Articles: Mobile

Bookmark and Share

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


As usual, I will first run the synthetic benchmarks SiSoftware Sandra 2004 and PCMark 2004. The former benchmark measures the performance of the system at large as well as that of each of its subsystems. PCMark 2004, in its turn, measures the performance of the computer at running office and multimedia applications and also produces performance scores for the main subsystems (CPU, memory, graphical, and disk subsystem).

When powered from an AC source, the Samsung Q30 Plus is expectably slower than the Sony VAIO VGN-T2XRP/S due to a weaker central processor, excepting the memory and graphics tests (the Q30 Plus features DDR2 SDRAM and Graphics Media Accelerator 900). The performance is lower when the notebooks work on their batteries and the Q30 Plus is much alike to the Sony VAIO VGN-T2XRP/S in this case because the bottom frequency is the same for both the CPUs. The graphics subsystem of the Samsung Q30 Plus is the faster of the two.

The Business Winstone test runs scripts of the following real 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 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 tests are tabled and diagrammed below:

You can again see the Samsung Q30 Plus perform a little slower with an AC power source – the lower clock rate of the CPU is again to blame. When powered by the batteries, the notebooks are slower (the CPU frequency of the Q30 Plus is dropped from 1.1GHz to 0.6GHz in this case) and closer to each other’s results.

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


Comments currently: 12
Discussion started: 05/14/06 06:23:39 AM
Latest comment: 05/06/07 05:36:46 PM

View comments

Add your Comment