So, I've been trying to figure out the relative performance of the very small machines, and I don't just mean UMPCs.  This has proved surprisingly difficult. It seems very few people really care about this. 

There are only a few machines I'm interested in seeing the relative performance.  However, even across these machines there are only really a couple of different hard drive specifications and a couple of different processors that these machines use.  Most use a 30GB or 40GB 4200 RPM disk and a Core Solo at 1.2GHz or 1.33Ghz. Some also use a Celeron processor or a Via C7-M type processor.

Although these may behave differently given difference in the rest of the system components, the only way I've found to make it easy to compare all of them is by gathering performance metrics of the various components and piecing them together. Those pieces are going to be here, of course. 

• Sony Vaio UX1XN, 32GB SSD:
  • Vista Experience: CPU-2.9, RAM-4.3, Gfx-3.2, Game-2.7, Disk-5.2
  • PCMark05: 1636
• Fujitsu Lifebook:
  • Super Pi: 2m 07s
  • PCMark05: 1152
  • Vista Experience: CPU-2.7, RAM-4.3, Gfx-2.0, Game-2.8, Disk-3.4
• Sony Vaio G1:
  • 3DMark03: 689
• Samsung Q1P SSD:
  • 3DMark03: 906
• OQO 02:
  • MobileMark05: 69 ("Half that of the UX180P")
• VIA C7-M:
  • Sandra 2005 SSE2: 1223
  • Sandra 2005 FPU: 534
• Sony Vaio TX5XN:
  • Vista Experience: CPU-2.9, RAM-4.2, Gfx-2.0, Game-2.7, Disk-3.9
  • PCMark05: 1508
• Ubiquio 701 UMPC:
  • PCMark05: 517
• FlipStart E-1001S
  • SuperPI: 2m 42s
  • PCMark05: 1286

Still, after all of the (which, needless to say, wasn't extremely fast to find), there are still a ton of holes.  Unfortunately, so far, the results are so scattered that extrapolating information is likely going to have an even higher margin of error.  However, I may still go through the exercise for fun and post it up here.

One example of the oddities are the Vista Experience scores.  Above, we have them for three different GMA 950 machines and two of three show a 2.0 but the first one shows a 3.2, which raises the overall score substantially.

Another point, too, is the screen resolution.  A lower resolution with the same performance video will actually be a better experience for the user.  However, we don't know if the Vista Experience numbers are normalized to screen size or not.

Additionally, there seems to be pretty good bit of information for most of the Intel line, but very little information for anything based on a C7-M.  The few numbers I did find are pretty bad, too.  This isn't a good sign for quite a few of the micro PCs currently out there.

So, I guess I'll be revisiting all of this soon if I can figure out some information...

Sources

• Fujitsu Lifebook P7230 (Core Solo U1400 1.2GHz, 60GB 4200rpm, Intel GMA950)
• Sony Vaio UX1XN (Core Solo U1500 1.33GHz, 32GB SSD, Intel GMA 950)
• Sony Vaio VGN-UX390N (Core Solo U1500 1.33GHz, 32GB SSD, Intel GMA 950)
• Samsung Q1 (Celeron M 353 0.9GHz, 40GB, Intel GMA900)
• Samsung Q1P (Pentium M ULV 1.0GHz, 32GB SSD, Intel GMS 915?)
• OQO 02 (XP), OQO 02 (Vista), OQO 02 (VIA C7M ULV 1.5GHz, 60GB 4200rpm, VIA VX700)
• PC Magazine Comparison of Sony, Toshiba, and OQO
• Sony Vaio G1 (Core Solo U1400 1.2GHz, 80GB 4200rpm, Intel GMA950)
• VIA C7-M Benchmarks
• Sisoft Sandra XI.SP1a (2007.4) Internal processor numbers
• Sony Vaio TX5XN (Core Solo U1500, 100GB ?rpm, Intel GMA950 ?)
• Ubiquio 701 UMPC (VIA C7M 1.0Ghz, 40GB 5400rpm, S3 UniChrome Pro)
• FlipStart E-1001S, Gaming on FlipStart (Pentium M 1.0GHz ULV, 30GB 4200rpm, Intel GMA 950)

Posted by Shane on March 22, 2007 10:34 PM | Permalink