HP EliteDesk 800 G2 SFF

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 13%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 76%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 12%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (47th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 53 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
ProcessorWith a brilliant single core score, this CPU is the business: It demolishes everyday tasks such as web browsing, office apps and audio/video playback. Additionally this processor can handle light workstation, and even some light server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 80.6%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is very good.
Graphics6.56% 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 Drive59.9% 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.
Very high background CPU (32%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
SystemHP EliteDesk 800 G2 SFF  (all builds)
MotherboardHP 8054
Memory11.9 GB free of 16 GB @ 2.1 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors,
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20220913
Uptime0 Days
Run DateJan 02 '23 at 19:25
Run Duration184 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU 32%

 PC Performing as expected (47th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i7-6700K-$170
U3E1, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 8 threads
Base clock 4 GHz, turbo 3.85 GHz (avg)
Performing as expected (49th percentile)
80.6% Excellent
Memory 87
1-Core 119
2-Core 233
82% 146 Pts
4-Core 400
8-Core 584
62% 492 Pts
64-Core 582
36% 582 Pts
Poor: 70%
This bench: 80.6%
Great: 90%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GeForce GT 730
Device(1B0A 90F5) 2GB
CLim: 901 MHz, MLim: 1252 MHz, Ram: 2GB, Driver: 474.14
Performing way above expectations (93rd percentile)
6.56% Terrible
Lighting 8.1
Reflection 8.5
Parallax 9.2
7% 8.6 fps
MRender 10.2
Gravity 7.2
Splatting 6.9
6% 8.1 fps
Poor: 3%
This bench: 6.56%
Great: 7%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
SSD 512GB 512GB
326GB free (System drive)
Firmware: HPS2227O
SusWrite @10s intervals: 383 208 330 352 15 16 MB/s
Performing below expectations (29th percentile)
59.9% Above average
Read 477
Write 447
Mixed 359
SusWrite 217
84% 375 MB/s
4K Read 26.4
4K Write 14.7
4K Mixed 11
62% 17.4 MB/s
DQ Read 148
DQ Write 283
DQ Mixed 13.8
68% 148 MB/s
Poor: 38%
This bench: 59.9%
Great: 211%
Kingston SSDNow V300 240GB-$35
104GB free
Firmware: 608ABBF0
SusWrite @10s intervals: 155 144 162 162 151 140 MB/s
Performing above expectations (75th percentile)
73.3% Very good
Read 324
Write 263
Mixed 274
SusWrite 152
57% 253 MB/s
4K Read 28.5
4K Write 73.9
4K Mixed 38.1
131% 46.8 MB/s
DQ Read 209
DQ Write 255
DQ Mixed 199
159% 221 MB/s
Poor: 41%
This bench: 73.3%
Great: 85%
External USB3.0 DISK01 500GB
345GB free, PID 0567
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 1.2 2.2 1.3 0.9 0.1 0.1 MB/s
Performing as expected (44th percentile)
23.3% Poor
Read 135
Write 134
Mixed 57.5
SusWrite 1
100% 81.9 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.1
4K Mixed 0.7
64% 0.83 MB/s
Poor: 16%
This bench: 23.3%
Great: 47%
External USB3.0 DISK04 1TB
758GB free, PID 0567
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 0.8 1.9 0.9 0.9 MB/s
Performing below expectations (30th percentile)
25.3% Poor
Read 161
Write 38.2
Mixed 45.2
SusWrite 0.9
60% 61.4 MB/s
4K Read 0.9
4K Write 0.5
4K Mixed 0.7
44% 0.7 MB/s
Poor: 14%
This bench: 25.3%
Great: 67%
External USB3.0 DISK03 500GB
466GB free, PID 0567
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 75 74 75 74 75 76 MB/s
Performing below expectations (35th percentile)
31.9% Below average
Read 72.5
Write 51.4
Mixed 40.5
SusWrite 74.8
79% 59.8 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 1.6
4K Mixed 0.6
77% 0.9 MB/s
Poor: 23%
This bench: 31.9%
Great: 47%
External USB3.0 DISK00 1TB
886GB free, PID 0567
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 75 73 75 74 75 76 MB/s
Performing as expected (46th percentile)
41.2% Average
Read 145
Write 154
Mixed 74.4
SusWrite 74.6
146% 112 MB/s
4K Read 0.8
4K Write 1.2
4K Mixed 0.2
51% 0.73 MB/s
Poor: 16%
This bench: 41.2%
Great: 74%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Samsung M378A5143DB0-CPB 4x4GB
4 of 4 slots used
16GB DIMM DDR4 clocked @ 2133 MHz
Performing below potential (22nd percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
74.2% Very good
MC Read 26.5
MC Write 28.9
MC Mixed 23.5
75% 26.3 GB/s
SC Read 16.2
SC Write 29.1
SC Mixed 22.1
64% 22.5 GB/s
Latency 70.4
57% 70.4 ns
Poor: 67%
This bench: 74.2%
Great: 101%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical EliteDesk 800 G2 SFF Builds (Compare 2,998 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 10%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 63%
Destroyer
Workstation
Workstation 9%
Tree trunk

System: HP EliteDesk 800 G2 SFF

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 73% - Very good Total price: $88
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 endorse 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 so they keep returning.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $175Nvidia RTX 4060 $293Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $124Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-13600K $260Nvidia RTX 4070 $549Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $44
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