Fujitsu ESPRIMO P900

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 34%
Sail boat
Desktop
Desktop 76%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 26%
Raft
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (56th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 44 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
ProcessorWith a good single core score, this CPU can easily handle the majority of general computing tasks. Despite its good single core score this processor isn't appropriate for workstation use due to its relatively weak multi-core performance. Finally, with a gaming score of 65.6%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
Graphics46.2% is a reasonable 3D score (RTX 2060S = 100%). This GPU can handle the majority of recent games but it will struggle with resolutions greater than 1080p at ultra detail levels. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive81.3% is a very good SSD score. This drive is suitable for moderate workstation use, it will facilitate fast boots, responsive applications and ensure minimum 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.
High background CPU (29%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
SystemFujitsu ESPRIMO P900  (all builds)
MotherboardFUJITSU D3062-A1
Memory13.5 GB free of 16 GB @ 1.3 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit barev
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20110317
Uptime0.5 Days
Run DateDec 15 '23 at 23:49
Run Duration159 Seconds
Run User CZE-User
Background CPU 29%
Watch Gameplay: 1650 + 9600K How to compare your gameplay

 PC Performing as expected (56th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i7-2600-$140
SOCKET 0, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 3.4 GHz, turbo 3.5 GHz (avg)
Performing below expectations (35th percentile)
65.6% Good
Memory 86.8
1-Core 91.8
2-Core 179
70% 119 Pts
4-Core 258
8-Core 262
35% 260 Pts
64-Core 262
16% 262 Pts
Poor: 54%
This bench: 65.6%
Great: 74%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GTX 1650-$155
CLim: 2235 MHz, MLim: 3100 MHz, Ram: 4GB, Driver: 546.17
Performing way above expectations (97th percentile)
46.2% Average
Lighting 57.8
Reflection 60
Parallax 54.7
47% 57.5 fps
MRender 66.4
Gravity 51.6
Splatting 48.4
45% 55.5 fps
Poor: 39%
This bench: 46.2%
Great: 46%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung 870 Evo 250GB-$45
125GB free (System drive)
Firmware: SVT02B6Q
SusWrite @10s intervals: 261 334 313 327 321 321 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (15th percentile)
81.3% Excellent
Read 481
Write 388
Mixed 387
SusWrite 313
88% 392 MB/s
4K Read 36.1
4K Write 31.7
4K Mixed 29.5
109% 32.4 MB/s
DQ Read 338
DQ Write 90.1
DQ Mixed 95.9
101% 175 MB/s
Poor: 67%
This bench: 81.3%
Great: 128%
Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 500GB-$23
187GB free
Firmware: FJK2
SusWrite @10s intervals: 98 105 110 111 112 110 MB/s
Performing above expectations (63rd percentile)
62.7% Good
Read 111
Write 105
Mixed 56.2
SusWrite 108
70% 94.9 MB/s
4K Read 0.6
4K Write 1.1
4K Mixed 0.9
145% 0.87 MB/s
Poor: 27%
This bench: 62.7%
Great: 88%
WD Blue 500GB (2010)-$23
162GB free
Firmware: 18.01H18
SusWrite @10s intervals: 84 95 93 95 95 95 MB/s
Performing as expected (50th percentile)
53.8% Above average
Read 94.5
Write 99.9
Mixed 63.6
SusWrite 92.8
65% 87.7 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.9
4K Mixed 1
176% 1.2 MB/s
Poor: 24%
This bench: 53.8%
Great: 69%
Seagate ST3250620AS 250GB-$149
74GB free
Firmware: 3.AAK
SusWrite @10s intervals: 56 57 56 57 57 57 MB/s
Performing above expectations (74th percentile)
38.2% Below average
Read 75.9
Write 46.2
Mixed 43.6
SusWrite 56.7
41% 55.6 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 1.9
4K Mixed 0.6
131% 1.07 MB/s
Poor: 20%
This bench: 38.2%
Great: 43%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown PSD34G13332 PSD34G1600L81 PSD34G13332 PSD34G1600L81 16GB
1333, 1333, 1333, 1333 MHz
4096, 4096, 4096, 4096 MB
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
50% Above average
MC Read 16.9
MC Write 18.6
MC Mixed 16.2
49% 17.2 GB/s
SC Read 14.5
SC Write 16.4
SC Mixed 13.3
42% 14.7 GB/s
Latency 71.7
56% 71.7 ns
Poor: 49%
This bench: 50%
Great: 51%

 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 71 58 120 23.5" 1280 720 MSI3BA0 MSI G24C4
Typical ESPRIMO P900 Builds (Compare 215 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 5%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 57%
Gunboat
Workstation
Workstation 5%
Tree trunk

System: Fujitsu ESPRIMO P900

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 57% - Above average Total price: $295
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketing teams operate large numbers of reddit accounts. When UserBenchmark’s data contradicts their marketing spiel, they deflect by systematically attacking our reputation.
Why don’t large PC brands support UserBenchmark?
PC brands make a large proportion lot of their profit from flagship hardware sales (4090, 14900KS, 7950X3D etc.). UserBenchmark's data helps consumers to choose hardware that offers similar 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 make positive content about us. In addition, the brands with weaker products tend to spend more on youtube marketing, 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 that's open and accessible to all. Looking at its 200+ UserBenchmark reviews, which are mostly written by virgin accounts, it is glaringly obvious that they were created by a marketing team. Real users don’t have any time or interest to promote one brand over another.
Why is UserBenchmark so popular with users?
Instead of trying to win lucrative sponsorship deals with billion dollar PC brands, we have spent the last 13 years 100% focussed on providing comprehensive, accurate and relevant information for our users. As a result, most of our users return over and over again because collectively they save millions of dollars every year.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $159Nvidia RTX 4060 $280Crucial 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) $39Corsair 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