PCBenchmark/Results/Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 + NVIDIA Quadro P2000 browser benchmark
PC SCORE12OUT OF 100
SYSTEM GRADEE
Excellent quality run 15 September 2026 · 15:55 EEST

Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5+NVIDIA Quadro P2000

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

SUITEFULL SYSTEM MODEQUICK GPU APIWebGPU ENGINE1.2.1 SCORE SCALEPROVISIONAL R4 DURATION00:20
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.

CPU7

Processor throughput

Single thread
85.07 Mops/s
Multi thread
490.26 Mops/s
Compression proxy
121.4 MB/s
GPU12

Graphics throughput

Estimated shader work
1,468.3 G shader ops/s
Render throughput
107.1 FPS
Frame time p95
15.00 ms
MEMORY23

System memory

Effective bandwidth
7.73 GB/s
Latency proxy
151.7 ns
Browser RAM class
32 GB class
VRAMPASS

GPU-memory diagnostic

Transfer bandwidth
1.26 GB/s
Tested allocation
128 MB
Validation errors
0 errors
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 Xeon E3-1240 v5 comparison ladder

ESTIMATE

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

  1. Intel Xeon W-2123Skylake · 4 cores / 8 threads · 2017
    +1.1%higher estimate
  2. Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5Skylake · 4 cores / 8 threads · 2015
    BASECATALOG REFERENCE
  3. Intel Xeon Gold 5122Skylake · 4 cores / 8 threads · 2017
    −2.0%lower estimate
GPU POSITION

NVIDIA Quadro P2000 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 1650 SUPERGeForce 16 · 4 GB VRAM · 2019
    +45.9%higher estimate
  2. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GBGeForce 10 · 6 GB VRAM · 2016
    +44.6%higher estimate
  3. NVIDIA P106-100Mining GPUs · 6 GB VRAM · 2017
    +44.6%higher estimate
  4. NVIDIA Quadro P2000Quadro Pascal(Px000) · 5 GB VRAM · 2017
    BASECATALOG REFERENCE
  5. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650GeForce 16 · 4 GB VRAM · 2019
    −1.7%lower estimate
  6. NVIDIA P106MMining GPUs · 4 GB VRAM · 2019
    −2.0%lower estimate
  7. NVIDIA P106-090Mining GPUs · 3 GB VRAM · 2017
    −22.4%lower estimate
03 / STABILITY99.3%

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.

COMPLETEDYES SAMPLE WINDOW20 SEC DROPPED FRAMES0.74%
04 / ENVIRONMENTRUN CONTEXT

What the browser disclosed

Selected suite
Full system
Platform family
Windows
Logical processors
8
Browser RAM class
32 GB · rounded/capped
Graphics API
WebGPU
Run quality
Excellent · 91/100
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": "quick",
    "duration_ms": 19830,
    "system": {
        "cpu_name": "Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5",
        "gpu_name": "NVIDIA Quadro P2000",
        "logical_cores": 8,
        "memory_gb": 32,
        "platform": "windows",
        "gpu_api": "webgpu",
        "processor_id": 2568,
        "graphics_card_id": 2199
    },
    "metrics": {
        "stability": {
            "duration_seconds": 20,
            "completed": true,
            "dropped_frames_percent": 0.738
        },
        "cpu": {
            "single_core_ops_per_second": 85067632.889,
            "multi_core_ops_per_second": 490264710.977,
            "compression_mb_per_second": 121.421
        },
        "memory": {
            "bandwidth_gbps": 7.726,
            "latency_ns": 151.722
        },
        "gpu": {
            "frames_per_second": 107.082,
            "compute_gflops": 1468.284,
            "frame_time_p95_ms": 15
        },
        "vram": {
            "tested_mb": 128,
            "bandwidth_gbps": 1.259,
            "errors": 0
        }
    },
    "raw_points": {
        "cpu": 3.3698417,
        "gpu": 1.22357
    },
    "original_scores": {
        "cpu": 7,
        "gpu": 12,
        "memory": 23,
        "vram": 0,
        "overall": 12,
        "grade": "E"
    },
    "current_scores": {
        "cpu": 7,
        "gpu": 12,
        "memory": 23,
        "vram": 0,
        "overall": 12,
        "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 Quick mode again.

Run it again