Today's hottest deals

HP 500-365n1

Performance Results

Benchmarks - missing SSD
Gaming
Gaming 3%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 40%
Jet ski
Workstation
Workstation 2%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing above expectations (62nd percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 38 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.
ProcessorWith a below average single core score, this CPU can handle email, web browsing and audio/video playback but it will struggle to handle modern 3D games or workstation tasks such as video editing. Finally, with a gaming score of 41.2%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is below average.
Graphics6.76% 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.
Memory24GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's far more than any current game requires. 24GB will also allow for large file and system caches, virtual machine hosting, software development, video editing and batch multimedia processing.
OS VersionAlthough Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
Sub-optimal background CPU (20%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
SystemHP 500-365n1  (all builds)
MotherboardHewlett-Packard 2B17
Memory18.9 GB free of 24 GB @ 1.6 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit Farben
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20150310
Uptime0.1 Days
Run DateJul 02 '19 at 16:32
Run Duration295 Seconds
Run User ITA-User
Background CPU 20%

 PC Performing above expectations (62nd percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD FX-670K (2013 D.Ri)
P0, 1 CPU, 2 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 3.7 GHz, turbo 1.5 GHz (avg)
Performing way below expectations (4th percentile)
41.2% Average
Memory 68.7
1-Core 30.4
2-Core 51.2
36% 50.1 Pts
4-Core 81.3
8-Core 87.2
11% 84.2 Pts
64-Core 86.6
5% 86.6 Pts
Poor: 43%
This bench: 41.2%
Great: 60%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
AMD R7 240
Device(1B0A 90D3) 2GB
CLim: 780 MHz, MLim: 900 MHz, Ram: 2GB, Driver: 16.6
Performing way above expectations (98th percentile)
6.76% Terrible
Lighting 8.4
Reflection 9.23
Parallax 11.5
7% 9.71 fps
MRender 8.05
Gravity 7.57
Splatting 8.43
7% 8.02 fps
Poor: 4%
This bench: 6.76%
Great: 6%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung 860 Evo 500GB-$80
102GB free (System drive)
Firmware: RVT02B6Q
SusWrite @10s intervals: 297 503 499 297 293 295 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - RAM cached drive detected
Poor: 74% Great: 129%
WD Green 3TB (2011)-$28
1.5TB free
Firmware: 80.00A80
SusWrite @10s intervals: 105 115 122 118 115 123 MB/s
Performing above expectations (70th percentile)
69.9% Good
Read 127
Write 121
Mixed 65
SusWrite 116
78% 107 MB/s
4K Read 1
4K Write 2.5
4K Mixed 0.9
188% 1.47 MB/s
Poor: 40%
This bench: 69.9%
Great: 83%
WD Blue 1TB (2012)-$30
569GB free
Firmware: 80.00A80
SusWrite @10s intervals: 124 140 153 145 142 155 MB/s
Performing as expected (57th percentile)
86.9% Excellent
Read 159
Write 133
Mixed 95
SusWrite 143
98% 133 MB/s
4K Read 1
4K Write 2.9
4K Mixed 1.1
218% 1.67 MB/s
Poor: 52%
This bench: 86.9%
Great: 109%
WD Elements 2TB
1.5TB free, PID 10b8
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 67 74 78 76 76 79 MB/s
Performing above expectations (85th percentile)
35.8% Below average
Read 95.3
Write 101
Mixed 52
SusWrite 75
107% 80.8 MB/s
4K Read 0.5
4K Write 1.8
4K Mixed 0.8
90% 1.03 MB/s
Poor: 11%
This bench: 35.8%
Great: 44%
WD Elements 25A1 4TB
2.5TB free, PID 25a1
Operating at USB 3.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 81 90 98 94 93 100 MB/s
Performing above expectations (82nd percentile)
54.9% Above average
Read 126
Write 108
Mixed 64.3
SusWrite 92.5
127% 97.5 MB/s
4K Read 0.9
4K Write 5.3
4K Mixed 0.5
201% 2.23 MB/s
Poor: 20%
This bench: 54.9%
Great: 61%
Hitachi HDT721010SLA360 1TB
866GB free, PID 0567
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 89 104 104 94 88 87 MB/s
Performing way above expectations (98th percentile)
43.4% Average
Read 110
Write 107
Mixed 47.8
SusWrite 94.3
118% 89.6 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 2.2
4K Mixed 0.8
105% 1.23 MB/s
Poor: 15%
This bench: 43.4%
Great: 43%
WDC WD20 EZRZ-00Z5HB0 2TB
898GB free, PID 0567
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 30 12 5.9 11 6.8 3 MB/s
Performing below expectations (28th percentile)
25.2% Poor
Read 110
Write 110
Mixed 73
SusWrite 11.5
97% 76.3 MB/s
4K Read 0.9
4K Write 2.1
4K Mixed 0.9
105% 1.3 MB/s
Poor: 14%
This bench: 25.2%
Great: 61%
WDC WD30 EZRZ-00GXCB0 3TB
1.5TB free, PID 0567
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 12 5.9 2 5.3 3.5 1 MB/s
Performing below expectations (30th percentile)
30.6% Below average
Read 148
Write 160
Mixed 84
SusWrite 5
125% 99.2 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 2.6
4K Mixed 1
125% 1.43 MB/s
Poor: 13%
This bench: 30.6%
Great: 66%
WDC WD40 EZRZ-00GXCB0 4TB
3TB free, PID 0567
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 79 95 103 94 99 70 MB/s
Performing above expectations (71st percentile)
52.9% Above average
Read 170
Write 168
Mixed 82.3
SusWrite 90
165% 128 MB/s
4K Read 0.9
4K Write 2.7
4K Mixed 1.1
133% 1.57 MB/s
Poor: 14%
This bench: 52.9%
Great: 68%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Micron 8JTF51264AZ-1G6E1 Samsung M378B1G73DB0-CK0 Kingston 99U5471-066.A00LF Kingston 99U5584-005.A00LF 24GB
1600, 1600, 1600, 1600 MHz
4096, 8192, 8192, 4096 MB
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
28.4% Poor
MC Read 14.2
MC Write 5.6
MC Mixed 9.9
28% 9.9 GB/s
SC Read 6.6
SC Write 5.2
SC Mixed 8.4
19% 6.73 GB/s
Latency 104
38% 104 ns
Poor: 28%
This bench: 28.4%
Great: 30%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

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 the gold standard for users?
Instead of pursuing brands for sponsorship, we've spent 13 years publishing real-world data for users.
The Best
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-13600K $210Nvidia RTX 4060 $280WD Black SN850X M.2 2TB $135
Intel Core i5-12600K $159Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $389WD Black SN850X M.2 1TB $84
Intel Core i5-12400F $111Nvidia RTX 4070 $500Crucial T700 M.2 4TB $400
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