poor: 20% ↑ This bench: 26.9% Great: 54%
Seagate Desktop 1TB 4,684 User benchmarks, average bench 17% 196GB free, PID 3300 Operating at USB 2.0 Speed SusWrite @10s intervals: 37 37 37 38 39 39 MB/s Performing below expectations (31^st percentile)	14.7% Very poor	Read 13.2 Write 19.7 Mixed 20 SusWrite 37.8 33% 22.7 MB/s	4K Read 0.9 4K Write 1.4 4K Mixed 1 85% 1.1 MB/s
Poor: 11% ↑ This bench: 14.7% Great: 21%

Memory Kit	Bench	Multi core	Single core	Latency
Kingston 9905469-106.A00LF 2x4GB 27 User benchmarks, average bench 41% 2 of 2 slots used 8GB DIMM DDR3 1333 MHz clocked @ 1066 MHz Performing below potential (7^th percentile) - Ensure that the top XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP	22% Poor	MC Read 7.2 MC Write 9.4 MC Mixed 8.2 24% 8.27 GB/s	SC Read 2.4 SC Write 5 SC Mixed 3.3 10% 3.57 GB/s	Latency 183 22% 183 ns
Poor: 20% ↑ This bench: 22% Great: 48%

Take a copy of your results How to check your in-game FPS

System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Custom PC Builder (Explore upgrades for this PC) Build your perfect PC: compare component prices, popularity, speed and value for money

CHOOSE AN UPGRADE:

CPU

GPU

SSD

HDD

RAM

Typical J3160NH Builds (Compare 2 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings

Gaming

Gaming 4%

Tree trunk

Desktop

Desktop 27%

Raft

Workstation

Workstation 4%

Tree trunk

Motherboard: Biostar J3160NH

CPU
Celeron J3160IntelBench 27%, 625 samples	2x

GPU
HD GraphicsIntelBench 1%, 60,712 samples	1x
GeForce GT 730NvidiaBench 5%, 164,888 samples	1x

SSD
128G 128GBHs-ssd-e100Bench 70%, 2,388 samples	1x
A400 480GBKingston $38Bench 74%, 237,487 samples	1x

RAM
H641GU67F7066G 2x8GBUnknownBench 33%, 12 samples	1x
99U5469-045.A00LF Samsung M471B5173QH0-YK0 8GBKingstonBench 46%, 408 samples	1x

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER

Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?

Marketers operate thousands of reddit accounts. Our benchmarks expose their spiel so they attack our reputation.

Why don’t PC brands endorse UserBenchmark?

Brands make boatloads on flagships like the 4090 and 14900KS. We help users get similar real-world performance for less money.

Why don’t youtubers promote UserBenchmark?

We don't pay youtubers, so they don't praise us. Moreover, our data obstructs youtubers who promote overpriced or inferior products.

Why does UserBenchmark have negative trustpilot reviews?

The 200+ trustpilot reviews are mostly written by virgin marketing accounts. Real users don't give a monkey's about big brands.

Why is UserBenchmark popular with users?

Instead of pursuing brands for sponsorship, we've spent 13 years publishing real-world data for users.

The Best

CPU	GPU	SSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $169	Nvidia RTX 4060 $293	WD Black SN850X M.2 2TB $135
Intel Core i5-12400F $110	Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385	WD Black SN850X M.2 1TB $75
Intel Core i5-13600K $249	Nvidia RTX 4070 $549	Crucial T700 M.2 4TB $369

Today's hottest

Amazon Ebay

deals

CPU GPU SSD HDD USB RAM MBD

If you buy something via a price link, UserBenchmark may earn a commission

Build

Test

EFps

Can You Run It?

►
YouTube
*NEW*

About • User Guide • FAQs • Email • Privacy • Developer • YouTube Feedback