benchmark
Latest
OCZ RevoDrive 3 X2 and RevoDrive Hybrid hands-on (video)
We got a chance to spend some time with the lovely folks from OCZ here at Computex for a tour of their latest and greatest SSD products, the RevoDrive 3 X2 and RevoDrive Hybrid. Both are PCIe x4 cards featuring up to 4 SandForce SF-2200 controllers and RAID 0 (striping) for blazing performance. The RevoDrive 3 X2 is available in capacities from 240GB ($699) to 960GB and improves upon the RevoDrive X2 with TRIM support and double the performance. We were treated to a demo that achieved truly ludicrous speeds -- 1.5GBps reads and 1.2GBps writes -- the kind of numbers that'll perk up even the most jaded PC enthusiast. The RevoDrive Hybrid builds upon the same SSD technology as the RevoDrive 3 X2 to cache the contents of a 2.5-inch hard drive, with capacities starting at 500GB with a 60GB cache ($350). OCZ's demo showed a 20 times performance improvement going from a regular hard drive to the RevoDrive Hybrid. Both products are expected to ship in July, but we suggest you ogle them right now in the gallery below and in our hands-on video after the break. %Gallery-125104%
Droid Bionic benchmark reports PowerVR GPU, new SOC inside?
A very strange thing popped up on mobile graphic benchmarking site NenaMark the other day -- an entry for the Droid Bionic. Now, it would be very easy to fake this test, and you'd be right to be skeptical given the incomplete score and the fact that it's reporting PowerVR's SGX 540 GPU, instead of the Tegra 2 we saw at CES. But, let's not be too hasty -- we heard back in April that NVIDIA's mobile chip wasn't playing nice with Verizon's LTE. Perhaps when Motorola said it was delaying the Bionic to incorporate "several enhancements" it really meant "rebuilding the phone with a more LTE friendly CPU." Both Samsung and Texas Instruments use the SGX 540, and Moto has previously turned to TI's OMAP for the Droid, Droid 2, and Droid X. Then again, a single, suspiciously low benchmark score isn't the most convincing basis for a rumor.
Macworld experiences mixed results with MacBook Air SSD upgrades
Computers are like cars: while the vast majority of owners are happy to drive around in their car for years, exactly the way they came off of the dealer's lot, some people want to customize their wheels immediately. It's not surprising that for some owners of Apple's popular MacBook Air, the first thing that they want to do is supercharge their lightweight laptops with a bigger, faster flash drive. Macworld did a series of tests of the Mercury Aura Pro Express SSD upgrades from OWC (Apple refers to the drives as flash storage, while OWC calls them SSDs) that can add those precious GBs to your Air. What they found was that while the marketing materials for the OWC drives claim huge performance leaps for MacBook Airs equipped with those drives, the company is using automated tests that don't mimic real-life laptop usage. The test results revealed that, in many cases, the SSDs showed mixed performance results when tested in common tasks, such as using Adobe Photoshop CS5, importing and processing images with Aperture and iPhoto and performing common file actions in Finder. That's not to say that the OWC SSDs aren't worthwhile. On the contrary, the drives are about the only way for MacBook Air users to increase storage capacity past the 256 GB maximum for the stock 13-inch Air, and the 128 GB of storage in the maxed-out stock 11-inch Air. For more details of the lab results from Macworld's tests, be sure to check out their post.
New iMacs 25 percent faster than previous generation
A few days ago, we reported on Macworld's benchmark results for the new Sandy Bridge-equipped iMacs. Macworld found them to be, on average, about 16 percent faster in the Speedmark 6.5 test than the previous generation. Now Primate Labs has put together a report detailing the iMac's speed increases based on user-submitted Geekbench 2 results. According to Primate Labs, the new Sandy Bridge iMacs are up to 25 percent faster than their Lynnfield predecessors. 25 percent isn't earth-shattering, but it's a nice bump for the newest models. When Primate Labs pitted the Sandy Bridge iMacs against the two-generations-old Wolfdale Core 2 Duo iMacs, however, the newest iMacs ran a whopping 70 percent faster. Time for an upgrade, Core 2 Duo iMac owners?
Sony Ericsson Azusa outed via NenaMark, reminds us of Xperia Arc
It doesn't matter how much you warn young phones about public benchmarking -- they just don't listen. An unannounced Sony Ericsson device, dubbed Azusa, was caught peeking out from behind an anonymous submission to the NenaMark Android GPU benchmarking tool. The resulting specs outed the device as a 854 x 480 resolution handset packing the same Qualcomm Adreno 205 GPU as the Xperia Arc. Unsurprisingly, the Azusa's single-test benchmark stats are about on par with its bigger brother, leaving us wondering -- what does the newbie bring to the table?
Macworld publishes first round of benchmark results for new iMac
Macworld posted the results of its first benchmark tests for the newly updated family of iMacs this morning. The publication's tests found Apple's latest iMacs to be generally faster than previous iMacs, although certain build-to-order (BTO) models from 2010 still outperformed the new family of iMacs in some tests. The new top-of-the-line, quad-core 3.1 GHz i5 iMac bested the previous high-end model, a quad-core 2.8 GHz i5 iMac, in every test. Notably, the 3.1 GHz iMac performed 16% faster in the Speedmark 6.5 test and 22% faster in Macworld's iTunes encode test. The results were mixed when comparing the new iMac to powerfully configured BTO models from last year. When pitted against a quad-core 2.93 GHz Core i7 BTO iMac from 2010, the new 3.1 GHz iMac performed about equivalently in the Speedmark test but fell short in applications like Cinebench and MathematicaMark. The older, i7-based iMac offered Hyper Threading, a technology that virtually doubled the number of processor cores seen by the operating system; apps that took advantage of this technology worked better on the older machine. When compared to a dual-core 3.6 GHz i5 BTO iMac from 2010, the current 3.1 Ghz iMac edged out its older relative by 14% in overall performance and finished tasks in Mathematica, an app that makes use of multiple processing cores, up to 67% faster. In many cases, however, the faster clock speed of the older machine helped it complete certain tasks more quickly. Overall, the new iMacs seem to offer generally better performance in a more affordable package. But, if you frequently use software optimized for fast clock speeds or Hyper Threading technology and don't need any of the new gadgetry in the newest machines, it may be worth tracking down a 2010 BTO iMac with a 3.6 GHz i5 or 2.93 GHz i7 inside.
Galaxy S II benchmarked, makes other phones cry in shame
The first benchmarks of Samsung's 1.2GHz Galaxy S II -- we saw the 1GHz variant tested previously -- are rolling in, and it's fast. Almost suspiciously so. Its speedy dual-core Exynos CPU pulled off a 3,053 in Quadrant and scored double what the similarly specced HTC Sensation did in Smartbench2011. Those scores also represent a more than threefold improvement over the original Galaxy S. Of course, these are purely synthetic benchmarks and may not translate into an equally improved experience in day to day use. We'll know for sure when we get our hands on one for a proper review in the coming weeks. Full benchmarks are after the break. [Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
External batteries benchmarked, the portable juice is loose
A lot of portable PC power cells last for only four or five hours, after which you'll find yourself chained to a wall socket. Good thing there are external batteries to keep us in current when a plug's nowhere to be found, and Tom's Hardware has done some benchmarking on a slew of such devices so you'll know which one's suited for you. A Dell Vostro 3300 and an Inspiron Mini 10 running Windows 7 were used to put packs from Amstron, Brunton, Digipower, Electrovaya, Energizer, Lenmar, PowerTraveller and Tekkeon through some real-world paces -- we're talking word processing and web surfing, not fragging and film editing. So if you're in the market for a mobile power unit, hit the source link and get the down and dirty on which external battery's best.
Google gives Georgia Tech $1 million to build a benchmark for the open internet
You can benchmark the cycles of your CPU, power of your GPU, speed of your internet connection, and a myriad of other seemingly important things. However, there's one missing benchmark that could make all those seem rather frivolous: the openness of your connection. Google wants one and has just awarded Georgia Tech a $1 million grant over two years (with a possible $500k bonus for a third year) to come up with a benchmark capable of detecting just how neutral your net is. When ready, it'll look for any artificial throttling that's been set in place and will also check for evidence of digital censorship. No word on when an early version might see release, but hopefully it comes before we need to start paying extra for the ability to download non-ISP-approved content.
Apple confirms some WebKit optimizations unavailable to iOS Apps
The web performance enhancements included in Apple's latest mobile operating system, iOS 4.3, are exclusively available to the Mobile Safari web browser, an Apple spokesperson has confirmed. The optimizations, which double JavaScript performance in Mobile Safari, are not available to the underlying web view framework that powers the embedded browsers in other apps. "The embedded web viewer does not take advantage of Safari's web performance optimizations," Trudy Muller, a spokesperson for Apple, told The Register. Apple's statement comes as a response to controversy started earlier this week when developers first recognized the notable performance gap between Mobile Safari and the embedded web views in their own applications. The debate deepened yesterday when Blaze Software released the results of a study that implied Android loaded web pages 52 percent faster than the iPhone 4. Apple refuted Blaze's results, citing the differences between Safari and the embedded web viewer. Many developers voiced concerns about Apple's decision to exclude third-party apps from taking advantage of the Nitro JavaScript engine included in iOS 4.3. One anonymous developer suggested Apple purposefully omitted the enhancements to subtly degrade the web experience in non-Apple browsers and web apps launched from the home screen. "Apple is basically using subtle defects to make web apps appear to be low quality - even when they claim HTML5 is a fully supported platform," the developer claimed in The Register. Matt Asay, vice president of business development for Strobe, indicated that Apple filed the performance gap as a bug but marked it "not to be fixed by exec order." On Twitter, Asay called the scenario "slimy" and suggested it's partly a tactic for convincing developers to focus on the development of native apps. The real reasons for the performance gap may not be so sordid. Ars Technica observes the Nitro JavaScript engine uses a technique called "just-in-time [JIT] compilation" to transform dynamic JavaScript code into machine code optimized for the ARM processor architecture. Nitro's ability to dynamically generate and execute code enables it to process JavaScript much faster than its predecessors. Unfortunately, for security reasons, other applications developed for iOS aren't typically granted permission to execute dynamically generated native code. Miguel de Icaza, a lead developer for both GNOME and Mono, said he suspects the issues are legitimate technical problems and not a conspiracy. "It seems that people are attributing to malice what can easily be explained by history - iOS has never allowed user code to generate code on demand, and this has for years prevented JIT compilation from taking place," Icaza told Ars Technica. "Third parties have never been able to get access to this - not Mono, not Java, not Lua, not JavaScript, or any other runtime, compiler, or library that generates native code dynamically." As a result, applications that use the UIWebView framework, including web apps launched from the home screen, will not enjoy the performance optimizations available to Apple's Mobile Safari web browser. Despite the technical challenges in adapting Nitro to work safely within the UIWebView framework, developers like Icaza are optimistic Apple will enable the new JavaScript engine for apps with embedded web views. "Since this is the first OS release with Nitro on the Mobile Safari browser, it is probably safe to assume that this is merely a bug or limitation," he said. Is this a conspiracy worth dubbing "browser-gate," or simply a small speed bump in this tale of two JavaScript rendering engines? Please use the comments below to discuss. [via The Mac Observer]
Android vs. iPhone in 'flawed' mobile browser performance test
Post edited to clarify that the browser testing is not representative of Safari performance, and included Blaze response to CNET. –Ed. Blaze Software, a Canadian software company, today released the results of what it calls a "definitive" research effort to discover "which [mobile] browser is really faster from a user's point of view." The study concluded that Android's browser is 52% faster than the iPhone's. Before you trade in your iPhone for a device powered by Android, The Loop suggests Blaze's study is "flawed." According to its report, Blaze's testing methodology relied on "custom apps, which use the platform's embedded browser. This means WebView (based on Chrome) for Android, and UIWebView (based on Safari) for iPhone." As we've been hearing from developers of iPhone web apps over the past few weeks, Apple's improvements to the Mobile Safari JavaScript engine and other rendering speedups have not been extended to the internal browser tool used by apps, nor to standalone web apps that are pinned as icons to the home screen. It's not yet completely clear if or when the Safari performance boost will make it to the embedded browser view; John Gruber cites some security-related concerns that may be involved. The tests don't reflect performance of the official web browsers included with each platform. UIWebView did not include this performance boost; it may be "disingenuous" to conclude Android beat Safari, according to The Loop. Using an embedded browser is not the same as using the official browser where customers spend the most time interacting with websites. "Obviously someone is looking to make a mountain out of a molehill," Gartner analyst Michael Gartenberg told The Loop. "It's not an apples to apples test." Apple's Natalie Kerris was equally dismissive, speaking to CNET: "Their testing is flawed. They didn't actually test the Safari browser on the iPhone. Instead they only tested their own proprietary app, which uses an embedded Web viewer that doesn't actually take advantage of Safari's Web performance optimizations." Kerris also noted that even without the true Safari match-up, the testing only showed about a second of difference browsing pages. Blaze's CTO Guy Podjarny admitted to CNET that the testing methodology made an invalid assumption that the embedded browsers would work as fast as Safari: "This test leveraged the embedded browser which is the only available option for iPhone applications. Blaze was under the assumption that Apple would apply the same updates to their embedded browser as they would their regular browser. If this is not the case and according to Apple's response, it's certainly possible the embedded browser might produce different results. If Apple decides to apply their optimizations across their embedded browser as well, then we would be more than willing to create a new report with the new performance results." Even so, the results of Blaze's research should still disappoint Apple's fans. Apple touted significant web technology performance gains in its latest iOS release. It seems reasonable to expect these gains to appear simultaneously in both the Safari browser and the underlying UIWebView framework used in nearly any app that relies on web technologies like JavaScript. Blaze's researchers built custom apps to compare the iPhone 4 and Google Nexus S using websites from Fortune 1000 companies. Each site included in the test was loaded multiple times over several days using a Wi-Fi connection. The final results reflect a median benchmark from over 45,000 page loads. "Android 2.3 was 52% faster than iPhone 4.3, with a median load time of 2.144 seconds vs. iPhone's median load time of 3.254 seconds," Blaze reports on its blog, adding, "Android was faster than iPhone in 84% of the tested websites, and iPhone beat Android in 16% of the races. Android...provided a faster browsing experience 4 times out of 5."
iMovie on iPad 2 beats most Macs in benchmarks
Benchmark information from AppAdvice.com If the results of benchmarks run by Tim Chaten at AppAdvice are any indication, anyone looking for a good, fast iMovie workstation for doing editing in the field should take a close look at the app running on an iPad 2. Chaten wanted to see how iMovie for iOS running on the dual-core A5 iPad 2 would stack up to the Mac OS X edition of the app running on a variety of Macs, so he took a set of files to an Apple Store to run three tests on all of the stock Macs in the store with the exception of the Mac mini. The results were astonishing. In the first test, copying a two-minute test video shot on a fourth-generation iPod touch to an iPad or Mac, the iPad 2 was the hands-down winner. It copied the files in just 25.5 seconds compared to 56.5 seconds on the fastest Mac -- a Mac Pro. The second benchmark encoded an unedited movie to 720p. Once again, the iPad 2 bested the rest of the Apple family by speedily encoding the file in 1 minute and 56 seconds. The fastest Mac in the bunch (hardly a portable machine) was a Mac Pro at 2 minutes and 15 seconds, while the fastest laptop was the 17" MacBook Pro; it timed in at 2 minutes and 20 seconds.
iPad 2 specs discerned, 900MHz dual-core ARM CPU and PowerVR SGX543MP2 GPU blow away graphical benchmarks
iFixit may have physically uncovered Apple's latest silicon, but it's the processor gurus that have discovered what's truly inside -- using software benchmarks, they've unearthed the speeds and feeds of the Apple A5. As you'll no doubt be aware having read our headline above, there actually isn't a 1GHz CPU at the helm, as AnandTech and IOSnoops report the dual-core ARM chip is dynamically clocked around 900MHz, likely in search of reduced power consumption. Perhaps more interestingly for all you gamers in the audience, the iPad 2 reports that it has a dual-core PowerVR SGX543MP2 GPU on the die as originally foretold -- and, spoiler alert -- it mops the floor with both the original iPad and the Motorola Xoom. Though the new chip didn't quite demonstrate 9X the graphical prowess of its predecessor, it rendered 57.6 frames per second in a GLBenchmark test where the (admittedly higher-res) Tegra 2 tablet managed only 26.7fps, and last year's iPad pulled only 17.6fps. That's some serious Tai Chi. Hit up our source links to see the difference it can make in games like Infinity Blade. Update: Though it sure sounds like there's a dual-core ARM Cortex A9 in there, that's not yet a proven fact -- we only know that it's a dual-core ARM v7 chip which performs relatively similarly in non-graphical tests. [Thanks, Jim] [Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
Motorola Xoom overclocked to 1.5GHz, eats Quadrant and Linpack for breakfast (video)
Hold on to your hats, gents, because things just got real -- that's a Motorola Xoom in the picture above, clocked at a blazing 1.504GHz. While we highly doubt that's a new world record of any sort, the dual-core Tegra 2 inside seriously screams at that clockspeed, scorching Quadrant to the tune of 3105 (remember this?) and delivering 47 MFLOPS in Linpack. Oh, and in case you're curious, this achievement wasn't some random hack. It was perpetrated for our collective benefit by the master of SetCPU himself, and you'll find full video proof of his accomplishment below and instructions at our source link. Got root? Then you're on your way. [Thanks, Adam B.]
LG Optimus 3D's OMAP 4 benchmarked, pulls ahead of Exynos and Tegra 2
Which dual-core 1GHz ARM Cortex A9 system-on-a-chip rules the roost? It's probably too early to tell, but if you're looking for a preliminary verdict, AnandTech has benchmarked all three of them now. Texas Instruments' OMAP 4430, NVIDIA's Tegra 2 and Samsung's Exynos 4210 went head to head in a gauntlet of browser and graphical benchmarks, and it looks like the LG Optimus 3D's OMAP 4 came out on top, boasting minor but significant improvements practically across the board. Good news for the BlackBerry PlayBook, no? Oh, and if you're wondering why the iPhone 4 and Atrix 4G fall behind their older brethren in the image above, remember that they both have to render images at a higher screen resolution. More graphs at our source link below.
Sandy Bridge memory performance tested, value of expensive top-shelf memory questioned
Intel's Sandy Bridge chipset hasn't exactly had a flawless launch, but let's move past that and take a look at how well it performs before it starts breaking. One of the improvements here is meant to be better memory performance, and The Tech Report ran a variety of sticks through the gamut to see what the benefits of high-cost, high-speed memory is versus the cheaper stuff. The results showed that, in the vast majority of cases, DDR3-1333MHz memory was barely outclassed by the DDR3-2133MHz stuff, exhibiting only a modest improvement in games, just a couple FPS at most. Lesson learned? Save your pennies -- or go ahead and spend 'em elsewhere, like that new Thermaltake case.
Motorola Xoom first benchmark: 1823 in Quadrant
We're unabashed spec junkies here at Engadget, and can you blame us? There are mountains of new devices every year, and it helps to have bullet points and numerical differentiators to cut through the fluff. That's why we're happy to say we got the chance to run the Quadrant benchmark on Motorola's Tegra 2-powered Xoom, and have a number with which to compare it against the many competitors sure to breech Android's bow soon. 1823 is the magic number -- which doesn't quite compare to the LG Optimus 2X -- but that's with a non-optimized smartphone version of Quadrant running the app on the tablet's sizable 1280 x 800 display, no less. What's more, Quadrant cleared up some of the codename confusion we've seen out of Moto as of late, as it turns out the Xoom also identifies itself as both Trygon and Stingray. Good to know! %Gallery-115593%
Intel announces Core 2011 processor details; hackintosh fans post benchmarks
Intel, the company that makes the processors used in every Mac currently being manufactured, officially announced the details of the new Sandy Bridge processors, otherwise known as the Intel Core 2011 processors. These are the second generation of the Core processors found in many of Apple's products (i.e., the Core i3, i5, and i7 CPUs), and the new silicon could herald good news for future Macs. The Sandy Bridge processor family uses Intel's 32nm microarchitecture and is the first to put the processor, memory controller, and graphics on the same die. In a nutshell, this means more performance and better energy efficiency. TUAW reported back in early December that Apple has committed to use the integrated Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) of the Sandy Bridge processor in future MacBooks, providing speculation that most future MacBooks may do away with a separate GPU. At the current time, the entire MacBook family uses NVIDIA GPUs to accelerate graphics processing. By using the built-in GPU of the Core 2011 processors, the component cost of Apple's future Macs will be reduced slightly. Whether or not that will translate to lower prices for consumers is unknown at this time. More on the new hardware after the break.
USB 3.0 for Mac review and benchmarks (with a LaCie 2big USB 3.0)
It took LaCie nearly a full year to ship the 2big USB 3.0 RAID drive -- a device that was announced in the fall of 2009 -- but now that it's here, it's being accompanied by a concept that actually far outshines the unit itself: USB 3.0 on a Mac. For whatever reason, Apple has refused to offer SuperSpeed USB on any of its machines, even a fully specced-out Mac Pro costing well north of $10,000. We've seen purported emails from Steve Jobs noting that USB 3.0 just isn't mainstream enough to sweat just yet, but coming from the guy who's still bearish on Blu-ray, we get the feeling that it'll be quite some time far too long before Apple finally caves and upgrades from USB 2.0. We're obviously no fans of the holdout -- after all, even a few sub-$500 netbooks are enjoying the SuperSpeed spoils already -- so we couldn't have possibly been more excited to hear that a longstanding storage vendor was about to fill the void that Cupertino continues to ignore. We were able to pick up a LaCie USB 3.0 PCIe expansion card as well as a 4TB (2 x 2TB) 2big USB 3.0 drive and put the whole setup through its paces on our in-house Mac Pro. Care to see how it stacked up against USB 2.0, FireWire 400 and FireWire 800? Head on past the break for the grisly details. %Gallery-111542%
LG Star preview
<div style="text-align:center;"><a href="http://www.engadget.com/lg-star/preview/"><img border="1" hspace="4" vspace="4" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/12/10x1210fbfu5xbd.jpg"/></a></div> The LG Star. The dual-core beast from the east that was once a mere <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/16/exclusive-lgs-4-inch-android-phone-with-dual-core-tegra-2-and/">twinkle in our eye</a> has managed to find its way to the Engadget mansions, having been lent to us by a very generous (and very anonymous) tipster. It's clearly a test device, as evidenced by its diagnostics menus and lack of a lockscreen, but there's no disguising the power that lies within it. We put the Star through a battery of common Android benchmarks and the results were, in a word, outstanding. Basically, <a href="http://www.engadget.com/all/tegra2">Tegra 2</a> will give anything your <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/10/smartphone-buyers-guide-the-best-phones-for-atandt-verizon-spr/">current phone</a>'s running an inferiority complex. Join us after the break as we delve deeper into this upcoming powerhouse of a handset from LG. One thing's for sure: CES 2011 can't come soon enough.<br /> %Gallery-110305%
