Medionpc MS-7713

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 4%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 40%
Speed boat
Workstation
Workstation 4%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing way below expectations (17th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 83 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 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 41.6%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is below average.
Graphics0.83% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot DriveThe boot partition is located on a mechanical or hybrid drive. Moving the system to an SSD will yield far faster boot times, better system responsiveness and faster application load times.
Memory8GB 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 VersionAlthough Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
Very high background CPU (100%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
SystemMedionpc MS-7713  (all builds)
MotherboardMEDIONPC MS-7713
Memory3.4 GB free of 8 GB @ 0.7 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20101231
Uptime0.4 Days
Run DateAug 31 '19 at 13:04
Run Duration233 Seconds
Run User AUS-User
Background CPU 100%

 PC Performing way below expectations (17th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
AMD Athlon II X4 640-$70
CPU 1, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 3 GHz, turbo 3 GHz (avg)
Performing below expectations (38th percentile)
41.6% Average
Memory 68.3
1-Core 41.5
2-Core 64.6
40% 58.1 Pts
4-Core 86.2
8-Core 107
12% 96.6 Pts
64-Core 122
8% 122 Pts
Poor: 33%
This bench: 41.6%
Great: 53%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GeForce GT 520
Gigabyte(1458 3520) 1GB
CLim: 830 MHz, MLim: 450 MHz, Ram: 1GB, Driver: 391.35
Performing way below expectations (4th percentile)
0.83% Terrible
Lighting 0.07
Reflection 3.15
Parallax 0.59
0% 1.27 fps
MRender 3.43
Gravity 2.5
Splatting 2.7
2% 2.87 fps
Poor: 2%
This bench: 0.83%
Great: 2%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Samsung 840 Evo 120GB-$85
112GB free
Firmware: EXT0DB6Q
SusWrite @10s intervals: 194 169 144 142 144 143 MB/s
Performing below potential (3rd percentile) - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable
57.3% Above average
Read 233
Write 185
Mixed 207
SusWrite 156
44% 195 MB/s
4K Read 29
4K Write 44.5
4K Mixed 31.1
107% 34.9 MB/s
DQ Read 131
DQ Write 101
DQ Mixed 84.2
72% 105 MB/s
Poor: 63%
This bench: 57.3%
Great: 108%
WD Blue 2.5" 500GB (2013)
288GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 01.01A01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 36 35 29 31 22 29 MB/s
Performing below expectations (26th percentile)
33.6% Below average
Read 87
Write 67.2
Mixed 24.7
SusWrite 30.3
38% 52.3 MB/s
4K Read 0.2
4K Write 0.2
4K Mixed 0.3
45% 0.23 MB/s
Poor: 22%
This bench: 33.6%
Great: 63%
WDC WD20 EARX-00PASB0 2TB
1.5TB free, PID 202a
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 61 56 57 55 61 56 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
33.5% Below average
Read 109
Write 107
Mixed 73.7
SusWrite 57.8
114% 86.9 MB/s
4K Read 0.8
4K Write 1.6
4K Mixed 0.8
85% 1.07 MB/s
Poor: 12%
This bench: 33.5%
Great: 33%
SAMSUNG HD203WI 2TB
1TB free, PID 202a
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 62 56 57 55 61 55 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
29.6% Poor
Read 67.7
Write 41.2
Mixed 57.4
SusWrite 57.6
74% 56 MB/s
4K Read 0.7
4K Write 2.3
4K Mixed 0.9
111% 1.3 MB/s
Poor: 29%
This bench: 29.6%
Great: 32%
Apple iPod 120GB
67GB free, PID 1261
Operating at USB 2.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 20 21 21 18 20 21 MB/s
Performing below expectations (26th percentile)
7.07% Terrible
Read 11.7
Write 18.7
Mixed 11.5
SusWrite 20.2
22% 15.5 MB/s
4K Read 0.2
4K Write 0.3
4K Mixed 0.3
21% 0.27 MB/s
Poor: 4%
This bench: 7.07%
Great: 13%
SV FAST 6TB
1TB free, PID 55aa
Operating at USB 3.0 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 114 118 114 115 111 119 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - insufficient samples
68% Good
Read 200
Write 173
Mixed 75.7
SusWrite 115
179% 141 MB/s
4K Read 2.8
4K Write 4.3
4K Mixed 1.2
197% 2.77 MB/s
Poor: 60%
This bench: 68%
Great: 86%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Corsair CMX8GX3M2A1333C9 CMX8GX3M2A1333C9 8GB
667, 200 MHz
4096, 4096 MB
Performing below potential (3rd percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
21.9% Poor
MC Read 8.4
MC Write 5.9
MC Mixed 7.4
21% 7.23 GB/s
SC Read 6.2
SC Write 5.2
SC Mixed 6.2
17% 5.87 GB/s
Latency 105
38% 105 ns
Poor: 26%
This bench: 21.9%
Great: 53%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical MS-7713 Builds (Compare 27 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 3%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 43%
Speed boat
Workstation
Workstation 2%
Tree trunk

System: Medionpc MS-7713

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 50% - Average Total price: $105
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketers operate countless reddit accounts. UserBenchmark’s data exposes their marketing spiel so they systematically attack our reputation.
Why don’t large PC brands support UserBenchmark?
PC brands profit greatly from flagship hardware like the 4090, 14900KS, and 7950X3D. We help users get similar real-world performance for less money.
Why don’t any youtubers promote UserBenchmark?
We don't sponsor youtubers, so they have no incentive to praise us. Moreover, brands pay youtubers extra to promote inferior products but UserBenchmark’s data exposes them.
Why does UserBenchmark have so many negative trustpilot reviews?
Trustpilot hosts user-generated online reviews. It's obvious that the 200+ UserBenchmark reviews, are mostly written by virgin marketing accounts. Real users aren't interested in promoting billon-dollar brands.
Why is UserBenchmark so popular with users?
Instead of pursuing lucrative sponsorships with billion-dollar PC brands, we have dedicated 13 years to publishing accurate real-world data. As a result, our users save millions every year and they keep returning.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170Nvidia RTX 4060 $293Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $122Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-13600K $260Nvidia RTX 4070 $550Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $45
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $37Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $28Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $48SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $62G.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