TEST
YOUR PC
ADD TO PC
BUILD

To Be Filled By O.E.M.

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 6%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 62%
Destroyer
Workstation
Workstation 6%
Tree trunk
Save results Copy results User guide
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (43rd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 57 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 69.7%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
Graphics0.88% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive50.1% is a reasonable SSD score. This drive enables fast boots and responsive applications.
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.
MotherboardTo Be Filled By O.E.M.  (all builds)
Memory10.6 GB free of 16 GB @ 1.3 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit cores
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20110608
Uptime0.1 Days
Run DateFeb 19 '22 at 14:35
Run Duration185 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU2%

 PC Performing as expected (43rd percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i5-2400-$250
SOCKET 0, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 3.1 GHz, turbo 3.2 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (97th percentile)
69.7% Good
Memory 84.7
1-Core 86.3
2-Core 169
67% 113 Pts
4-Core 314
8-Core 332
43% 323 Pts
64-Core 330
20% 330 Pts
Poor: 42% ↑
This bench: 69.7%
 Great: 70%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Intel HD 2000 (Desktop 1.1 GHz)
Gigabyte(1458 D000) 2GB
Driver: igdumd64.dll Ver. 9.17.10.4459
Performing as expected (50th percentile)
0.88% Terrible
Lighting 0.9
Reflection 1.4
Parallax 0.7
1% 1 fps
MRender 1.7
Gravity 0.6
Splatting 1.8
1% 1.37 fps
Poor: 1% ↑
This bench: 0.88%
 Great: 1%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Kingston A400 480GB-$38
227GB free (System drive)
Firmware: SBFKK1B3
SusWrite @10s intervals: 127 201 210 214 215 196 MB/s
Performing below potential (17th percentile) - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable
50.1% Above average
Read 225
Write 199
Mixed 192
SusWrite 194
46% 203 MB/s
4K Read 22.1
4K Write 38.7
4K Mixed 25.8
87% 28.9 MB/s
DQ Read 28.8
DQ Write 68.8
DQ Mixed 35.1
31% 44.2 MB/s
Poor: 39% ↑
This bench: 50.1%
 Great: 102%
Kingston SSDNow UV400 120GB-$35
79GB free
Firmware: 0C3J96R9
SusWrite @10s intervals: 175 78 67 59 58 57 MB/s
Performing below potential (4th percentile) - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable
42.7% Average
Read 227
Write 219
Mixed 64.2
SusWrite 82.2
33% 148 MB/s
4K Read 23.5
4K Write 41
4K Mixed 21.7
85% 28.7 MB/s
DQ Read 30.1
DQ Write 89.1
DQ Mixed 34.9
34% 51.4 MB/s
Poor: 44% ↑
This bench: 42.7%
 Great: 82%
Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 1TB-$25
307GB free
Firmware: CC43
SusWrite @10s intervals: 109 108 109 109 111 110 MB/s
Performing below expectations (22nd percentile)
76.1% Very good
Read 156
Write 65.5
Mixed 70.9
SusWrite 109
74% 100 MB/s
4K Read 0.8
4K Write 1.5
4K Mixed 0.7
139% 1 MB/s
Poor: 55% ↑
This bench: 76.1%
 Great: 112%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown MMXIV 16GB
1333, 1333, 1333, 1333 MHz
4096, 4096, 4096, 4096 MB
Performing above expectations (70th percentile)
49.5% Average
MC Read 17
MC Write 17.9
MC Mixed 15.8
48% 16.9 GB/s
SC Read 14.5
SC Write 15.7
SC Mixed 15.4
43% 15.2 GB/s
Latency 72.3
55% 72.3 ns
Poor: 24% ↑
This bench: 49.5%
 Great: 52%
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 MBD
Typical Be Filled By O.E.M. Builds (Compare 5,617 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 2%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 58%
Gunboat
Workstation
Workstation 2%
Tree trunk

Motherboard: To Be Filled By O.E.M.

CPU
Core i5-3470Intel  $59Bench 63%, 223,595 samples724x
Core i5-2400Intel  $250Bench 61%, 166,255 samples282x
Core i7-3770Intel  $297Bench 69%, 278,207 samples269x
GPU
HD 2500 (Desktop 1.05 GHz)IntelBench 1%, 146,665 samples619x
HD 2000 (Desktop 1.1 GHz)IntelBench 1%, 150,891 samples461x
G41 Express ChipsetIntelBench 0%, 33,874 samples361x
SSD
A400 240GBKingston  $28Bench 66%, 424,288 samples137x
256GB 256GBSSDBench 77%, 9,229 samples103x
128GB 128GBSSDBench 65%, 7,332 samples90x
RAM
2x2GBUnknownBench 20%, 446,702 samples500x
2x8GBUnknownBench 64%, 236,291 samples307x
2x4GBUnknownBench 39%, 424,126 samples227x
EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 72% - Very good Total price: $87
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketing teams operate large numbers of reddit accounts. When UserBenchmark’s data contradicts their marketing spiel, they deflect by systematically attacking our reputation.
Why don’t large PC brands support UserBenchmark?
PC brands make a large proportion lot of their profit from flagship hardware sales (4090, 14900KS, 7950X3D etc.). UserBenchmark's data helps consumers to choose hardware that offers similar real world performance at a fraction of the cost.
Why don’t any youtubers promote UserBenchmark?
We don't sponsor youtubers, so they have no incentive to make positive content about us. In addition, the brands with weaker products tend to spend more on youtube marketing, which puts their youtubers at odds with UserBenchmark.
Why does UserBenchmark have so many negative trustpilot reviews?
Trustpilot hosts user-generated reviews in an online community that's open and accessible to all. Looking at its 200+ UserBenchmark reviews, which are mostly written by virgin accounts, it is glaringly obvious that they were created by a marketing team. Real users don’t have any time or interest to promote one brand over another.
Why is UserBenchmark so popular with users?
Instead of trying to win lucrative sponsorship deals with billion dollar PC brands, we have spent the last 13 years 100% focussed on providing comprehensive, accurate and relevant information for our users. As a result, most of our users return over and over again because collectively they save millions of dollars every year.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $159Nvidia RTX 4060 $280Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $120Nvidia 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) $39Corsair 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
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