Lenovo 7650E9G

Performance Results

Gaming 2%
Tree trunk
Desktop 21%
Workstation 2%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing way below expectations (20th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 80 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 20.5%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is very poor.
Graphics0.12% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive23.5% is an extremely low SSD score, this system will benefit from a faster SSD.
Memory4GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and although it's sufficient for most games, some will benefit from up to 8GB of RAM. 4GB is also enough for modest file and system caches which allow for a responsive system.
OS VersionWindows 10 is the most recent version of Windows, and the best to date in our opinion.
Sub-optimal background CPU (13%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU. CPU throttled at 54% by Windows. Ensure maximum processor state is set to 100% via Settings > System > Power & sleep > Additional power settings > Change plan settings > Change advanced power settings > Processor power management > Maximum processor state.
SystemLenovo 7650E9G  (all builds)
MotherboardLENOVO 7650E9G
Memory1 GB free of 4 GB @ 0.7 GHz
Display1280 x 800 - 32 Bit barev
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20080508
Uptime12 Days
Run DateSep 04 '19 at 00:14
Run Duration138 Seconds
Run User CZE-User
Background CPU 13%
CPU Throttled 54%

 PC Performing way below expectations (20th percentile)

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

Processor Bench Normal Heavy Server
Intel Core2 Duo T5550-$180
None, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 2 threads
Base clock 1.85 GHz, turbo 1 GHz (avg)
Performing way below expectations (6th percentile)
20.5% Poor
Memory 37.3
1-Core 12.9
2-Core 21.7
18% 24 Pts
4-Core 23.4
8-Core 25.1
3% 24.2 Pts
64-Core 25.7
2% 25.7 Pts
Poor: 20%
This bench: 20.5%
Great: 38%
Graphics Card Bench 3D DX9 3D DX10 3D DX11
Mobile Intel 965 Express Chipset Family
Legend(17AA 20B5)
Driver: igdumd64.dll Ver.
Performing as expected (50th percentile)
0.12% Terrible
Lighting 0.27
Reflection 0.15
Parallax 0.16
0% 0.19 fps
Poor: 0%
This bench: 0.12%
Great: 1%
Drive Bench Sequential Random 4k Deep queue 4k
Crucial MX300 275GB-$125
230GB free (System drive)
Firmware: M0CR031
SusWrite @10s intervals: 84 74 92 93 68 80 MB/s
Relative performance (0th percentile) - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable
23.5% Poor
Read 114
Write 86.8
Mixed 92.4
SusWrite 81.8
21% 93.6 MB/s
4K Read 10.7
4K Write 13
4K Mixed 11.1
37% 11.6 MB/s
DQ Read 64.7
DQ Write 42.5
DQ Mixed 50.5
38% 52.6 MB/s
Poor: 53%
This bench: 23.5%
Great: 94%
Memory Kit Bench Multi core Single core Latency
Unknown 2x2GB
2 of 2 slots used
Performing way below expectations (3rd percentile)
7.87% Terrible
MC Read 3.3
MC Write 2
MC Mixed 2.1
7% 2.47 GB/s
SC Read 2.1
SC Write 2.1
SC Mixed 1.6
6% 1.93 GB/s
Latency 215
19% 215 ns
Poor: 10%
This bench: 7.87%
Great: 45%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

The Best.
Intel Core i5-11600K $270Nvidia RTX 3060-Ti $400Crucial MX500 250GB $45
Intel Core i5-11400F $211Nvidia RTX 3070 $500Samsung 860 Evo 250GB $52
Intel Core i7-11700K $380Nvidia GTX 1660S (Super) $240Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $183
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $34Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $73SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $35Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $77SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $72G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $649SanDisk Ultra Fit 32GB $16
Today's hottest deals
About  •  User Guide  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer  •  YouTube Feedback