As usual, I will first run synthetic benchmarks.
SiSoftware Sandra 2004 measures the overall performance of the system as well as that of each of its subsystems, while PCMark 2004 benchmarks the computer performance in office and multimedia applications and also produces performance scores for the main subsystems (CPU, memory, graphical, and disk subsystem).
The CPU tests from SiSoftware Sandra 2005 show an almost twofold advantage of the dual-core processor over the Intel Core Solo. There is also a considerable difference between the notebooks in the graphics tests: the ASUS A6Q00Jc011 has a weaker graphics core than the ASUS V6X00J011 (GeForce Go 7300 against GeForce Go 7400). The worse results of the reviewed notebook in the disk subsystem tests are due to its having a HDD with a lower spindle rotation speed. The results of the CPU tests drop nearly by two times when the notebooks work on their batteries because they both reduce their CPU frequency to 1GHz to save power.
The Business Winstone 2004 test runs scripts of the following real-life office applications, several scripts at a time to simulate multi-tasking: 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 and Adobe Premiere, NewTek LightWave 3D, Steinberg WaveLab, Micromedia Dreamweaver MX, and Micromedia Director MX.
The latest program versions were used, adapted specifically for dual-core processors. The results are presented in the following table and diagrams:
It is the CPU that largely determines the outcome of the Winstone tests, but multithreading is not used. That’s why the notebooks have similar results (the more complex Core Duo processor is even a little slower in this test). When the notebooks work on their batteries, their results are lower proportionally to the CPU frequency drop.