Articles: Mobile

Bookmark and Share

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 ]


So, we are ready to start, and the race traditionally begins with the synthetic benchmarks SiSoftware Sandra 2004 and PCMark 2004. The former benchmark measures the overall performance of the system as well as that of each of its subsystems, while PCMark 2004 measures the performance of the computer in office and multimedia applications and also produces performance scores for the main subsystems (CPU, memory, graphical, and disk subsystem).

The ASUS A6Q00K enjoys a certain advantage in the processor test when the power source is AC just because it has a faster CPU inside. When the notebooks are powered by their batteries, their CPUs perform similarly as a consequence of the reduction of the CPU clock rates down to the same frequency to save power. The memory performance of the two notebooks is similar irrespective of the power source. The Acer Ferrari 4005WLMi leaves the ASUS A6Q00K behind in the HDD and graphical tests.

The Business Winstone 2004 test runs scripts of the following real-life office applications, several scripts at a time: Internet Explorer, Outlook, Word, Excel, Access, Project, PowerPoint, FrontPage, WinZip, and Norton AntiVirus Professional Edition.

The Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004 test determines the performance of a computer in the following multimedia applications: Windows Media Encoder, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Premiere, NewTek LightWave 3D, Steinberg WaveLab, Dreamweaver MX, and Director MX.

The results of these two benchmarks are presented below:

It is the central processor that largely determines the overall performance of a computer in these benchmarks and this explains the advantage of the ASUS A6Q00K whose CPU clock rate is 200MHz higher than that of the Acer Ferrari 4005WLMi. The performance of the notebooks lowers by half, when we switch over to their batteries.

The Acer Ferrari 4005WLMi and ASUS A6Q00K are equipped with quite advanced discrete graphics solutions from ATI and NVIDIA, so we decided to check them in 3DMark 2003.

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 ]


Comments currently: 48
Discussion started: 03/24/06 06:53:00 PM
Latest comment: 12/11/15 01:50:22 PM

View comments

Add your Comment