HP 320-1030

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 3%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 39%
Jet ski
Workstation
Workstation 3%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (48th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 52 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
ProcessorWith a below average single core score, this CPU can handle email, web browsing and audio/video playback but it will struggle to handle modern 3D games or workstation tasks such as video editing. Finally, with a gaming score of 37.2%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is poor.
Graphics2.14% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive45.1% is a reasonable SSD score. This drive enables fast boots and responsive applications.
Memory6GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's sufficient for the vast majority of games. 6GB is also enough for moderate file and system caches which result in a very responsive system.
OS VersionAlthough Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
High background CPU (27%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
6 years ago, 6 years ago.
SystemHP 320-1030  (all builds)
MotherboardPEGATRON 2ACB
Memory3.7 GB free of 6 GB @ 1.6 GHz
Display1600 x 900 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20110817
Uptime0.2 Days
Run DateDec 03 '17 at 21:43
Run Duration358 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU 27%

 PC Performing as expected (48th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD A4-3400 APU-$80
P0, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 2 threads
Base clock 2.7 GHz, turbo 2.65 GHz (avg)
Performing as expected (60th percentile)
37.2% Below average
Memory 61
1-Core 41.8
2-Core 81.2
39% 61.3 Pts
4-Core 80.7
8-Core 80.9
11% 80.8 Pts
64-Core 79.9
5% 79.9 Pts
Poor: 24%
This bench: 37.2%
Great: 44%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD Radeon HD 6410D
HP(103C 2ACB) 512MB
Driver: aticfx64.dll Ver. 15.201.1151.0
Performing above expectations (73rd percentile)
2.14% Terrible
Lighting 2.43
Reflection 3.27
Parallax 1.94
2% 2.55 fps
MRender 3.24
Gravity 1.53
Splatting 3.83
2% 2.87 fps
Poor: 1%
This bench: 2.14%
Great: 2%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
PNY CS900 120GB-$25
61GB free (System drive)
Firmware: CS900210 Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s
Performing below potential (6th percentile) - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable
45.1% Average
Read 240
Write 239
Mixed 246
54% 242 MB/s
4K Read 17.8
4K Write 43.4
4K Mixed 5.91
57% 22.4 MB/s
DQ Read 104
DQ Write 109
DQ Mixed 5.95
32% 73.2 MB/s
Poor: 42%
This bench: 45.1%
Great: 87%
Specific STORAGE DEVICE 16GB
13GB free, PID 0823
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
Performing as expected (54th percentile)
4.66% Terrible
Read 15.8
Write 6.11
Mixed 3.93
9% 8.61 MB/s
4K Read 4.31
4K Write 0.005
4K Mixed 0.005
16% 1.44 MB/s
Poor: 4%
This bench: 4.66%
Great: 6%
SanDisk Cruzer 16GB
2GB free, PID 5530
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
Performing as expected (48th percentile)
7.01% Terrible
Read 23.4
Write 13
Mixed 13
19% 16.4 MB/s
4K Read 3.27
4K Write 0.008
4K Mixed 0.01
13% 1.1 MB/s
Poor: 5%
This bench: 7.01%
Great: 9%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
RAMAXEL RMT3170EB68F9W1600 Samsung M471B5773CHS-CH9 6GB
1600, 1333 MHz
4096, 2048 MB
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
25.7% Poor
MC Read 10.2
MC Write 8.6
MC Mixed 8.3
26% 9.03 GB/s
SC Read 6.2
SC Write 5.5
SC Mixed 6.8
18% 6.17 GB/s
Latency 125
32% 125 ns
Poor: 25%
This bench: 25.7%
Great: 40%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical 320-1030 Builds (Compare 8 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 2%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 38%
Jet ski
Workstation
Workstation 2%
Tree trunk

System: HP 320-1030

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 45% - Average Total price: $133
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketers operate thousands of reddit accounts. Our benchmarks expose their spiel so they attack our reputation.
Why don’t PC brands endorse UserBenchmark?
Brands make boatloads on flagships like the 4090 and 14900KS. We help users get similar real-world performance for less money.
Why don’t youtubers promote UserBenchmark?
We don't pay youtubers, so they don't praise us. Moreover, our data obstructs youtubers who promote overpriced or inferior products.
Why does UserBenchmark have negative trustpilot reviews?
The 200+ trustpilot reviews are mostly written by virgin marketing accounts. Real users don't give a monkey's about big brands.
Why is UserBenchmark popular with users?
Instead of pursuing brands for sponsorship, we've spent 13 years publishing real-world data for users.
The Best
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $174Nvidia RTX 4060 $293WD Black SN850X M.2 2TB $135
Intel Core i5-12400F $110Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385WD Black SN850X M.2 1TB $89
Intel Core i5-13600K $249Nvidia RTX 4070 $549Crucial T700 M.2 4TB $369
Today's hottest deals
If you buy something via a price link, UserBenchmark may earn a commission
About  •  User Guide  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer  •  YouTube Feedback