Articles: Mobile
 

Bookmark and Share

(36) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 ]

Synthetic Benchmarks: PCMark05 and 3DMark05

PCMark05 is another popular testing suite that explores the general system performance. Since it creates multi-threaded workload during work, dual-core processors are usually faster there, than single-core ones.

Besides the CPU test, this benchmark can also check the memory subsystem performance.

However, since both notebooks in our today’s test session are equipped with pretty similar memory subsystems (dual-channel DDR2-533 SDRAM with the same timings set to 4-4-4-12), the results are quite similar as well. Nevertheless, the i945GM based notebook works slightly faster with the memory thanks to its more advanced memory controller that no longer supports the outdated DDR-I SDRAM.

PCMark05 test also allows the Intel GMA950 graphics core to show its best. According to the results obtained in 2D and 3D modes during video playback and during pixel and vertex shaders processing, the new graphics core integrated into the i945GM chipset is more than 20% faster than the previous Intel GMA900 core.

However, they usually use 3DMark testing suites to measure the graphics core performance in 3D mode. That is why we have also run 3DMark05 to verify the results of the PCMark05 test.

According to 3DMark05 that uses all the latest features of contemporary graphics accelerators, Intel GMA950 in ASUS W5F notebook is twice as fast as Intel GMA900 in ASUS U5A notebook. It owes this significant performance advantage not only to higher clock frequency of the Intel GMA950 graphics core, but also to the higher computational power of the dual-core Core Duo processor that is responsible for vertex shaders and T&L calculations.

3DMark05 benchmark also contains a CPU test that uses multi-threading.

The result is quite logical. It once again illustrates that two cores is better that one. At least when the applications are optimized respectively.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 36
Discussion started: 04/13/06 09:38:37 PM
Latest comment: 01/14/08 09:07:46 AM

View comments

Add your Comment