1src Forums - did someone benchmarks - how is ux compared to nx?

08-18-2003, 09:36 AM	#1
fogg Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: viking harbour Posts: 137	did someone benchmarks - how is ux compared to nx? 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...

08-18-2003, 09:37 AM	#2
lmame Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: France :) Posts: 1,106	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... __________________ I'm a knight seeking for love :)

08-19-2003, 01:23 AM	#3
fogg Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: viking harbour Posts: 137	do you got an UX? how is the ability to watch movies? would you say there is almost no difference between NX and UX?

08-19-2003, 01:49 AM	#4
lmame Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: France :) Posts: 1,106	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... __________________ I'm a knight seeking for love :)

08-19-2003, 10:49 AM	#5
davel Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 34	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

08-19-2003, 11:23 AM	#6
lmame Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: France :) Posts: 1,106	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... __________________ I'm a knight seeking for love :)

08-19-2003, 11:54 AM	#7
davel Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 34	> 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

08-19-2003, 11:59 AM	#8
lmame Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: France :) Posts: 1,106	Ok I ran VFSMark this time, it detects the VMS as an "unknown volume": Code: 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 __________________ I'm a knight seeking for love :)

08-19-2003, 01:12 PM	#9
lmame Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: France :) Posts: 1,106	I took this thread of slinger and put it my results so it is easier to compare (thanks to him) VFS Mark For YCPUBench it seems very hard because for most of the test you get: results = 0 so ... hard to compare __________________ I'm a knight seeking for love :) Last edited by lmame : 08-19-2003 at 01:17 PM.

08-19-2003, 08:36 PM

#10

ugokanain

Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2003

Posts: 219 ugokanain is on a distinguished road

Quote:

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?

08-20-2003, 01:29 AM	#11
lmame Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: France :) Posts: 1,106	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... __________________ I'm a knight seeking for love :)

08-25-2003, 10:20 PM	#12
hotpaw4 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 167	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).

08-26-2003, 12:35 AM

#13

wolwol

Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 386 wolwol is on a distinguished road

Quote:

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

Code:

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

08-26-2003, 07:50 AM	#14
n2ifp Retired Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Manchester, NJ Posts: 12,444	So are you saying that the UX stacks up pretty good?? __________________ Cheers! Larry Winward T\|T3 + SE T610 + SE HBH-65 = BT Heaven!

08-28-2003, 02:27 PM	#15
hotpaw4 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 167	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.