HP 550-105no

Performance Results


Gaming 5% Tree trunk	Desktop 39% Jet ski	Workstation 5% Tree trunk


PC Status	Overall this PC is performing below expectations (28th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 72 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components. Use the charts in the benchmark sections of this report to identify problem areas.
Processor	With a relatively low single core score, this CPU can handle email, light web browsing and basic audio/video playback, but it will struggle to handle CPU intensive tasks. Finally, with a gaming score of 33.9%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is poor.
Graphics	5.98% 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 Drive	67.5% is a good SSD score. This drive enables fast boots, responsive applications and ensures minimum system IO wait times.
Memory	8GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's sufficient for the vast majority of games. 8GB is also enough for moderate file and system caches which result in a very responsive system.
OS Version	Although Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.

Very high background CPU (73%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.

System	HP 550-105no (all builds)
Motherboard	HP 2B52
Memory	2 GB free of 8 GB @ 1.6 GHz
Display	1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit farger
OS	Windows 10
BIOS Date	20170222
Uptime	0.3 Days
Run Date	Jul 07 '23 at 15:58
Run Duration	194 Seconds
Run User	NOR-User
Background CPU	73%

PC Performing below expectations (28^th percentile)

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

Processor	Bench	Normal	Heavy	Server
AMD A10-8750 Radeon R7, 12 Compute Cores 4C+8G 1,794 User benchmarks, average bench 43% P0, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 4 threads Base clock 3.6 GHz, turbo 3.75 GHz (avg) Performing way below expectations (12^th percentile)	33.9% Below average	Memory 40.4 1-Core 62.3 2-Core 114 40% 72.2 Pts	4-Core 158 8-Core 163 21% 160 Pts	64-Core 157 10% 157 Pts
Poor: 30% ↑ This bench: 33.9% Great: 51%

Graphics Card	Bench	3D DX9	3D DX10	3D DX11
AMD Radeon R7 Graphics + R7 200 Dual Graphics 214 User benchmarks, average bench 7% Device(1B0A 90D3) 2GB CLim: 780 MHz, MLim: 900 MHz, Ram: 2GB, Driver: 20.50.02 Performing as expected (43^rd percentile)	5.98% Terrible	Lighting 7.6 Reflection 9 Parallax 9.6 6% 8.73 fps	MRender 7.3 Gravity 7.3 Splatting 6.1 6% 6.9 fps
Poor: 6% ↑ This bench: 5.98% Great: 7%

Drives	Bench	Sequential	Random 4k	Deep queue 4k
WDC WDS500G2B0A-00SM50 500GB 97,462 User benchmarks, average bench 93% 333GB free (System drive) Firmware: 401000WD SusWrite @10s intervals: 210 183 257 214 303 351 MB/s Performing way below expectations (6^th percentile)	67.5% Good	Read 308 Write 286 Mixed 251 SusWrite 253 62% 275 MB/s	4K Read 21.4 4K Write 62.6 4K Mixed 24.7 97% 36.2 MB/s	DQ Read 244 DQ Write 209 DQ Mixed 177 146% 210 MB/s
Poor: 68% ↑ This bench: 67.5% Great: 111%
Toshiba DT01ACA100 1TB-$28 763,289 User benchmarks, average bench 84% 35GB free Firmware: MS2OA7C0 SusWrite @10s intervals: 149 135 162 169 178 181 MB/s Performing way above expectations (90^th percentile)	104% Outstanding	Read 200 Write 156 Mixed 39.1 SusWrite 162 101% 139 MB/s	4K Read 0.7 4K Write 2 4K Mixed 0.5 122% 1.07 MB/s
Poor: 47% ↑ This bench: 104% Great: 107%
ST1000LM 024 HN-M101M 1TB 1,107 User benchmarks, average bench 29% 753GB free, PID 55aa Operating at USB 2.1 Speed SusWrite @10s intervals: 15 15 17 17 18 18 MB/s Performing way below expectations (10^th percentile)	13.5% Very poor	Read 51.4 Write 25.9 Mixed 24.4 SusWrite 16.7 35% 29.6 MB/s	4K Read 1 4K Write 0.7 4K Mixed 0.7 51% 0.8 MB/s
Poor: 13% ↑ This bench: 13.5% Great: 43%
Iomega E xternal HD 1TB 461 User benchmarks, average bench 16% 405GB free, PID 0370 Operating at USB 2.0 Speed SusWrite @10s intervals: 23 22 25 26 28 29 MB/s Performing below expectations (38^th percentile)	14.5% Very poor	Read 52.3 Write 25 Mixed 21.9 SusWrite 25.6 38% 31.2 MB/s	4K Read 1.6 4K Write 0.3 4K Mixed 0.8 43% 0.9 MB/s
Poor: 12% ↑ This bench: 14.5% Great: 20%
Maxtor Basics Portable 160GB 80 User benchmarks, average bench 15% 125GB free, PID 7450 Operating at USB 2.0 Speed SusWrite @10s intervals: 15 15 17 17 18 18 MB/s Performing below expectations (26^th percentile)	11.9% Very poor	Read 51.1 Write 27.3 Mixed 21.2 SusWrite 16.6 35% 29 MB/s	4K Read 0.9 4K Write 0.2 4K Mixed 0.5 27% 0.53 MB/s
Poor: 11% ↑ This bench: 11.9% Great: 18%

Memory Kit	Bench	Multi core	Single core	Latency
Samsung M378B1G73EB0-YK0 1x8GB 7,002 User benchmarks, average bench 28% 1 of 2 slots used 8GB DIMM DDR3 clocked @ 1600 MHz Performing way below expectations (1^st percentile)	11.3% Very poor	MC Read 3.8 MC Write 3.9 MC Mixed 3.3 10% 3.67 GB/s	SC Read 2.7 SC Write 3.7 SC Mixed 3.6 10% 3.33 GB/s	Latency 201 20% 201 ns
Poor: 18% ↑ This bench: 11.3% Great: 34%

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

CPU	GPU	SSD
Intel Core i5-13600K $273	Nvidia RTX 4060 $280	Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $128	Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385	Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-12600K $160	Nvidia RTX 4070 $550	Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $29

HDD	RAM	USB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $39	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $39	SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $32	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $48	SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $62	G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $351	SanDisk Ultra Fit 32GB $16

HP 550-105no

Performance Results

PC Performing below expectations (28th percentile)

System Memory Latency Ladder

CHOOSE AN UPGRADE:

Feedback

PC Performing below expectations (28^th percentile)