Monster TULPAR T7 V10.1

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing GPU, SSD
Gaming
Gaming 0%
Incomplete
Desktop
Desktop 0%
Incomplete
Workstation
Workstation 0%
Incomplete
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (49th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 51 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
ProcessorWith a good single core score, this CPU can easily handle the majority of general computing tasks. Additionally this processor can handle light workstation, and even some light server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 74.4%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is good.
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.
Sub-optimal background CPU (13%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
SystemMonster TULPAR T7 V10.1  (all builds)
MotherboardMONSTER TULPAR T7 V10.1
Memory10.9 GB free of 16 GB @ 2.4 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit renk
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20170626
Uptime0 Days
Run DateJul 11 '20 at 17:22
Run Duration381 Seconds
Run User TUR-User
Background CPU 13%

 PC Performing as expected (49th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i7-7700HQ
U3E1, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 8 threads
Base clock 2.8 GHz, turbo 3.4 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (99th percentile)
74.4% Very good
Memory 83.4
1-Core 103
2-Core 190
73% 126 Pts
4-Core 354
8-Core 518
54% 436 Pts
64-Core 518
32% 518 Pts
Poor: 38%
This bench: 74.4%
Great: 73%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung PM961 NVMe PCIe M.2 256GB
12GB free (System drive)
Firmware: CXB7401Q Max speed: PCIe 16,000 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 1,884
Write 790
Mixed 882
259% 1,185 MB/s
4K Read 49.8
4K Write 123
4K Mixed 60.9
219% 77.9 MB/s
DQ Read 866
DQ Write 880
DQ Mixed 858
649% 868 MB/s
Poor: 106% Great: 236%
WD WD10JPLX-00MBPT0 1TB
194GB free
Firmware: 01.01H01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 84 85 85 86 85 85 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (15th percentile)
47.2% Average
Read 79.2
Write 77
Mixed 17.5
SusWrite 85
47% 64.7 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.4
4K Mixed 0.6
122% 0.9 MB/s
Poor: 38%
This bench: 47.2%
Great: 75%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Samsung M471A1K43BB1-CRC 2x8GB
2 of 4 slots used
16GB SODIMM DDR4 clocked @ 2400 MHz
Performing below potential (34th percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
69.3% Good
MC Read 26.8
MC Write 27.8
MC Mixed 20.4
71% 25 GB/s
SC Read 14.7
SC Write 24
SC Mixed 17.7
54% 18.8 GB/s
Latency 74.6
54% 74.6 ns
Poor: 55%
This bench: 69.3%
Great: 78%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical TULPAR T7 V10.1 Builds (Compare 27 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 35%
Jet ski
Desktop
Desktop 73%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 30%
Sail boat

System: Monster TULPAR T7 V10.1

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-13600K $254Nvidia RTX 4060 $290Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $133Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-12600K $163Nvidia RTX 4070 $539Samsung 860 Evo 250GB $52
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $39Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $45SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $31Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $48SanDisk 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