QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009)

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing GPU
Gaming
Gaming 0%
Incomplete
Desktop
Desktop 0%
Incomplete
Workstation
Workstation 0%
Incomplete
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (41st percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 59 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. 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 60.2%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
MemoryThe RAM on this system should be upgraded to at least 2GB although on 32bit systems 1GB will suffice as a bare minimum.
OS VersionAlthough Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
Run History
SystemQEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009)  (all builds)
Motherboard
Memory0.2 GB free of 1 GB @ 0 GHz
Display1280 x 1024 - 32 Bit colors, 1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20140401
Uptime0 Days
Run DateJan 17 '22 at 01:08
Run Duration180 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU4%

 PC Performing as expected (41st percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Xeon X5675
CPU 0, 1 CPU, 12 cores, 12 threads
Base clock 3.05 GHz, turbo 3.1 GHz (avg)
Performing as expected (50th percentile)
60.2% Good
Memory 69.7
1-Core 75.6
2-Core 142
56% 95.7 Pts
4-Core 277
8-Core 381
42% 329 Pts
64-Core 482
30% 482 Pts
Poor: 33%
This bench: 60.2%
Great: 74%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Qemu HARDDISK 107GB
53GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 2.5+
SusWrite @10s intervals: 224 198 141 148 169 91 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - RAM cached drive detected
Poor: 20% Great: 77%
Qemu HARDDISK 322GB
288GB free
Firmware: 2.5+
SusWrite @10s intervals: 220 258 170 178 202 199 MB/s
Performing below expectations (29th percentile)
28.3% Poor
Read 360
Write 156
Mixed 81.5
SusWrite 205
44% 200 MB/s
4K Read 2.1
4K Write 3.9
4K Mixed 0.1
5% 2.03 MB/s
Poor: 18%
This bench: 28.3%
Great: 65%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
QEMU 1x1GB
1 of 1 slots used
1GB DIMM RAM
Performing as expected (43rd percentile)
31.2% Below average
MC Read 13.1
MC Write 13.3
MC Mixed 7
32% 11.1 GB/s
SC Read 6.7
SC Write 7.2
SC Mixed 6
19% 6.63 GB/s
Latency 102
39% 102 ns
Poor: 10%
This bench: 31.2%
Great: 116%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009) Builds (Compare 611 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 83%
Aircraft carrier
Desktop
Desktop 73%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 74%
Battleship

System: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009)

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 60% - Good Total price: $485
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 youtubers extra to promote inferior products but UserBenchmark’s data exposes them.
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 keep returning.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170Nvidia RTX 4060 $293Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $122Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-13600K $260Nvidia RTX 4070 $550Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $45
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $37Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $28Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $48SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $62G.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