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).
Quite expectably, the two notebooks have similar results in the CPU test – they just happen to have identical CPUs. The W6F is worse in the graphics and disk subsystem tests because it uses an integrated graphics core, even though of the latest generation, and its HDD speed is lower at 4200rpm. The notebooks’ results drop down by as much as 40% when they switch to their batteries because the CPU frequency is lowered 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, and the notebooks deliver similar results, having identical processors. The ASUS W6F is a little slower in the Business test, but turns in a higher score in the Multimedia Content Creation test. When the notebooks work on their batteries, their results are lower proportionally to the CPU frequency drop.