ADD TO PC
BUILD

Hp-pavilion GM339AA-ABA FB802

Performance Results


Gaming 2% Tree trunk	Desktop 41% Speed boat	Workstation 2% Tree trunk


PC Status	Overall this PC is performing as expected (53rd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 47 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
Processor	With a below average single core score, this CPU can handle email, web browsing and audio/video playback but it will struggle to handle modern 3D games or workstation tasks such as video editing. Finally, with a gaming score of 45.6%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is below average.
Graphics	0.83% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive	65.3% is a good SSD score. This drive enables fast boots, responsive applications and ensures minimum system IO wait times.
Memory	4GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and although it's sufficient for most games, some will benefit from up to 8GB of RAM. 4GB is also enough for modest file and system caches which allow for a responsive system.
OS Version	Although Windows 7 is still a viable option, it's now 14 years and 10 months old. This system should be upgraded to Windows 10 which is generally faster and has an improved set of core utilities including better versions of explorer and task manager.

System	Hp-pavilion GM339AA-ABA FB802 (all builds)
Motherboard	Quanta Whippet
Memory	2.6 GB free of 4 GB @ 0.8 GHz
Display	1680 x 1050 - 32 Bit colors
OS	Windows 7
BIOS Date	20081203
Uptime	0 Days
Run Date	Mar 25 '21 at 17:02
Run Duration	129 Seconds
Run User	USA-User
Background CPU	0%

PC Performing as expected (53^rd percentile)

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

Processor	Bench	Normal	Heavy	Server
Intel Core2 Quad Q9400-$170 24,176 User benchmarks, average bench 46% CPU 1, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 4 threads Base clock 2.65 GHz Performing as expected (46^th percentile)	45.6% Average	Memory 65.2 1-Core 38.5 2-Core 76.7 39% 60.1 Pts	4-Core 153 8-Core 152 20% 152 Pts	64-Core 154 10% 154 Pts
Poor: 34% ↑ This bench: 45.6% Great: 53%

Graphics Card	Bench	3D DX9	3D DX10	3D DX11
Nvidia nForce 760i SLI 16 User benchmarks, average bench 1% HP(103C 2A83) 256MB Ram: 256MB, Driver: 340.46 Performing as expected (56^th percentile)	0.83% Terrible	Lighting 0.9 Reflection 0.8 Parallax 0.3 1% 0.67 fps	MRender 1.6 Gravity 0.7 Splatting 1.4 1% 1.23 fps
Poor: 1% ↑ This bench: 0.83% Great: 1%

Drives	Bench	Sequential	Random 4k	Deep queue 4k
Liteonit LCS-128M6S- 128GB 9 User benchmarks, average bench 42% 101GB free (System drive) Firmware: DC71 SusWrite @10s intervals: 203 202 201 201 201 207 MB/s Performing way above expectations (100^th percentile)	65.3% Good	Read 259 Write 206 Mixed 189 SusWrite 202 48% 214 MB/s	4K Read 29 4K Write 54 4K Mixed 32.8 115% 38.6 MB/s	DQ Read 175 DQ Write 145 DQ Mixed 119 100% 146 MB/s
Poor: 32% ↑ This bench: 65.3% Great: 65%
SanDisk Ultra 64GB 5,745 User benchmarks, average bench 27% 2GB free, PID null SusWrite @10s intervals: 20 20 20 20 20 16 MB/s Performing way below expectations (10^th percentile)	12% Very poor	Read 32 Write 21.2 Mixed 21.7 SusWrite 19.2 30% 23.5 MB/s	4K Read 4.5 4K Write 0.7 4K Mixed 0.9 71% 2.03 MB/s
Poor: 10% ↑ This bench: 12% Great: 39%

Memory Kit	Bench	Multi core	Single core	Latency
Unknown 2x2GB 446,702 User benchmarks, average bench 20% 2 of 4 slots used 4GB DIMM DDR2 Performing as expected (54^th percentile)	17.9% Very poor	MC Read 5.2 MC Write 6.8 MC Mixed 4.8 16% 5.6 GB/s	SC Read 4.8 SC Write 6.6 SC Mixed 5.2 16% 5.53 GB/s	Latency 113 35% 113 ns
Poor: 10% ↑ This bench: 17.9% Great: 44%

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 $120	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