Today's hottest deals

Alienware Area-51m

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 25%
Surfboard
Desktop
Desktop 98%
Nuclear submarine
Workstation
Workstation 25%
Raft
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing way below expectations (15th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 85 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 an outstanding single core score, this CPU is the cat's whiskers: It demolishes everyday tasks such as web browsing, office apps and audio/video playback. Additionally this processor can handle typical workstation, and even moderate server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 97.2%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is excellent.
Graphics17.7% is a below average 3D score (RTX 2060S = 100%). This GPU can handle older games but it will struggle to render recent games at resolutions greater than 1080p. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive198% is an exceptional SSD score. This drive is suitable for heavy workstation use, it will facilitate fast boots, responsive applications and allow for fast transfers of multi-gigabyte files.
Memory64GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's far more than any current game requires. 64GB 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 (16%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
SystemAlienware Area-51m  (all builds)
MotherboardAlienware Alienware Area-51m
Memory56.3 GB free of 64 GB @ 2.4 GHz
Display1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors,
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20190905
Uptime0.6 Days
Run DateMar 05 '20 at 16:12
Run Duration235 Seconds
Run User USA-User
Background CPU 16%

 PC Performing way below expectations (15th percentile)

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

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i9-9900K-$380
U3E1, 1 CPU, 8 cores, 16 threads
Base clock 3.6 GHz, turbo 4.7 GHz (avg)
Performing as expected (41st percentile)
97.2% Outstanding
Memory 89.6
1-Core 149
2-Core 296
97% 178 Pts
4-Core 562
8-Core 987
94% 774 Pts
64-Core 1,618
100% 1,618 Pts
Poor: 89%
This bench: 97.2%
Great: 104%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060
Dell(1028 08C4) ≥ 4GB
CLim: 2235 MHz, MLim: 3573 MHz, Ram: 6GB, Driver: 442.50
Relative performance (0th percentile) - GPU OC Guide
17.7% Very poor
Lighting 20
Reflection 23
Parallax 18.7
16% 20.6 fps
MRender 28.4
Gravity 19.9
Splatting 26
20% 24.8 fps
Poor: 49%
This bench: 17.7%
Great: 77%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
WD Black SN750 NVMe PCIe M.2 500GB (2019)-$75
327GB free (System drive)
Firmware: 102000WD Max speed: PCIe 16,000 MB/s
SusWrite @10s intervals: 1108 669 664 612 628 623 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (13th percentile)
198% Outstanding
Read 1399
Write 2,104
Mixed 1,676
SusWrite 717
333% 1,474 MB/s
4K Read 37.8
4K Write 105
4K Mixed 57.1
186% 66.6 MB/s
DQ Read 986
DQ Write 818
DQ Mixed 807
630% 870 MB/s
Poor: 168%
This bench: 198%
Great: 297%
Intel 660p NVMe PCIe M.2 2TB-$199
784GB free
Firmware: 002C Max speed: PCIe 16,000 MB/s
SusWrite @10s intervals: 815 547 162 156 156 234 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (8th percentile)
161% Outstanding
Read 906
Write 369
Mixed 1068
SusWrite 345
150% 672 MB/s
4K Read 48.3
4K Write 102
4K Mixed 63
208% 71.2 MB/s
DQ Read 986
DQ Write 772
DQ Mixed 323
393% 694 MB/s
Poor: 154%
This bench: 161%
Great: 282%
Seagate FireCuda 2.5" 1TB-$56
833GB free
Firmware: 401000WD
SusWrite @10s intervals: 402 449 467 468 468 468 MB/s
Relative performance n/a - drive id incomplete or inconclusive
Read 410
Write 454
Mixed 339
SusWrite 454
306% 414 MB/s
4K Read 33.1
4K Write 72.1
4K Mixed 40.6
7,226% 48.6 MB/s
DQ Read 361
DQ Write 290
DQ Mixed 224
2,354% 292 MB/s
Poor: 20% Great: 70%
Generic MassStorageClass 129GB
120GB free, PID 0749
Operating at USB 3.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 4.1 7.8 6.3 7.8 6.8 6 MB/s
Performing way below expectations (3rd percentile)
3.96% Terrible
Read 11
Write 10.3
Mixed 19
SusWrite 6.4
16% 11.7 MB/s
4K Read 0.2
4K Write 0.3
4K Mixed 0.8
38% 0.43 MB/s
Poor: 4%
This bench: 3.96%
Great: 39%
Generic MassStorageClass 129GB
120GB free, PID 0749
Operating at USB 3.1 Speed
SusWrite @10s intervals: 4.2 7.7 6.3 7.8 6.8 6.5 MB/s
Relative performance (0th percentile)
2.79% Terrible
Read 0.8
Write 5.5
Mixed 14
SusWrite 6.5
11% 6.7 MB/s
4K Read 1.4
4K Write 0.3
4K Mixed 1
49% 0.9 MB/s
Poor: 4%
This bench: 2.79%
Great: 39%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Corsair Vengeance SODIM DDR4 2666 C18 4x16GB
4 of 4 slots used
64GB SODIMM DDR4 clocked @ 2400 MHz
Performing below potential (8th percentile) - ensure that a dual+ channel XMP BIOS profile is enabled: How to enable XMP
77.5% Very good
MC Read 27.3
MC Write 30.1
MC Mixed 23.6
77% 27 GB/s
SC Read 17.8
SC Write 33.3
SC Mixed 25.9
73% 25.7 GB/s
Latency 67.8
59% 67.8 ns
Poor: 78%
This bench: 77.5%
Great: 89%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

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

Typical Area-51m Builds (Compare 558 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 111%
UFO
Desktop
Desktop 99%
Nuclear submarine
Workstation
Workstation 110%
UFO

System: Alienware Area-51m

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 90% - Excellent Total price: $380
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 popular with users?
Instead of pursuing brands for sponsorship, we've spent 13 years publishing real-world data for users.
The Best
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $164Nvidia RTX 4060 $299WD Black SN850X M.2 2TB $150
Intel Core i5-12400F $112Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $380WD Black SN850X M.2 1TB $75
Intel Core i5-13600K $218Nvidia 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