Performance Results


Gaming 6% Tree trunk	Desktop 54% Yacht	Workstation 5% Tree trunk


PC Status	Overall this PC is performing way below expectations (16th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 84 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.
Processor	With 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 64.5%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is above average.
Graphics	3.11% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive	38.9% is low SSD score. With a better SSD this system will boot faster, make applications more responsive and reduce IO wait times.
Memory	32GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's far more than any current game requires. 32GB will also allow for large file and system caches, virtual machine hosting, software development, video editing and batch multimedia processing.
OS Version	Windows 11 is the most recent version of Windows.

High background CPU (21%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.

PC Performing way below expectations (16^th percentile)

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

Processor	Bench	Normal	Heavy	Server
Intel Xeon E5-1620 0-$345 17,464 User benchmarks, average bench 70% SOCKET 0, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 8 threads Base clock 3.6 GHz, turbo 3.8 GHz (avg) Performing way below expectations (18^th percentile)	64.5% Good	Memory 63.6 1-Core 62.8 2-Core 193 57% 106 Pts	4-Core 352 8-Core 507 54% 429 Pts	64-Core 504 31% 504 Pts
Poor: 61% ↑ This bench: 64.5% Great: 77%

Graphics Card	Bench	3D DX9	3D DX10	3D DX11
Nvidia GeForce GT 730 164,888 User benchmarks, average bench 5% Gigabyte(1458 365B) 2GB CLim: 700 MHz, MLim: 400 MHz, Ram: 2GB, Driver: 388.13 Performing way below expectations (14^th percentile)	3.11% Terrible	Lighting 3.7 Reflection 5.5 Parallax 1.8 3% 3.67 fps	MRender 5.1 Gravity 4.2 Splatting 3.2 3% 4.17 fps
Poor: 3% ↑ This bench: 3.11% Great: 7%

Drives	Bench	Sequential	Random 4k	Deep queue 4k
Lexar 240GB SSD 240GB 2,181 User benchmarks, average bench 61% 95GB free (System drive) Firmware: SN4763 SusWrite @10s intervals: 26 18 28 22 36 14 MB/s Performing below potential (11^th percentile) - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable	38.9% Below average	Read 246 Write 35.4 Mixed 61.6 SusWrite 23.9 20% 91.8 MB/s	4K Read 27.2 4K Write 23.1 4K Mixed 21.2 81% 23.8 MB/s	DQ Read 121 DQ Write 11.4 DQ Mixed 10.5 22% 47.7 MB/s
Poor: 34% ↑ This bench: 38.9% Great: 96%
Microsoft Storage Space Device 999GB 64,984 User benchmarks, average bench 83% 769GB free Firmware: 0.1 SusWrite @10s intervals: 118 119 119 119 119 119 MB/s Performing below expectations (22^nd percentile)	64.5% Good	Read 106 Write 121 Mixed 67 SusWrite 119 76% 103 MB/s	4K Read 0.7 4K Write 1.9 4K Mixed 1 176% 1.2 MB/s
Poor: 41% ↑ This bench: 64.5% Great: 110%

Memory Kit	Bench	Multi core	Single core	Latency
Samsung M393B1K73DH0- 4x8GB 13 User benchmarks, average bench 73% 4 of 8 slots used 32GB DIMM DDR3 clocked @ 1066 MHz Performing way below expectations (15^th percentile)	35.5% Below average	MC Read 13.7 MC Write 12.1 MC Mixed 11.5 36% 12.4 GB/s	SC Read 11.1 SC Write 11.3 SC Mixed 8.9 30% 10.4 GB/s	Latency 117 34% 117 ns
Poor: 36% ↑ This bench: 35.5% Great: 111%

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

CPU

GPU

SSD

HDD

RAM

Gaming 29%

Raft

Desktop 75%

Battleship

Workstation 27%

Raft

RAM
M393B5170GB0- 4x4GBSamsungBench 89%, 2,611 samples	58x
36JSZF51272PZ 4x4GBMicronBench 66%, 485 samples	56x
HMT151R7BFR4C 4x4GBHynixBench 67%, 393 samples	31x

Value: 87% - Excellent

Total price: $87