ADD TO PC
BUILD

HP COMPAQ PRO 4300 SFF

Performance Results


Gaming 15% Tree trunk	Desktop 70% Battle cruiser	Workstation 12% Tree trunk


PC Status	Overall this PC is performing as expected (51st percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 49 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
Processor	With 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 62.4%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
Graphics	15.7% 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 Drive	65.3% is a good SSD score. This drive enables fast boots, responsive applications and ensures minimum system IO wait times.
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.

System	HP COMPAQ PRO 4300 SFF (all builds)
Motherboard	Hewlett-Packard 2ADE
Memory	6 GB free of 8 GB @ 1.6 GHz
Display	1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit cores
OS	Windows 10
BIOS Date	20130308
Uptime	0 Days
Run Date	Jul 05 '17 at 00:23
Run Duration	116 Seconds
Run User	PRT-User
Background CPU	7%

PC Performing as expected (51^st percentile)

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

Processor	Bench	Normal	Heavy	Server
Intel Core i3-3220-$60 71,790 User benchmarks, average bench 52% SOCKET 0, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 4 threads Base clock 3.3 GHz, turbo 3.3 GHz (avg) Performing way above expectations (97^th percentile)	62.4% Good	Memory 85.9 1-Core 90.1 2-Core 137 65% 104 Pts	4-Core 228 8-Core 226 30% 227 Pts	64-Core 225 14% 225 Pts
Poor: 38% ↑ This bench: 62.4% Great: 62%

Graphics Card	Bench	3D DX9	3D DX10	3D DX11
Nvidia GTX 750-$120 66,662 User benchmarks, average bench 15% MSI(1462 8A9C) 1GB CLim: 1333 MHz, MLim: 1252 MHz, Ram: 1GB, Driver: 376.9 Performing way above expectations (94^th percentile)	15.7% Very poor	Lighting 19.2 Reflection 16 Parallax 16.8 16% 17.3 fps	MRender 23.3 Gravity 19.3 Splatting 16.4 16% 19.7 fps
Poor: 13% ↑ This bench: 15.7% Great: 16%

Drives	Bench	Sequential	Random 4k	Deep queue 4k
Crucial MX100 256GB-$116 55,768 User benchmarks, average bench 83% 44GB free (System drive) Firmware: MU01 Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 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 (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (01) Raw read error rate 100 100 0 (05) Reallocated sector count 100 100 0 (09) Power-on hours count 100 100 189 (0C) Power cycle count 100 100 145 (AB) Unknown 100 100 0 (AC) Unknown 100 100 0 (AD) Unknown 100 100 3 (AE) Unknown 100 100 46 (B4) Unknown 0 0 2159 (B7) Unknown 100 100 0 (B8) Unknown 100 100 0 (BB) vendor-specific 100 100 0 (C2) HDA temperature 61 57 184684707879 (C4) Reallocation count 100 100 0 (C5) Current pending sector count 100 100 0 (C6) Offline scan uncorrectable count 100 100 0 (C7) UDMA CRC error rate 100 100 0 (CA) Data Address Mark errors 100 100 0 (CE) Flying height 100 100 0 (D2) Unknown 100 100 0 (F6) Unknown 100 100 1823330862 (F7) Unknown 100 100 57146363 (F8) Unknown 100 100 14927709	65.3% Good	Read 268 Write 256 Mixed 262 59% 262 MB/s	4K Read 23.6 4K Write 70.9 4K Mixed 25.5 106% 40 MB/s	DQ Read 167 DQ Write 140 DQ Mixed 15.6 49% 107 MB/s
Poor: 65% ↑ This bench: 65.3% Great: 97%
WD Blue 1TB (2012)-$28 3,105,054 User benchmarks, average bench 83% 2GB free Firmware: 80.00A80 Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s Performing way below expectations (4^th percentile) (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (01) Raw read error rate 200 200 0 (03) Spinup time 175 173 2216 (04) Start/Stop count 100 100 125 (05) Reallocated sector count 200 200 0 (07) Seek error rate 200 200 0 (09) Power-on hours count 100 100 100 (0A) Spinup retry count 100 100 0 (0B) Calibration retry count 100 100 0 (0C) Power cycle count 100 100 105 (C0) Power-off retract count 200 200 11 (C1) Load/Unload cycle count 200 200 113 (C2) HDA temperature 106 99 37 (C4) Reallocation count 200 200 0 (C5) Current pending sector count 200 200 0 (C6) Offline scan uncorrectable count 100 253 0 (C7) UDMA CRC error rate 200 200 0 (C8) Write error rate 100 253 0	49.1% Average	Read 87.3 Write 83.1 Mixed 83.8 64% 84.7 MB/s	4K Read 1.02 4K Write 2.52 4K Mixed 0.34 127% 1.3 MB/s
Poor: 52% ↑ This bench: 49.1% Great: 109%

Memory Kit	Bench	Multi core	Single core	Latency
Unknown F3-12800CL9-4GBXL Hynix HMT351U6EFR8C-PB 8GB 11 User benchmarks, average bench 51% 1600, 1600 MHz 4096, 4096 MB Performing as expected (55^th percentile)	54.4% Above average	MC Read 19.3 MC Write 19.6 MC Mixed 17.2 53% 18.7 GB/s	SC Read 16.6 SC Write 17.1 SC Mixed 17.1 48% 16.9 GB/s	Latency 71.3 56% 71.3 ns
Poor: 39% ↑ This bench: 54.4% Great: 57%

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 charade so they attack our reputation.

Why don’t PC brands endorse UserBenchmark?

PC brands profit a lot from flagships like the 4090, 14900KS, and 7950X3D. We help users get similar real-world performance for less money.

Why don’t youtubers promote UserBenchmark?

We don't sponsor youtubers, so they've no incentive to praise us. Moreover, brands pay youtubers extra to market inferior products. UserBenchmark's data challenges the marketing and exposes the youtubers' biases.

Why does UserBenchmark have negative trustpilot reviews?

Trustpilot hosts user-generated online reviews. The 200+ UserBenchmark reviews, are mostly written by virgin marketing accounts. Real users aren't interested in promoting billon-dollar brands.

Why is UserBenchmark popular with users?

Instead of chasing lucrative sponsorships with billion-dollar PC brands, we've dedicated 13 years to publishing accurate real-world data which saves our users millions every year.

The Best.

CPU	GPU	SSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $176	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 $549	Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $44

HDD	RAM	USB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $37	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40	SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $28	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