Medion P15811

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 0%
Incomplete
Desktop
Desktop 0%
Incomplete
Workstation
Workstation 0%
Incomplete
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 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 moderate workstation, and even light server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 83.4%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is very good.
Graphics5.24% 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.
Memory24GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's far more than any current game requires. 24GB will also allow for large file and system caches, virtual machine hosting, software development, video editing and batch multimedia processing.
OS VersionAlthough Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
High background CPU (26%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
SystemMedion P15811  (all builds)
MotherboardMEDION NH55RCQM1
Memory12.9 GB free of 24 GB @ 2.7 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors, ,
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20190917
Uptime2.8 Days
Run DateJul 25 '23 at 20:52
Run Duration187 Seconds
Run User SWE-User
Background CPU 26%

 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 i7-9750H
U3E1, 1 CPU, 6 cores, 12 threads
Base clock 2.6 GHz, turbo 4 GHz (avg)
Performing above expectations (85th percentile)
83.4% Excellent
Memory 86
1-Core 120
2-Core 233
82% 146 Pts
4-Core 434
8-Core 740
71% 587 Pts
64-Core 887
55% 887 Pts
Poor: 49%
This bench: 83.4%
Great: 87%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Intel UHD Graphics 630
Device(1E39 A010) 1GB
Driver: igdumdim64.dll Ver. 26.20.100.7324
Performing as expected (49th percentile)
5.24% Terrible
Lighting 5.7
Reflection 40
Parallax 6.7
5% 17.5 fps
MRender 8.1
Gravity 5.8
Splatting 9.1
6% 7.67 fps
Poor: 4%
This bench: 5.24%
Great: 6%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
E12-512G-PHISON-SSD-B16-BB1 512GB
28GB free (System drive)
Firmware: ECFM22.4
Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete
Read 982
Write 1,911
Mixed 1,194
308% 1,362 MB/s
4K Read 35.4
4K Write 90.3
4K Mixed 53.2
170% 59.6 MB/s
DQ Read 645
DQ Write 502
DQ Mixed 580
432% 576 MB/s
Poor: 125% Great: 233%
Jmicron Generic 240GB
16GB free
Firmware: 2201
SusWrite @10s intervals: 9.8 9.3 9.4 9.3 9.3 9.1 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - RAM cached drive detected
Poor: 12% Great: 24%
Asm1153u ASM1153USB3.0TOS 500GB
73GB free
Firmware: 0
SusWrite @10s intervals: 9.9 9.4 9.3 9.2 9.4 9.2 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - RAM cached drive detected
Poor: 12% Great: 57%
HTS54106 0G9AT00 60GB
25GB free, PID 0033
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 8 8.1 8.1 8.2 8 8 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
9.87% Terrible
Read 52.1
Write 24.9
Mixed 17.7
SusWrite 8
29% 25.7 MB/s
4K Read 1.1
4K Write 0.1
4K Mixed 0.4
21% 0.53 MB/s
Poor: 10%
This bench: 9.87%
Great: 10%
WDC WD32 00BJKT-00F4T0 320GB
46GB free, PID 2338
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 7.9 8 8 8.3 8.1 8.4 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
9.49% Terrible
Read 30.1
Write 31.7
Mixed 25.4
SusWrite 8.1
31% 23.8 MB/s
4K Read 1.2
4K Write 1
4K Mixed 0.7
62% 0.97 MB/s
Apricorn SATAWire 802GB
599GB free, PID 0040
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 6.9 6.9 6.8 7 7.3 8.5 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
8.83% Terrible
Read 29.7
Write 34.1
Mixed 21.7
SusWrite 7.2
30% 23.2 MB/s
4K Read 0.8
4K Write 0.9
4K Mixed 0.6
54% 0.77 MB/s
Poor: 9%
This bench: 8.83%
Great: 14%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Samsung M471A1K43CB1-CTD 859B CT16G4SFRA266.C8FE 24GB
2667, 2667 MHz
8192, 16384 MB
Performing below potential (24th percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
48.7% Average
MC Read 19.4
MC Write 16.6
MC Mixed 14
48% 16.7 GB/s
SC Read 13.2
SC Write 15.9
SC Mixed 14.8
42% 14.6 GB/s
Latency 71.2
56% 71.2 ns
Poor: 44%
This bench: 48.7%
Great: 82%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

 SkillBench Score 0: 0P 0R 0G 0B (High Scores)

Measures user input accuracy relative to the given hardware

Score Hit Rate Shots EFps 0.1% Low Refresh Rate Screen Resolution Monitor
0% 0% 0 68 56 144 15.5" 1280 720 LGD05CF
Typical P15811 Builds (Compare 21 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 48%
Yacht
Desktop
Desktop 77%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 40%
Jet ski

System: Medion P15811

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER
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 so they keep returning.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $156Nvidia RTX 4060 $293Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $120Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $361Samsung 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