Samsung 300E4A/300E5A/300E7A/3430EA/3530EA

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 2%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 38%
Jet ski
Workstation
Workstation 2%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing as expected (53rd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 47 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
ProcessorWith an average single core score, this CPU can handle browsing the web, email, video playback and the majority of general computing tasks including light gaming when coupled with an appropriate GPU. Finally, with a gaming score of 54.1%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is average.
Graphics1.94% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive42.1% is a reasonable SSD score. This drive enables fast boots and responsive applications.
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 VersionAlthough Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
Sub-optimal background CPU (11%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
7 years ago, 7 years ago.
SystemSamsung 300E4A/300E5A/300E7A/3430EA/3530EA  (all builds)
MotherboardSAMSUNG 300E4A/300E5A/300E7A/3430EA/3530EA
Memory1.3 GB free of 3 GB @ 1.1 GHz
Display1366 x 768 - 32 Bit kolorów,
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20121102
Uptime2.3 Days
Run DateMay 13 '17 at 17:19
Run Duration136 Seconds
Run User POL-User
Background CPU 11%

 PC Performing as expected (53rd percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i3-2350M
CPU, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 2.3 GHz, turbo 2.3 GHz (avg)
Performing way above expectations (87th percentile)
54.1% Above average
Memory 82.2
1-Core 60.7
2-Core 99.6
52% 80.8 Pts
4-Core 154
8-Core 153
20% 153 Pts
64-Core 153
10% 153 Pts
Poor: 30%
This bench: 54.1%
Great: 56%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Intel HD 3000 (Mobile V1 1.1/1.2 GHz)
Sanyo(144D C606) 1.2GB
Driver: igdumd64.dll Ver. 9.17.10.4459
Performing above expectations (70th percentile)
1.94% Terrible
Lighting 2.17
Reflection 3.19
Parallax 1.44
2% 2.27 fps
MRender 2.67
Gravity 1.17
Splatting 4
2% 2.61 fps
Poor: 1%
This bench: 1.94%
Great: 2%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Liteonit LMT-128M6M mSATA 128GB
45GB free (System drive)
Firmware: DM7110F Max speed: SATA 3.0 600 MB/s
Performing below potential (1st percentile) - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable
42.1% Average
Read 262
Write 248
Mixed 258
57% 256 MB/s
4K Read 15.8
4K Write 30.4
4K Mixed 9.55
52% 18.6 MB/s
DQ Read 19.8
DQ Write 31
DQ Mixed 9.1
12% 20 MB/s
Poor: 56%
This bench: 42.1%
Great: 86%
WD Blue 2.5" 320GB (2009)-$79
55GB free
Firmware: 11.01A11 Max speed: SATA 1.0 150 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (17th percentile)
21.2% Poor
Read 37.4
Write 36.3
Mixed 38.6
28% 37.4 MB/s
4K Read 0.51
4K Write 0.8
4K Mixed 0.32
72% 0.55 MB/s
Poor: 15%
This bench: 21.2%
Great: 41%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Micron 8JSF12864HZ-1G1F1 Samsung M471B5773CHS-CH9 3GB
1067, 1067 MHz
1024, 2048 MB
Performing way above expectations (91st percentile)
32.3% Below average
MC Read 11.5
MC Write 10.1
MC Mixed 9.8
30% 10.5 GB/s
SC Read 9.9
SC Write 10.5
SC Mixed 9.6
29% 10 GB/s
Latency 76.5
52% 76.5 ns
Poor: 7%
This bench: 32.3%
Great: 32%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical 300E4A/300E5A/300E7A/3430EA/3530EA Builds (Compare 586 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 2%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 48%
Yacht
Workstation
Workstation 2%
Tree trunk

System: Samsung 300E4A/300E5A/300E7A/3430EA/3530EA

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 48% - Average Total price: $253
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketers operate thousands of reddit accounts. Our benchmarks expose their spiel so they attack our reputation.
Why don’t PC brands endorse UserBenchmark?
Brands make boatloads on flagships like the 4090 and 14900KS. We help users get similar real-world performance for less money.
Why don’t youtubers promote UserBenchmark?
We don't pay youtubers, so they don't praise us. Moreover, our data obstructs youtubers who promote overpriced or inferior products.
Why does UserBenchmark have negative trustpilot reviews?
The 200+ trustpilot reviews are mostly written by virgin marketing accounts. Real users don't give a monkey's about big brands.
Why is UserBenchmark popular with users?
Instead of pursuing brands for sponsorship, we've spent 13 years publishing real-world data for users.
The Best
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $163Nvidia RTX 4060 $293WD Black SN850X M.2 2TB $150
Intel Core i5-13600K $249Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385WD Black SN850X M.2 1TB $89
Intel Core i5-12400F $110Nvidia RTX 4070 $520Crucial T700 M.2 4TB $397
Today's hottest deals
If you buy something via a price link, UserBenchmark may earn a commission
About  •  User Guide  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer  •  YouTube Feedback