Fujitsu E8410K

Performance Results


Gaming 1% Tree trunk	Desktop 15% Tree trunk	Workstation 1% Tree trunk


PC Status	Overall this PC is performing below expectations (22nd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 78 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 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 30.1%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is poor.
Graphics	0.35% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive	17.9% is an extremely low SSD score, this system will benefit from a faster SSD.
Memory	2GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows however a minimum of 4GB is recommended for gaming or any other RAM intensive tasks such as photo/video editing. This system will also be a little more responsive with 4GB of RAM.
OS Version	Although 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 (68%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.

System	Fujitsu E8410K (all builds)
Motherboard	FUJITSU FJNB1D0
Memory	0.1 GB free of 2 GB @ 0.3 GHz
Display	1680 x 1050 - 32 Bit colors
OS	Windows 7
BIOS Date	20080820
Uptime	0 Days
Run Date	Mar 29 '16 at 09:27
Run Duration	396 Seconds
Run User	KOR-User
Background CPU	68%

PC Performing below expectations (22^nd percentile)

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

Processor	Bench	Normal	Heavy	Server
Intel Core2 Duo T9300-$70 3,287 User benchmarks, average bench 38% Onboard, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 2 threads Base clock 2.5 GHz Performing way below expectations (11^th percentile)	30.1% Below average	Memory 55.1 1-Core 24.4 2-Core 44.7 29% 41.4 Pts	4-Core 31 8-Core 42.7 5% 36.8 Pts	64-Core 49.7 3% 49.7 Pts
Poor: 23% ↑ This bench: 30.1% Great: 42%

Graphics Card	Bench	3D DX9	3D DX10	3D DX11
Nvidia GeForce 8400M G 305 User benchmarks, average bench 0% Fujitsu(10CF 1422) 128MB Driver: nvd3dum.dll Ver. 9.18.13.4192 Performing as expected (50^th percentile)	0.35% Terrible	Lighting 0.37 Reflection 0.85 Parallax 0.03 0% 0.41 fps	MRender 0.81 Gravity 0.27 Splatting 0.57 0% 0.55 fps
Poor: 0% ↑ This bench: 0.35% Great: 1%

Drives	Bench	Sequential	Random 4k	Deep queue 4k
Ocz-vertex2 3.5 115GB 2,637 User benchmarks, average bench 38% 11GB free (System drive) Firmware: 1.35 Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s Performing way below expectations (2^nd percentile) (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (01) Raw read error rate 105 104 10607699 (05) Reallocated sector count 100 100 0 (09) Power-on hours count 100 100 -24816321026180 (0C) Power cycle count 96 96 4778 (AB) Unknown 0 0 0 (AC) Unknown 0 0 0 (AE) Unknown 0 0 368 (B1) Unknown 0 0 2 (B5) Unknown 0 0 0 (B6) Unknown 0 0 0 (BB) vendor-specific 100 100 0 (C2) HDA temperature 30 30 128850984990 (C3) Hardware ECC recovered 105 104 10607699 (C4) Reallocation count 100 100 0 (E7) Temperature 100 100 0 (E9) Unknown 0 0 17472 (EA) Unknown 0 0 10240 (F1) Unknown 0 0 10240 (F2) Unknown 0 0 21952	17.9% Very poor	Read 105 Write 36 Mixed 72.1 16% 71 MB/s	4K Read 7.73 4K Write 22.8 4K Mixed 5.31 31% 11.9 MB/s	DQ Read 71 DQ Write 42.3 DQ Mixed 6.5 18% 39.9 MB/s
Poor: 23% ↑ This bench: 17.9% Great: 49%
WD Blue 2.5" 500GB (2009)-$50 31,419 User benchmarks, average bench 32% 52GB free Firmware: 02.01A02 Max speed: SATA 2.0 300 MB/s Performing as expected (44^th percentile) (ID) Attribute Now Worst Value (01) Raw read error rate 200 200 0 (03) Spinup time 189 182 1525 (04) Start/Stop count 91 91 9009 (05) Reallocated sector count 200 200 0 (07) Seek error rate 100 253 0 (09) Power-on hours count 87 87 10145 (0A) Spinup retry count 100 100 0 (0B) Calibration retry count 100 100 0 (0C) Power cycle count 95 95 5280 (B7) Unknown 100 100 0 (BB) vendor-specific 100 99 1 (BC) Unknown 100 10 4295033055 (BE) vendor-specific 66 47 572260386 (BF) G-sense error rate 1 1 1534 (C0) Power-off retract count 200 200 461 (C1) Load/Unload cycle count 54 54 439206 (C2) HDA temperature 113 94 34 (C4) Reallocation count 200 200 0 (C5) Current pending sector count 200 200 0 (C6) Offline scan uncorrectable count 100 253 0 (C7) UDMA CRC error rate 200 200 0 (C8) Write error rate 100 253 0	29.7% Poor	Read 56 Write 47.4 Mixed 22.1 31% 41.8 MB/s	4K Read 0.22 4K Write 1.15 4K Mixed 0.24 57% 0.54 MB/s
Poor: 15% ↑ This bench: 29.7% Great: 43%

Memory Kit	Bench	Multi core	Single core	Latency
Unknown 1x2GB 99,586 User benchmarks, average bench 17% 1 of 2 slots used 2GB SODIMM DDR2 Performing way below expectations (3^rd percentile)	6.55% Terrible	MC Read 1.5 MC Write 2.2 MC Mixed 1.4 5% 1.7 GB/s	SC Read 1.8 SC Write 2.1 SC Mixed 0 4% 1.3 GB/s	Latency 143 28% 143 ns
Poor: 7% ↑ This bench: 6.55% Great: 26%

Take a copy of your results How to check your in-game FPS

System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Custom PC Builder (Explore upgrades for this PC) Build your perfect PC: compare component prices, popularity, speed and value for money

CHOOSE AN UPGRADE:

CPU

GPU

SSD

HDD

RAM

MBD

CPU	GPU	SSD
Intel Core i5-13600K $273	Nvidia RTX 4060 $295	Crucial MX500 250GB $40
Intel Core i5-12400F $133	Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385	Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-12600K $178	Nvidia RTX 4070 $539	Samsung 860 Evo 250GB $52

HDD	RAM	USB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $39	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40	SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $37	Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $43	SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $51	G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $351	SanDisk Ultra Fit 32GB $16

Fujitsu E8410K

Performance Results

PC Performing below expectations (22nd percentile)

System Memory Latency Ladder

CHOOSE AN UPGRADE:

Feedback

PC Performing below expectations (22^nd percentile)