Ciara CIARA Q170M-DA

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 8%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 62%
Destroyer
Workstation
Workstation 8%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (52nd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 48 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 63.6%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
Graphics1.72% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive70.6% is a good SSD score. This drive enables fast boots, responsive applications and ensures minimum system IO wait times.
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.
Run History
SystemCiara CIARA Q170M-DA  (all builds)
MotherboardASUSTeK Q170M-C
Memory9.9 GB free of 16 GB @ 2.1 GHz
Display1680 x 1050 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20170208
Uptime0.2 Days
Run DateJan 14 '23 at 20:23
Run Duration126 Seconds
Run User CAN-User
Background CPU 32%

 PC Performing as expected (52nd percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i5-6500-$60
LGA1151, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 3.2 GHz, turbo 3.3 GHz (avg)
Performing as expected (42nd percentile)
63.6% Good
Memory 77.4
1-Core 94.4
2-Core 197
70% 123 Pts
4-Core 282
8-Core 325
40% 303 Pts
64-Core 299
18% 299 Pts
Poor: 43%
This bench: 63.6%
Great: 73%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GeForce GT 520
Asus(1043 83BD) 1GB
CLim: 810 MHz, MLim: 300 MHz, Ram: 1GB, Driver: 376.54
Performing as expected (54th percentile)
1.72% Terrible
Lighting 2
Reflection 1.8
Parallax 0.6
2% 1.47 fps
MRender 2.7
Gravity 2.3
Splatting 2.1
2% 2.37 fps
Poor: 2%
This bench: 1.72%
Great: 2%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Kingston A400 240GB-$28
23GB free (System drive)
Firmware: SBFKT1A3
SusWrite @10s intervals: 374 396 100 38 109 131 MB/s
Performing above expectations (60th percentile)
70.6% Very good
Read 349
Write 217
Mixed 293
SusWrite 191
59% 262 MB/s
4K Read 24.3
4K Write 60.4
4K Mixed 29.6
107% 38.1 MB/s
DQ Read 229
DQ Write 314
DQ Mixed 184
163% 242 MB/s
Poor: 33%
This bench: 70.6%
Great: 100%
WD Green 1TB (2011)-$64
629GB free
Firmware: 01.01A01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 120 120 122 113 112 119 MB/s
Performing above expectations (63rd percentile)
69.7% Good
Read 125
Write 120
Mixed 94.6
SusWrite 118
84% 114 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 2.6
4K Mixed 0.8
166% 1.37 MB/s
Poor: 38%
This bench: 69.7%
Great: 85%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Samsung M378A1K43BB1-CPB M378A1K43CB2-CTD 16GB
2133, 2133 MHz
8192, 8192 MB
Performing as expected (41st percentile)
65.6% Good
MC Read 23.6
MC Write 25.8
MC Mixed 21.2
67% 23.5 GB/s
SC Read 14.3
SC Write 23.3
SC Mixed 19.7
55% 19.1 GB/s
Latency 85.4
47% 85.4 ns
Poor: 37%
This bench: 65.6%
Great: 85%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical CIARA Q170M-DA Builds (Compare 25 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 50%
Yacht
Desktop
Desktop 74%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 40%
Speed boat

System: Ciara CIARA Q170M-DA

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 89% - Excellent Total price: $255
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