did someone benchmarks - how is ux compared to nx?

[fogg]

i wonder how the different engine worx? is the sony cpu good to compare with intels? is the UX slower than NX in benchmarks?

would be glad about some facts...:)

[lmame]

pretty tough to say... Benchmarks show that the UX is really slow... But in reality it seems a bit different... Perhaps because of the DSP and the processor which changes its voltage and frequency...

[fogg]

do you got an UX? how is the ability to watch movies? would you say there is almost no difference between NX and UX?

[lmame]

I got a UX for several days now...
The movies just play perfectly on the UX, as it was on the NX.
I fell in fact it is a bit better on the UX but perhaps because the screen is a bit smaller... I saw that the quality was fine on "Good quality":

Qualityes available on Image Converter:
Super of the death (29,97 fps, 320X240, 768kbps video, 128kbps audio)
Super (14,985 fps, 320X240, 382kbps video, 128kbps audio)
Good (14,985 fps, 320X240, 216kbps video, 64kbps audio)
Low (14,985 fps, 160*112, 96kbps video, 32kbps audio)

The problem is I don't have the NX anymore to check... I should be able to see differences with a NX73V next week end and then I will be able to tell you more...


The thing I saw too is that on some movies you have some artefacts (black squares from the compression) that appears when you use Super quality, but not on Good quality... But once agin it should depend from the original movie compression and quality...

[davel]

This is slightly off topic but, has anyone benchmarked the speed of the 29M media memory and the speed of a memory stick? I would think the internal media memory would be much faster since it is on the system bus. If it is faster, it would make the media memory VERY useful for storing programs and data, even large programs; programs like PowerRun and ZLauncher would be even more useful.

Dave

[lmame]

I tried to put several programs on the MS, virtual MS and RAM...

First the copy of 869 ko:
5 tries each and the math :)
RAM -> MS : 4,71 s
RAM -> VMS: 4,14 s

Then I tried to launch two programs:
MMPlay and ScummVM:
5 tries each:

RAM:
ScummVM: 0,50 s
MMPlay : 5,59 s

VMS:
ScummVM: 0,54 s
MMPlay : 5,64 s

MS:
ScummVM: 1,22 s
MMPlay : 6,03 s

I didn't have a benchmark with me so I just did that for the moment...
If an application is in RAM, it comes out a bit faster because you don't have to copy the application in RAM...
But the VMS is faster than the MS... for sure...
But it's only normal as VMS is "made of" RAM.. So it has to be a bit faster than MS...

[davel]

> But the VMS is faster than the MS... for sure...
> But it's only normal as VMS is "made of" RAM.. So it has to be a bit faster than MS...

Thanks for doing the test. I think this makes the VMS memory an import "new" feature of the UX50. It should be very useful and I predict 29M will very quickly become too little.

BTW I believe the VMS is actually flash technology just like the MS. The only RAM in the UX is the 16M heap and the 16M user memory.

Dave

[lmame]

Ok I ran VFSMark this time, it detects the VMS as an "unknown volume":
VFSMark Results VMS MS

File Create: 595% 186%
File Delete: 213% 96%
File Write: 100% 234%
File Read: 454% 303%
File Seek: 842% 380%
DB Export: 359% 124%
DB Import: 941% 375%
Record Access: 804% 430%
Resource Accss: 800% 404%

VFSMark: 567 281

Hope you like it ;)

[lmame]

I took this thread (http://www.cliesource.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19706&highlight=benchmark) of slinger and put it my results so it is easier to compare (thanks to him) :)
VFS Mark

http://www.lmame-bug.com/ux/vfs.jpg

For YCPUBench it seems very hard because for most of the test you get:
results = 0

so ... hard to compare ;)

[ugokanain]

Originally posted by davel
> But the VMS is faster than the MS... for sure...
> But it's only normal as VMS is "made of" RAM.. So it has to be a bit faster than MS...

Thanks for doing the test. I think this makes the VMS memory an import "new" feature of the UX50. It should be very useful and I predict 29M will very quickly become too little.

BTW I believe the VMS is actually flash technology just like the MS. The only RAM in the UX is the 16M heap and the 16M user memory.

Dave

So what is the bottom line, can you use the 29 MB for programs and files, or only for multimedia?

[lmame]

You can use the VMS as it was a Memorystick, so you can use it for everything a MS does :)
Files / programs / MP3 / video and so on...

[hotpaw4]

Try yCPUBench; it includes benchmark tests for native ARM CPU performance:
http://www.hotpaw.com/rhn/hotpaw/ybench062.zip

I'd be interested in finding out the comparative math performance of the HHE (use the Mandlebrot V9 armlet benchmark).

[wolwol]

Originally posted by lmame
Ok I ran VFSMark this time, it detects the VMS as an "unknown volume":
VFSMark Results VMS MS

File Create: 595% 186%
File Delete: 213% 96%
File Write: 100% 234%
File Read: 454% 303%
File Seek: 842% 380%
DB Export: 359% 124%
DB Import: 941% 375%
Record Access: 804% 430%
Resource Accss: 800% 404%

VFSMark: 567 281

Hope you like it ;)

hmm, similar result that i get from iQue 3600, with a 256mb lexar 'panasonic chip' sdcard

File Create 487%
File Delete 276%
File Write 150%
File Read 672%
File Seek 655%
DB Export 341%
DB Import 687%
Record Access 786%
Resource Access 697%
VFSMark 528

hmm, fast eh?
i know this kinda off topic, still, quite an interesting comparison and with T|C, the VFSMark is around 276

[n2ifp]

So are you saying that the UX stacks up pretty good??

[hotpaw4]

Does anyone have a UX-50 or 40 on which they can run some CPU benchmarks? We're all interested how the HHE CPU stacks up.

[lmame]

You can't do CPU checks with YCPU Bench for example, you just got 0 to almost all tests...

The only thing I can say is that I can not "humanly" see differences between NX and UX speed on applications, or games...