Cisco N20-B6625-1

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing GPU
Gaming
Gaming 0%
Incomplete
Desktop
Desktop 0%
Incomplete
Workstation
Workstation 0%
Incomplete
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing way below expectations (14th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 86 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 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 56.3%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is average.
Boot Drive51.9% is a reasonable SSD score. This drive enables fast boots and responsive applications.
Memory96GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's far more than any current game requires. 96GB will also allow for large file and system caches, virtual machine hosting, software development, video editing and batch multimedia processing.
OS VersionAlthough Windows 7 is still a viable option, it's now 14 years and 9 months old. This system should be upgraded to Windows 10 which is generally faster and has an improved set of core utilities including better versions of explorer and task manager.
Very high background CPU (42%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
SystemCisco N20-B6625-1  (all builds)
MotherboardCisco N20-B6625-1
Memory23.4 GB free of 96 GB @ 1.3 GHz
OSWindows 7
BIOS Date20150811
Uptime0.4 Days
Run DateMay 20 '19 at 16:49
Run Duration129 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU 42%

 PC Performing way below expectations (14th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
1st CPU: Intel Xeon X5675
CPU1, 2 CPU, 12 cores, 24 threads
Base clock 3.05 GHz
Performing way below expectations (6th percentile)
56.3% Above average
Memory 64.6
1-Core 72.8
2-Core 129
53% 88.7 Pts
4-Core 259
8-Core 444
43% 352 Pts
64-Core 765
47% 765 Pts
Poor: 58%
This bench: 56.3%
Great: 76%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Citrix Virtual Hard Disk 42GB
3GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 0
SusWrite @10s intervals: 0 1.8 67 64 64 61 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
51.9% Above average
Read 57
Write 24
Mixed 67.3
SusWrite 43
11% 47.8 MB/s
4K Read 46.8
4K Write 30
4K Mixed 43.1
142% 40 MB/s
DQ Read 54.1
DQ Write 64.6
DQ Mixed 58.2
44% 59 MB/s
Poor: 20%
This bench: 51.9%
Great: 57%
Lsilogic Logical Volume 146GB
109GB free
Firmware: 3000
SusWrite @10s intervals: 0 30 35 34 34 44 MB/s
Performing below expectations (30th percentile)
36.6% Below average
Read 98
Write 29.3
Mixed 44.2
SusWrite 29.6
37% 50.3 MB/s
4K Read 0.8
4K Write 0.5
4K Mixed 0.5
98% 0.6 MB/s
Poor: 20%
This bench: 36.6%
Great: 103%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Unknown 12x8GB
12 of 12 slots used
96GB DIMM
Performing way below expectations (7th percentile)
36.4% Below average
MC Read 12.2
MC Write 13.7
MC Mixed 16.3
40% 14.1 GB/s
SC Read 5.1
SC Write 3.4
SC Mixed 4.7
13% 4.4 GB/s
Latency 115
35% 115 ns
Poor: 36%
This bench: 36.4%
Great: 62%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-13600K $273Nvidia RTX 4060 $295Crucial MX500 250GB $40
Intel Core i5-12400F $133Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-12600K $178Nvidia RTX 4070 $539Samsung 860 Evo 250GB $52
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $39Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $45SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $37Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $43SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $51G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $351SanDisk Ultra Fit 32GB $16
If you make a purchase via one of these links, our site may earn a commission
Today's hottest deals
About  •  User Guide  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer  •  YouTube Feedback