Performance Results

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


PC Status	Overall this PC is performing below expectations (33rd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 67 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. Additionally this processor can handle light workstation, and even some light server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 72.9%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is good.
Graphics	10.4% is a very low 3D score (RTX 2060S = 100%). This GPU can only handle very basic 3D games but it's fine for general computing tasks.
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 8.1 is a recent version of Windows, it's worth upgrading to Windows 10 which has had several improvements made to the user interface including a better homescreen.

PC Performing below expectations (33^rd percentile)

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

Processor	Bench	Normal	Heavy	Server
Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 3,842 User benchmarks, average bench 83% CPU0, 1 CPU, 6 cores, 12 threads Base clock 3.6 GHz, turbo 3.8 GHz (avg) Performing way below expectations (4^th percentile)	72.9% Very good	Memory 83.9 1-Core 81.2 2-Core 162 65% 109 Pts	4-Core 333 8-Core 658 58% 495 Pts	64-Core 888 55% 888 Pts
Poor: 75% ↑ This bench: 72.9% Great: 90%

Graphics Card	Bench	3D DX9	3D DX10	3D DX11
AMD FirePro W5100 1,336 User benchmarks, average bench 16% HP(103C 0B0C) ≥ 4GB Ram: 4GB, Driver: 16.6 Performing way below expectations (1^st percentile)	10.4% Very poor	Lighting 10.2 Reflection 20.2 Parallax 13.9 8% 14.8 fps	MRender 19.2 Gravity 9.3 Splatting 22.6 14% 17 fps
Poor: 13% ↑ This bench: 10.4% Great: 18%

Drive	Bench	Sequential	Random 4k	Deep queue 4k
General UDisk 16GB 4,718 User benchmarks, average bench 6% 14GB free, PID null SusWrite @10s intervals: 4.7 3.4 12 11 12 MB/s Relative performance n/a - sequential test incomplete		Read 7.8 Write 7.8 SusWrite 8.7 11% 8.1 MB/s	4K Read 6.3 4K Write 0 4K Mixed 0 23% 2.1 MB/s
Poor: 3% Great: 9%

Memory Kit	Bench	Multi core	Single core	Latency
Hynix HMA451R7AFR8N-UH 2x4GB 130 User benchmarks, average bench 63% 2 of 8 slots used 8GB DIMM DDR4 clocked @ 2400 MHz Performing way above expectations (93^rd percentile)	70.3% Very good	MC Read 32.7 MC Write 24.4 MC Mixed 22.3 76% 26.5 GB/s	SC Read 9.9 SC Write 17.7 SC Mixed 13.9 40% 13.8 GB/s	Latency 73.6 54% 73.6 ns
Poor: 44% ↑ This bench: 70.3% Great: 70%

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

CPU

GPU

SSD

HDD

RAM

Gaming 18%

Surfboard

Desktop 79%

Battleship

Workstation 16%

Surfboard

GPU
Quadro K2200Nvidia $440Bench 16%, 13,860 samples	740x
Quadro M4000NvidiaBench 32%, 9,043 samples	376x
Quadro K4200Nvidia $820Bench 21%, 7,330 samples	223x

SSD
SM961 NVMe PCIe M.2 512GBSamsungBench 238%, 21,542 samples	144x
SM961 NVMe PCIe M.2 256GBSamsungBench 219%, 21,747 samples	130x
A400 240GBKingston $28Bench 66%, 424,288 samples	122x

RAM
M393A1G40DB0-CPB 2x8GBSamsungBench 60%, 1,030 samples	184x
M393A1G40DB0-CPB 4x8GBSamsungBench 93%, 970 samples	178x
M393A2G40DB0-CPB 2x16GBSamsungBench 59%, 1,132 samples	157x

Value: 9% - Terrible

Total price: $440

HDD	RAM	USB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $39	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40	SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $31	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $37	SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $79	G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $351	SanDisk Ultra Fit 32GB $16