Default string

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 38%
Jet ski
Desktop
Desktop 86%
Aircraft carrier
Workstation
Workstation 32%
Sail boat
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing below expectations (29th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 71 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 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 light workstation, and even some light server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 83.8%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is very good.
Graphics39.9% is a below average 3D score (RTX 2060S = 100%). This GPU can handle older games but it will struggle to render recent games at resolutions greater than 1080p. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive38% is low SSD score. With a better SSD this system will boot faster, make applications more responsive and reduce 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.
Sub-optimal background CPU (19%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
8 months ago, 8 months ago.
SystemDefault string  (all builds)
MotherboardDefault Default string
Memory9.7 GB free of 16 GB @ 2.4 GHz
Display1366 x 768 - 32 Bit cores
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20180906
Uptime3 Days
Run DateSep 24 '23 at 17:46
Run Duration174 Seconds
Run User BRA-User
Background CPU 19%
Watch Gameplay How to compare your gameplay

 PC Performing below expectations (29th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i5-9400F-$85
U3E1, 1 CPU, 6 cores, 6 threads
Base clock 2.9 GHz, turbo 3.9 GHz (avg)
Performing below expectations (37th percentile)
83.8% Excellent
Memory 89.6
1-Core 118
2-Core 232
83% 147 Pts
4-Core 435
8-Core 535
62% 485 Pts
64-Core 590
36% 590 Pts
Poor: 72%
This bench: 83.8%
Great: 91%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 1650-$155
Gigabyte(1458 4028) ≥ 4GB
CLim: 2130 MHz, MLim: 3000 MHz, Ram: 4GB, Driver: 537.34
Performing below potential (19th percentile) - GPU OC Guide
39.9% Below average
Lighting 46.9
Reflection 56
Parallax 51.7
38% 51.5 fps
MRender 62.9
Gravity 51.7
Splatting 46.4
43% 53.7 fps
Poor: 39%
This bench: 39.9%
Great: 46%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
WD Green 240GB (2018)-$57
33GB free (System drive)
Firmware: UF870400
SusWrite @10s intervals: 198 57 35 90 70 52 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (16th percentile)
38% Below average
Read 404
Write 262
Mixed 245
SusWrite 83.9
55% 248 MB/s
4K Read 11.8
4K Write 19.6
4K Mixed 13.1
45% 14.8 MB/s
DQ Read 81.5
DQ Write 43.3
DQ Mixed 22.8
28% 49.2 MB/s
Poor: 34%
This bench: 38%
Great: 55%
Jmicron Generic 1TB
203GB free
Firmware: 0215
SusWrite @10s intervals: 40 39 40 41 40 41 MB/s
Performing below expectations (35th percentile)
26.3% Poor
Read 51.1
Write 39.1
Mixed 28.1
SusWrite 40.1
29% 39.6 MB/s
4K Read 0.8
4K Write 1.7
4K Mixed 0.8
154% 1.1 MB/s
Poor: 15%
This bench: 26.3%
Great: 79%
ST950032 5AS 500GB
136GB free, PID 047b
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 41 41 41 41 41 42 MB/s
Performing above expectations (68th percentile)
16.4% Very poor
Read 39.3
Write 39.5
Mixed 27.2
SusWrite 41.2
50% 36.8 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 0.5
4K Mixed 0.6
40% 0.57 MB/s
Poor: 11%
This bench: 16.4%
Great: 18%
Samsung M3 Portable 1TB
417GB free, PID 61b6
Operating at USB 2.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 40 42 42 42 42 43 MB/s
Performing below expectations (33rd percentile)
20.3% Poor
Read 50.4
Write 38.1
Mixed 29.9
SusWrite 41.7
52% 40 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.2
4K Mixed 0.7
67% 0.87 MB/s
Poor: 13%
This bench: 20.3%
Great: 42%
WD Elements 2620 2TB
1.5TB free, PID 2620
Operating at USB 2.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 23 18 31 16 21 28 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (2nd percentile)
8.93% Terrible
Read 22.4
Write 26.7
Mixed 25.1
SusWrite 22.9
34% 24.3 MB/s
4K Read 0.3
4K Write 0.2
4K Mixed 0.4
22% 0.3 MB/s
Poor: 16%
This bench: 8.93%
Great: 64%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Kingston KVR24N17S8/8 2x8GB
2 of 4 slots used
16GB DIMM DDR4 clocked @ 2400 MHz
Performing below potential (26th percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
70.6% Very good
MC Read 26.2
MC Write 26.6
MC Mixed 22.8
72% 25.2 GB/s
SC Read 16.7
SC Write 23.8
SC Mixed 19.7
57% 20.1 GB/s
Latency 70.4
57% 70.4 ns
Poor: 44%
This bench: 70.6%
Great: 86%

 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 70 58 60 23" 1280 720 GSM59CA 2D HD LG TV
Typical string Builds (Compare 14,723 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 25%
Surfboard
Desktop
Desktop 72%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 22%
Surfboard

System: Default string

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 87% - Excellent Total price: $87
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketers operate countless reddit accounts. UserBenchmark challenges their narrative so they attack our reputation with a co-ordinated charade.
Why don’t PC brands endorse UserBenchmark?
PC brands make a lot of profit on flagships like the 4090, 14900KS, and 7950X3D. 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 exposes the youtubers that are paid to promote overpriced/inferior products.
Why does UserBenchmark have negative trustpilot reviews?
The 200+ reviews on trustpilot are mostly written by virgin marketing accounts. Real users aren't incentivized to back brands.
Why is UserBenchmark popular with users?
Instead of chasing sponsorship with billion-dollar PC brands, we've spent 13 years publishing real-world data which collectively saves our users millions.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $174Nvidia 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 $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