Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:19 pm Post subject: How slow is your processor?
Recently I have been involved in a series of discussions about performance and processors speed. And in all these discussions people use words like "slightly slower", "a little bit slower", "not that slow", but up to this moment I have not seen anybody presenting a real number, a result of a real test.
There are many benchmark programs and all of them include Processors tests but sometime they are hard to read and harder to compare the results. So I started to think about an easy way to show exactly how slow is a processor compared to another and I remembered then about a Chess program that I used back in the 80s: Fritz. That program has a benchmark option to measure how many positions a processor can calculate per second. This test only measure that and it does not depend on the memory installed or any other hardware parameter. Then somebody pointed me to this program which does that and only that, it checks how many chess positions per second any processor can calculate.
I ran the program in my both UMPCs, the eo v7110 and the Q1 Celeron and I asked a group of people to run it in Q1Us (A110) and a eo i7210 (Pentium M). I gathered all the reports and selected the best results in each case. I have to say at this point that all the results for a single device were very close one to another. And that's normal because the only thing that could may this test to have different results is the processor being used while the test was running. This means that for a higher score you had to be sure that there was not any program using the processor at that time. That's all.
So here are the screen shots of the results that I have selected.
I have prepared a little table with these results and some calculations.
The column in the right shows how slow is any Processor compared to a Pentium M running at 1000 MHz used in the first generation of UMPCs.
This could be not the best way to test how good is a processor but at least is one of the simplest one I have found. If you know of any other method I'll be glad to test it and gather again all this information just to have real numbers to compare each processor.
Hum... the highest value I get in my T700 with 1GB is 282. I guess if it's because of the memory speed (533) or because of being running the test on Windows Vista.
Hum... the highest value I get in my T700 with 1GB is 282. I guess if it's because of the memory speed (533) or because of being running the test on Windows Vista.
This test does not use the memory for anything, a higher score means only one thing, you processor was less "used" by the Os them mine. If you ran the test in safe mode probably you will get a higher score. _________________ www.ultramobilepc-tips.com
This test does not use the memory for anything, a higher score means only one thing, you processor was less "used" by the Os them mine. If you ran the test in safe mode probably you will get a higher score.
Well... Frank, I agree that the main factor on this test is the processor power, but I disagree about the memory speed (not the memory amount). I don't know how much can it affect to the results, I guess not too much, but since the benchmark consist of evaluating a tree of possible chess movements, that information should be stored anywhere, so that information to be evaluated should be read from the executable file into RAM or generated directly in RAM by the program once it's executed. So a faster memory will result in a greater result for the benchmark, even if the percent of importance is very small compared to the processor power itself.
Hal, as you can see the difference is not that much. of course the program is running on memory and is saving that information in memory but like you said I do not think that memory will play a relevant roll in the numbers of positions calculated by the program. _________________ www.ultramobilepc-tips.com
I agree with that. This program doesn't read or write a large amount of data from or to RAM, so the difference is negligible. I just wanted to make clear that the difference, although very small, exists. Call me pernickety.
Last edited by hal9000 on Sat Aug 18, 2007 9:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
I received the results of Fritz Chess Benchmark for the OQO 02 at 1500 MHz. The result is 25.33 less than the result of the same test in a Pentium M but it's close to 25% higher than what we saw in the eo v7110. Now we can say for sure that the OQO 02 is slower than UMPC using Pentium M, Celeron M and the A110.
I created a new table in my benchmark page with all these results.
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:43 am Post subject: Update
I keep updating the Fritz Chess Benchmark table. Today I added the information for the Intel Celeron 900 MHz without cache used in the Asus R2H first generation. Probably many of you have read me saying that the R2H was the slowest machine using an Intel Processor from the first generation, well, this has been confirmed again with this test.
As you can see, the Intel Celeron without cache score slower than the A110 and VIA C7M. I'm still waiting for the results of this test that Chippy promised to send me, the AMD should score close to the VIA used in the eo v7110, I believe.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
![[ Hidden ]](templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_email.gif "[ Hidden ]"){kind=icon}
Call me pernickety. 
