ADD TO PC
BUILD

Hp-pavilion GX737AA-ACJ m9160in

Performance Results


Gaming 5% Tree trunk	Desktop 51% Yacht	Workstation 4% Tree trunk


PC Status	Overall 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.
Processor	With 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 53.1%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is average.
Graphics	7.08% 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.
Boot Drive	63.8% is a good SSD score. This drive enables fast boots, responsive applications and ensures minimum system IO wait times.
Memory	6GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's sufficient for the vast majority of games. 6GB 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

3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago, 3 years ago. (Only the first run influences device rankings)

System	Hp-pavilion GX737AA-ACJ m9160in (all builds)
Motherboard	ASUSTeK Benicia
Memory	2.7 GB free of 6 GB @ 0.8 GHz
Display	1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OS	Windows 10
BIOS Date	20090910
Uptime	0.1 Days
Run Date	Oct 19 '20 at 12:22
Run Duration	239 Seconds
Run User	IND-User
Background CPU	2%

PC Performing as expected (48^th percentile)

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

Processor	Bench	Normal	Heavy	Server
Intel Core2 Quad Q9650-$170 16,719 User benchmarks, average bench 51% CPU 1, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 4 threads Base clock 3 GHz, turbo 2.8 GHz (avg) Performing above expectations (70^th percentile)	53.1% Above average	Memory 76.9 1-Core 43.2 2-Core 86.1 45% 68.7 Pts	4-Core 174 8-Core 164 23% 169 Pts	64-Core 170 11% 170 Pts
Poor: 39% ↑ This bench: 53.1% Great: 58%

Graphics Card	Bench	3D DX9	3D DX10	3D DX11
Nvidia GeForce GT 730 164,888 User benchmarks, average bench 5% Zotac(19DA 1324) 1GB CLim: 901 MHz, MLim: 1252 MHz, Ram: 1GB, Driver: 456.38 Performing way above expectations (93^rd percentile)	7.08% Terrible	Lighting 8.87 Reflection 7.85 Parallax 9.28 7% 8.66 fps	MRender 11.1 Gravity 7.33 Splatting 7.17 7% 8.53 fps
Poor: 3% ↑ This bench: 7.08% Great: 7%

Drives	Bench	Sequential	Random 4k	Deep queue 4k
Samsung 850 Evo 120GB-$80 69,224 User benchmarks, average bench 96% 27GB free (System drive) Firmware: EMT02B6Q SusWrite @10s intervals: 208 187 152 131 128 111 MB/s Performing below potential (6^th percentile) - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable	63.8% Good	Read 254 Write 241 Mixed 232 SusWrite 153 50% 220 MB/s	4K Read 29.4 4K Write 49 4K Mixed 36 117% 38.1 MB/s	DQ Read 181 DQ Write 170 DQ Mixed 177 132% 176 MB/s
Poor: 64% ↑ This bench: 63.8% Great: 115%
WD Green 1TB (2011)-$64 143,477 User benchmarks, average bench 64% 90GB free Firmware: 01.01A01 SusWrite @10s intervals: 71 72 70 72 72 72 MB/s Performing way below expectations (16^th percentile)	47.3% Average	Read 93 Write 60.9 Mixed 61 SusWrite 71.4 53% 71.6 MB/s	4K Read 0.9 4K Write 2.2 4K Mixed 1 189% 1.37 MB/s
Poor: 38% ↑ This bench: 47.3% Great: 85%
Nokia S60 16GB 9 User benchmarks, average bench 6% 10GB free, PID 05d0 Operating at USB 2.0 Speed SusWrite @10s intervals: 7.8 8.8 8.8 8.7 8.8 8.7 MB/s Performing as expected (50^th percentile)	5.91% Terrible	Read 15.3 Write 8 Mixed 8.2 SusWrite 8.6 12% 10 MB/s	4K Read 3.8 4K Write 0.3 4K Mixed 0.7 48% 1.6 MB/s
Poor: 2% ↑ This bench: 5.91% Great: 8%

Memory Kit	Bench	Multi core	Single core	Latency
Unknown 6GB 111,301 User benchmarks, average bench 25% null MHz 1024, 2048, 1024, 2048 MB Performing as expected (53^rd percentile)	21.5% Poor	MC Read 7.2 MC Write 6.6 MC Mixed 6.2 19% 6.67 GB/s	SC Read 5.9 SC Write 6.6 SC Mixed 6.4 18% 6.3 GB/s	Latency 86.4 46% 86.4 ns
Poor: 12% ↑ This bench: 21.5% Great: 46%

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

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.

CPU	GPU	SSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170	Nvidia RTX 4060 $293	Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $122	Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385	Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-13600K $260	Nvidia RTX 4070 $550	Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $45

HDD	RAM	USB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $37	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40	SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $29	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $48	SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $62	G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $351	SanDisk Ultra Fit 32GB $16

If you make a purchase via one of these links, our site may earn a commission

Today's hottest

Amazon Ebay

deals

CPU GPU SSD HDD USB RAM MBD

Build

Test

EFps

Can You Run It?

►
YouTube
*NEW*

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