TWG E2006

Performance Results

Benchmarks - excluding HDD
Gaming
Gaming 11%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 27%
Raft
Workstation
Workstation 13%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing above expectations (82nd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 18 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
ProcessorWith a relatively low single core score, this CPU can handle email, light web browsing and basic audio/video playback, but it will struggle to handle CPU intensive tasks. Finally, with a gaming score of 24.1%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is poor.
Graphics1.84% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive34.6% is low SSD score. With a better SSD this system will boot faster, make applications more responsive and reduce IO wait times.
Memory3GB 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. 3GB 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.
SystemTWG E2006  (all builds)
MotherboardTWG E2006
Memory1.4 GB free of 3 GB @ 1.6 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20170919
Uptime0 Days
Run DateOct 02 '19 at 22:35
Run Duration124 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU3%

 PC Performing above expectations (82nd percentile)

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

Processor Bench Normal Heavy Extreme
Intel Celeron N3350
SOCKET 0, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 2 threads
Base clock 1.1 GHz, turbo 2.3 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (95th percentile)
24.1% Poor
1-Core 48.9
2-Core 93.7
34% 71.3 Pts
4-Core 96
8-Core 92.3
13% 94.2 Pts
64-Core 94.2
6% 94.2 Pts
Poor: 12%
This bench: 24.1%
Great: 24%
Graphics Card Bench 3D DX9 3D DX10 3D DX11
Intel HD Graphics
Intel(8086 2212) 1GB
Driver: igdumdim64.dll Ver. 25.20.100.6373
Performing above expectations (75th percentile)
1.84% Terrible
Lighting 6.3
Reflection 7.2
Parallax 6.5
2% 6.67 fps
MRender 6.4
Gravity 6.3
Splatting 8.9
2% 7.2 fps
Poor: 1%
This bench: 1.84%
Great: 2%
Drive Bench Sequential Random 4k Deep queue 4k
SMI DISK 128GB
78GB free (System drive)
Firmware: Q0810B
SusWrite @10s intervals: 133 125 137 140 141 142 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
34.6% Below average
Read 326
Write 146
Mixed 183
SusWrite 136
44% 198 MB/s
4K Read 4.6
4K Write 25
4K Mixed 7.1
29% 12.2 MB/s
DQ Read 151
DQ Write 42.7
DQ Mixed 66.5
57% 86.9 MB/s
Poor: 35%
This bench: 34.6%
Great: 39%
Memory Kit Bench Multi core Single core Latency
ABCD 123456789012345678 2x1.5GB
2 of 3 slots used
3GB DIMM DDR3 clocked @ 1600 MHz
Performing above expectations (77th percentile)
17.3% Very poor
MC Read 5.2
MC Write 7.3
MC Mixed 6.1
18% 6.2 GB/s
SC Read 3.2
SC Write 4.6
SC Mixed 3.5
11% 3.77 GB/s
Latency 201
20% 201 ns
Poor: 10%
This bench: 17.3%
Great: 28%
Take a copy of your results

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical E2006 Builds (Compare 7 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings.
Gaming
Gaming 11%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 23%
Surfboard
Workstation
Workstation 12%
Tree trunk

System: TWG E2006

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-9400F $145Nvidia GTX 1660S (Super) $244Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-9600K $200Nvidia RTX 2060 $324Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $150
Intel Core i7-9700K $360AMD RX 590 $180Samsung 860 Evo 250GB $54
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $32Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $76SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $38Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $58SanDisk Extreme 32GB $46
Seagate Barracuda 3TB (2016) $80G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $613SanDisk Extreme 16GB $24
Today's hottest deals
About  •  User Guide  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer Feedback