PCBenchmark/Results/Intel Core i5-10300H + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 browser benchmark
PC SCORE11OUT OF 100
SYSTEM GRADEE
Limited quality run 11 September 2026 · 19:06 EEST

Intel Core i5-10300H+NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

A completed baseline run. Review quality and raw metrics before comparing it.

SUITEFULL SYSTEM MODESTANDARD GPU APIWebGL 2 ENGINE1.2.1 SCORE SCALEPROVISIONAL R4 DURATION00:54
Run same suite
01 / WORKLOAD BREAKDOWN

Performance by workload.

CPU and GPU use the current adaptive scale for the same workload, mode and graphics backend. When a faster validated device becomes the reference, older comparable scores are projected onto the new scale without changing their raw measurements. VRAM remains a pass/fail diagnostic.

CPU19

Processor throughput

Single thread
233.05 Mops/s
Multi thread
1,867.65 Mops/s
Compression proxy
133.3 MB/s
GPU4

Graphics throughput

Estimated shader work
222.4 G shader ops/s
Render throughput
18.4 FPS
Frame time p95
152.78 ms
MEMORY10

System memory

Effective bandwidth
4.99 GB/s
Latency proxy
185.3 ns
Browser RAM class
GB class
VRAMNOT RUN

GPU-memory diagnostic

No completed VRAM measurement was recorded for this run.

02 / RELATIVE PERFORMANCE

What sits above and below this hardware.

Each ladder uses one consistent source. Validated PCBenchmark medians take priority when the matching workload cohort has enough approved runs; until then, the report shows a clearly marked catalog estimate.

CPU POSITION

Intel Core i5-10300H comparison ladder

ESTIMATE

Specification-based estimateApproximate browser CPU capacity derived from official core, thread and clock specifications for Comet Lake desktop processors. It is not a measured benchmark.

  1. Intel Core i9-10885HComet Lake · 8 cores / 16 threads · 2020
    +43.2%higher estimate
  2. Intel Xeon W-10855MComet Lake · 6 cores / 12 threads · 2020
    +32.7%higher estimate
  3. Intel Core i7-10750HComet Lake · 6 cores / 12 threads · 2020
    +27.3%higher estimate
  4. Intel Core i5-10300HComet Lake · 4 cores / 8 threads · 2020
    BASECATALOG REFERENCE
  5. Intel Core i7-10510UComet Lake · 4 cores / 8 threads · 2019
    −7.7%lower estimate
  6. Intel Core i3-10110UComet Lake · 2 cores / 4 threads · 2019
    −33.2%lower estimate
GPU POSITION

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 comparison ladder

ESTIMATE

Theoretical FP32 estimatePercentages compare theoretical FP32 compute within the desktop GPU catalog; they are not measured PCBenchmark or gaming performance.

  1. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660GeForce 16 · 6 GB VRAM · 2019
    +68.8%higher estimate
  2. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPERGeForce 16 · 6 GB VRAM · 2019
    +68.8%higher estimate
  3. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPERGeForce 16 · 4 GB VRAM · 2019
    +48.3%higher estimate
  4. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650GeForce 16 · 4 GB VRAM · 2019
    BASECATALOG REFERENCE
  5. NVIDIA GeForce MX450 30.5W 10GbpsGeForce MX(4xx) · 2 GB VRAM · 2020
    −5.4%lower estimate
  6. NVIDIA P106-090Mining GPUs · 3 GB VRAM · 2017
    −21.1%lower estimate
  7. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630GeForce 16 · 4 GB VRAM · 2022
    −38.6%lower estimate
03 / STABILITY28.0%

Sustained-load signal

This signal summarizes frame delivery during the timed graphics phase. It can reveal an inconsistent run, but it is not a temperature sensor.

COMPLETEDNO SAMPLE WINDOW54 SEC DROPPED FRAMES71.99%
04 / ENVIRONMENTRUN CONTEXT

What the browser disclosed

Selected suite
Full system
Platform family
Windows
Logical processors
8
Browser RAM class
Not disclosed
Graphics API
WebGL 2
Run quality
Limited · 40/100
Score fingerprint
adaptive-v2.0 / 1.2.1
Current adaptive scale
Provisional revision 4 / 28 August 2026
i
BROWSER BENCHMARK, NOT HARDWARE ATTESTATION

Read this result in its proper context.

It measures this browser’s execution path under the conditions of this run. Cooling, power mode, drivers, background processes and browser updates can change the outcome. CPU/GPU names may be supplied manually or matched to the catalog from a browser hint. Compare only matching suite, mode, engine version and graphics backend. NOT RUN categories were not measured and are not zero-performance results.

Read methodology & limitations
05 / RAW RESULT DATAInspect JSON +
{
    "test_suite": "all",
    "test_mode": "standard",
    "duration_ms": 54159,
    "system": {
        "cpu_name": "Intel Core i5-10300H",
        "gpu_name": "NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650",
        "logical_cores": 8,
        "memory_gb": null,
        "platform": "windows",
        "gpu_api": "webgl2",
        "processor_id": 1349,
        "graphics_card_id": 11
    },
    "metrics": {
        "stability": {
            "duration_seconds": 54,
            "completed": false,
            "dropped_frames_percent": 71.993
        },
        "cpu": {
            "single_core_ops_per_second": 233045866.97,
            "multi_core_ops_per_second": 1867645653.538,
            "compression_mb_per_second": 133.29
        },
        "memory": {
            "bandwidth_gbps": 4.989,
            "latency_ns": 185.3
        },
        "gpu": {
            "frames_per_second": 18.439,
            "compute_gflops": 222.429,
            "frame_time_p95_ms": 152.78
        }
    },
    "raw_points": {
        "cpu": 8.7725654,
        "gpu": 0.370715
    },
    "original_scores": {
        "cpu": 19,
        "gpu": 4,
        "memory": 10,
        "vram": null,
        "overall": 11,
        "grade": "E"
    },
    "current_scores": {
        "cpu": 19,
        "gpu": 4,
        "memory": 10,
        "vram": null,
        "overall": 11,
        "grade": "E",
        "snapshot_revision": 4
    },
    "runner_version": "1.2.1",
    "workload_signature": "browser-1.2",
    "scoring_version": "adaptive-v2.0"
}
SAME SUITE, FRESH CONDITIONS

Think this system can do better?

Close heavy apps, connect power, keep the tab visible and run the same Full system suite and Standard mode again.

Run it again