EVGA 132-YW-E179-FTW

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing GPU
Gaming 0% Incomplete	Desktop 0% Incomplete	Workstation 0% Incomplete


PC Status	Overall this PC is performing as expected (53rd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 47 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
Processor	With a below average single core score, this CPU can handle email, web browsing and audio/video playback but it will struggle to handle modern 3D games or workstation tasks such as video editing. Finally, with a gaming score of 39%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is poor.
Boot Drive	36.9% is low SSD score. With a better SSD this system will boot faster, make applications more responsive and reduce 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 (61%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.

Run History

6 years ago, 6 years ago, 6 years ago, 6 years ago.

Motherboard	EVGA 132-YW-E179-FTW (all builds)
Memory	4.6 GB free of 8 GB @ 1.6 GHz
Display	1600 x 900 - 32 Bit colores
OS	Windows 10
BIOS Date	20080730
Uptime	1 Days
Run Date	Feb 25 '18 at 23:46
Run Duration	397 Seconds
Run User	DOM-User
Background CPU	61%

PC Performing as expected (53^rd percentile)

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

Processor	Bench	Normal	Heavy	Server
Intel Core2 Duo E8400-$89 68,540 User benchmarks, average bench 40% Socket 775, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 2 threads Base clock 3 GHz, turbo 2.8 GHz (avg) Performing below expectations (34^th percentile)	39% Below average	Memory 71.6 1-Core 24 2-Core 51.1 35% 48.9 Pts	4-Core 37.9 8-Core 60.7 6% 49.3 Pts	64-Core 59.7 4% 59.7 Pts
Poor: 24% ↑ This bench: 39% Great: 47%

Drives	Bench	Sequential	Random 4k	Deep queue 4k
Samsung PM810 2. 128GB 22 User benchmarks, average bench 34% 62GB free (System drive) Firmware: AXM0 Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s Performing as expected (59^th percentile)	36.9% Below average	Read 235 Write 204 Mixed 218 49% 219 MB/s	4K Read 11.8 4K Write 28.2 4K Mixed 8.94 44% 16.3 MB/s	DQ Read 18 DQ Write 63.4 DQ Mixed 10.4 17% 30.6 MB/s
Poor: 22% ↑ This bench: 36.9% Great: 41%
Hitachi HTS 545050A7E380 500GB 1,406 User benchmarks, average bench 38% 290GB free Firmware: GG2O Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s Performing above expectations (73^rd percentile)	47.2% Average	Read 83.2 Write 81.9 Mixed 72.1 59% 79.1 MB/s	4K Read 0.04 4K Write 0.04 4K Mixed 0.03 5% 0.04 MB/s
Poor: 12% ↑ This bench: 47.2% Great: 57%
WD Blue 160GB (2007)-$20 56,540 User benchmarks, average bench 40% 149GB free Firmware: 01.0 Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s Performing way above expectations (96^th percentile)	58.6% Above average	Read 102 Write 102 Mixed 99.9 76% 101 MB/s	4K Read 0.72 4K Write 1.95 4K Mixed 0.42 112% 1.03 MB/s
Poor: 18% ↑ This bench: 58.6% Great: 59%
Seagate ST380811AS 80GB-$99 2,717 User benchmarks, average bench 28% 64GB free Firmware: 3.AH Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s Performing way above expectations (88^th percentile)	38.1% Below average	Read 65.7 Write 66.7 Mixed 64.2 49% 65.5 MB/s	4K Read 0.56 4K Write 1.47 4K Mixed 0.44 99% 0.82 MB/s
Poor: 10% ↑ This bench: 38.1% Great: 40%
TOSHIBA MQ01ABD032 320GB 15 User benchmarks, average bench 22% 67GB free, PID 0621 Operating at USB 2.1 Speed Performing below expectations (27^th percentile)	11.7% Very poor	Read 32.8 Write 30.8 Mixed 22.5 36% 28.7 MB/s	4K Read 0.05 4K Write 0.07 4K Mixed 0.05 4% 0.06 MB/s
Poor: 10% ↑ This bench: 11.7% Great: 35%
USB Flash Disk 8GB 2,760 User benchmarks, average bench 6% 8GB free, PID 1000 Operating at USB 2.0 Speed Performing as expected (45^th percentile)	4.64% Terrible	Read 20.3 Write 4.77 Mixed 6.64 11% 10.6 MB/s	4K Read 2.73 4K Write 0.005 4K Mixed 0.004 10% 0.91 MB/s
Poor: 3% ↑ This bench: 4.64% Great: 9%

Memory Kit	Bench	Multi core	Single core	Latency
Unknown 2x4GB 424,126 User benchmarks, average bench 39% 2 of 4 slots used 8GB DIMM DRAM Performing below potential (6^th percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP	15.6% Very poor	MC Read 5.2 MC Write 4.6 MC Mixed 4.1 13% 4.63 GB/s	SC Read 4.5 SC Write 4.6 SC Mixed 4.1 13% 4.4 GB/s	Latency 97.7 41% 97.7 ns
Poor: 17% ↑ This bench: 15.6% Great: 65%

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

Typical 132-YW-E179-FTW Builds (Compare 2 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings

Gaming 4%

Tree trunk

Desktop 40%

Jet ski

Workstation 4%

Tree trunk

Motherboard: EVGA 132-YW-E179-FTW

CPU
Core2 Quad Q6700Intel $44Bench 44%, 6,294 samples	1x
Core2 Quad Q9550Intel $161Bench 49%, 34,093 samples	1x

GPU
GeForce 210NvidiaBench 1%, 98,254 samples	1x
GTX 275Nvidia $250Bench 9%, 3,083 samples	1x

SSD
0 480GBCt480bx5Bench 58%, 896 samples	1x

RAM
4x2GBUnknownBench 25%, 183,252 samples	1x
3x2GBUnknownBench 30%, 45,030 samples	1x

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER

Value: 73% - Very good

Total price: $44

CPU	GPU	SSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $176	Nvidia RTX 4060 $293	Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $128	Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385	Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-13600K $260	Nvidia RTX 4070 $550	Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $45

HDD	RAM	USB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $39	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40	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