HP EliteBook 8540w (536370R-999)

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 5%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 56%
Gunboat
Workstation
Workstation 5%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (51st percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 49 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 61.5%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
Graphics1.97% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive26.9% 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.
SystemHP EliteBook 8540w (536370R-999)  (all builds)
MotherboardHewlett-Packard 1521
Memory10.5 GB free of 16 GB @ 1.3 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20151111
Uptime27.6 Days
Run DateFeb 20 '19 at 18:07
Run Duration113 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU9%

 PC Performing as expected (51st percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i7 Q 820-$119
CPU 1, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 8 threads
Base clock 1.75 GHz, turbo 1.9 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (97th percentile)
61.5% Good
Memory 91.8
1-Core 63.6
2-Core 114
58% 89.9 Pts
4-Core 178
8-Core 214
25% 196 Pts
64-Core 215
13% 215 Pts
Poor: 30%
This bench: 61.5%
Great: 62%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia Quadro FX 1800M
HP(103C 1521) 1GB
Ram: 1GB, Driver: 341.92
Performing way below expectations (18th percentile)
1.97% Terrible
Lighting 2.5
Reflection 2.58
Parallax 0.97
2% 2.02 fps
MRender 2.52
Gravity 2.13
Splatting 2.13
2% 2.26 fps
Poor: 2%
This bench: 1.97%
Great: 3%
Drive BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung 840 Series 500GB
316GB free (System drive)
Firmware: DXT0
SusWrite @10s intervals: 60 46 51 85 95 83 MB/s
Relative performance (0th percentile) - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable
26.9% Poor
Read 80
Write 82.7
Mixed 94.8
SusWrite 69.9
18% 81.8 MB/s
4K Read 12.1
4K Write 20.5
4K Mixed 12.6
45% 15.1 MB/s
DQ Read 175
DQ Write 71.1
DQ Mixed 53.3
58% 99.8 MB/s
Poor: 53%
This bench: 26.9%
Great: 89%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown 4x4GB
4 of 4 slots used
16GB SODIMM DDR3
Performing below potential (38th percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
39% Below average
MC Read 15
MC Write 11.8
MC Mixed 12.9
38% 13.2 GB/s
SC Read 9.5
SC Write 8.9
SC Mixed 10
27% 9.47 GB/s
Latency 64.4
62% 64.4 ns
Poor: 23%
This bench: 39%
Great: 61%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-13600K $279Nvidia RTX 4060 $300Crucial MX500 250GB $40
Intel Core i5-12400F $133Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-12600K $182Nvidia RTX 4070 $409Samsung 860 Evo 250GB $52
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $39Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $30Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $43SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $51G.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