Colorful C.A68M-E

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 4%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 27%
Raft
Workstation
Workstation 4%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing way below expectations (17th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 83 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.
ProcessorWith an extremely low single core score, this CPU can barely handle email and light web browsing. Finally, with a gaming score of 24.3%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is very poor.
Graphics2.19% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive42.8% 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 (94%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
MotherboardColorful C.A68M-E  (all builds)
Memory11.8 GB free of 16 GB @ 1.9 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20211209
Uptime0.2 Days
Run DateAug 30 '23 at 20:08
Run Duration130 Seconds
Run User PHL-User
Background CPU 94%

 PC Performing way below expectations (17th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD A4-6300 APU-$51
P0, 1 CPU, 1 cores, 2 threads
Base clock 3.7 GHz, turbo 3.85 GHz (avg)
Performing way below expectations (8th percentile)
24.3% Poor
Memory 39.6
1-Core 30
2-Core 39.6
24% 36.4 Pts
4-Core 53
8-Core 59.7
7% 56.3 Pts
64-Core 52.1
3% 52.1 Pts
Poor: 21%
This bench: 24.3%
Great: 51%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD Radeon HD 8370D
AMD(1002 9998) 768MB
Driver: aticfx64.dll Ver. 15.201.1151.1008
Performing as expected (50th percentile)
2.19% Terrible
Lighting 2.5
Reflection 3.7
Parallax 2.4
2% 2.87 fps
MRender 3.3
Gravity 1.9
Splatting 3.7
2% 2.97 fps
Poor: 2%
This bench: 2.19%
Great: 2%
Drive BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Kingston A400 480GB-$38
400GB free (System drive)
Firmware: SBFK71E0
SusWrite @10s intervals: 231 240 272 284 342 365 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (9th percentile)
42.8% Average
Read 232
Write 184
Mixed 191
SusWrite 289
50% 224 MB/s
4K Read 9.3
4K Write 24
4K Mixed 8
37% 13.8 MB/s
DQ Read 97.2
DQ Write 122
DQ Mixed 31.6
46% 83.7 MB/s
Poor: 39%
This bench: 42.8%
Great: 102%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Kingston HX318C10F/8 2x8GB
2 of 4 slots used
16GB DIMM DDR3 1866 MHz clocked @ 1333 MHz
Performing below potential (2nd percentile) - Ensure that the top XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
17.1% Very poor
MC Read 6.7
MC Write 4.9
MC Mixed 6.4
17% 6 GB/s
SC Read 4.3
SC Write 4
SC Mixed 4.9
13% 4.4 GB/s
Latency 204
20% 204 ns
Poor: 25%
This bench: 17.1%
Great: 69%

 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 53 28 0 42.1" 1280 720 STK531A S2-TEK TV
Typical C.A68M-E Builds (Compare 2 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 6%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 44%
Speed boat
Workstation
Workstation 6%
Tree trunk

Motherboard: Colorful C.A68M-E

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 46% - Average Total price: $213
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketing teams operate large numbers of reddit accounts. Because UserBenchmark’s data often contradicts their marketing spiel, they systematically attack our reputation.
Why don’t large PC brands support UserBenchmark?
PC brands make a lot of money on flagship hardware sales: 4090, 14900KS, 7950X3D etc. We help consumers get comparable real-world performance at a fraction of the cost.
Why don’t any youtubers promote UserBenchmark?
We don't sponsor youtubers, so they have no incentive to praise us. Additionally, brands spend more on marketing weaker products which puts their youtubers at odds with UserBenchmark.
Why does UserBenchmark have so many negative trustpilot reviews?
Trustpilot hosts user-generated reviews in an online community. 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 the last 13 years to providing comprehensive and accurate data to our users. As a result, most of our users return over and over again and collectively save millions every year.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170Nvidia RTX 4060 $293Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $120Nvidia 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) $29Corsair 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