Related
HTC Wizzard seems to be 1/2 times faster than the Magician even thought the processor is rated slower in MHz rating.
Judging from the PC arena where a Pentium M processor @ 2.0 GHz performs as fast as a Pentium 4 processor @ 3.8GHz i beleive we are going to be happy about the Wizzards performance once we see more detailed benchmarks.
The benchmark table found below was found in a review about another device but it includes Wizzard and Magician Benchmark numbers as well.
That is excellent info and great news
Finally some facts and figures - encouraging ones at that!
yes they are indeed encouraging, i hope to see more detailed figures soon in order to decide whether to go for the device or not. lets all hope that there gonna be plenty of reviews once the device hits the streets.
Its the ol AMD Itel thing where it sounds worse but in fact its not that bad actually... the question here is "sound the bench march still be in Mhz or MIPS ?" to help compaire...
Terran
Although the wizard fares better than the magician... Java for me is not convincing enough. You can check out www.jbenchmark.com for a complete database of java benchmark on mobile phone/smartphone/pda-phone.
Check out HP iPAQ Hx4700... It only manage a mere 31 point on the same benchmark.
Image manipulation 54
Text 87
Sprites, game scene 28
3D transformation 22
User interface 9
It totally depends on what version the Java runtime it was running on.
:shock: :shock: :shock:
so are there any benchmark software like PCmark for PDA ??
what do you guys think about the wm6.5 will it do good?
i think it will be a flop like vista. the os must be fast and react good so far i have seen the wm is now the baddest os. the android seems better the iphone os is on of the fastest that i have seen. why dont they start over again make a new kernel?????
for example the xperia has a lot of ram and mhz but it still react slow sometimes i had a htc elf and that was almost even fast as the experia how come.
maybe they have fixt it in wm6.6 but in barcelona they wheren't impressed the new interface was slow and crashed sometimes (ok i know it is beta).
i would like to run android on xperia
ok so let me hear your opinions
and sorry for my bad english
it use the same ce core wm have been using since wm5 == CE5
so don't expect better response or performance
and since it's a ui makeover more likely the opposite
wm7 will use CE6 so that may be a diff story
this is unlike vista vs. windows7 as they use the same core which is newer then xp and 2000 used
ok so you say the diff between 6.1 and 6.5 won't be so much. did microsoft told about the changes and diff between them? i'm very curious about it only thing that i see is a little bit changes in the ui (and is still not great) but they didnt say anything about performence for example.
Rudegar said:
it use the same ce core wm have been using since wm5 == CE5
so don't expect better response or performance
and since it's a ui makeover more likely the opposite
wm7 will use CE6 so that may be a diff story
this is unlike vista vs. windows7 as they use the same core which is newer then xp and 2000 used
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You say this, but even using the same core Windows 7 and Windows Vista have significant performance differences.
It is still possible that employing a different UI implementation tactic this version of WinMo could be improved, performance wise.
alias_neo said:
You say this, but even using the same core Windows 7 and Windows Vista have significant performance differences.
It is still possible that employing a different UI implementation tactic this version of WinMo could be improved, performance wise.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
good windows mobile for me
8125 clanker running on wm6r5
I have an old 8125 clanker.
I upgraded from 6.1 to wm6r5 full final cooked by mfrazzz. It has limited memory resource (to start with: storage=25MB & Program=22MB).
I have it overclock to 240 MHz and using oxios hibernate.
I have installed other apps/plugins into a SD card.
I can run multiple apps that reduce the memory to 7-8 MB and find it very stable compared to when I was using 6.1. Of course, if I find my memory is to low then I will start to close other apps.
I am not sure how it relates to devices with 400 MHz with more memory. I could only guess that there might not be much improvement in performance, but for us with limited resource and slow processor I felt that there is beneficial improvement to move from 6.1 to 6.5
alias_neo said:
You say this, but even using the same core Windows 7 and Windows Vista have significant performance differences.
It is still possible that employing a different UI implementation tactic this version of WinMo could be improved, performance wise.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is completely true. As many can attest, Windows 7's performance is much better than Vista. Likewise, I would imagine Windows Mobile has the same potential. Microsoft simply needs to tweak it for performance. The question is will they do it?
8525Smart said:
........ Microsoft simply needs to tweak it for performance. The question is will they do it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
they have to! if they still want to sell wm... or else many phone manufacturers will use different os.
i found this on the blog of jkontherun
jkontherun
Hi i'm playing prototype.Usually i plays it on win 7 but today i played it on win 8.
but to be my surprise i was getting 2-5 fps gain.And also graphic quality was better than Win 7.Is that possible?
Yeah, i got better performance in TF2 too. But Borderlands is not working.
Seem like games compatible..
mr.harsh said:
Hi i'm playing prototype.Usually i plays it on win 7 but today i played it on win 8.
but to be my surprise i was getting 2-5 fps gain.And also graphic quality was better than Win 7.Is that possible?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Windows 8 uses a little less resources and the newer kernel is a bit more optimized and efficient compared to Windows 7. The quality is only possible depending on your catalyst AI or Nvidia AI settings.
Windows 8 is slower than winsows 7 in the games?
I said ok! Well I tested some games and emulators (Halo ce and Dolphin emulator) and I realized that while windows uses more resources 8 windows 7 is better in terms of the fluidity of the games and emulation.
anyone know why?
Odd, bf3 runs well....as do most of my games.. however it won't run in fullscreen. Also worth noting is that aion (my favorite mmo) simply does not start up at all...
Anyone know a free way to emulate windows 7 within windows 8 without having access to a DVD drive perchance?
Sent from my Transformer TF101
guys !
windows 8 is still in beta and it is performing quite well in its beta stages also !!
i bet there is a lot more action packed in windows 8 !!
also the ati/nvidia drivers are available for download for windows 8 !!
compatibility is the issue with pre windows 8 applications !!
but still windows 8 is simply great ! !!
I have tested Win 8 with Battlefield 3 and many other Games ( its my Gaming and Workspace System ) and i must say, that W8 is in all Categories better than Windows 7 ...
The Gaming Performance is at the Moment a Little Bit better, but in the Beta that will be increased - i hope ...
The only way some games will run in full screen is if you use win7 set up instead of the metro, I found this to be true with battlefield 3
did you tried crysis 2
mr.harsh said:
Hi i'm playing prototype.Usually i plays it on win 7 but today i played it on win 8.
but to be my surprise i was getting 2-5 fps gain.And also graphic quality was better than Win 7.Is that possible?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Somehow Windows 8 use resource better than Windows 7.
But you can try to reinstall FRESH Windows 7 and install only one game you gonna play, you would have the same result.
I still don't know why when i install more Applications/Softwares, i lost my FPS while playing games, even they don't run on Background.
Tested with both Modern Warfare 2/3, Battlefield 3, Battlefield Bad Company 2.
I got like the whole smooth gameplay when i had just reinstalled Windows and nothing else but Steam and my games.
But when i start to get my Microsoft Office / Adobe Photoshop in, the Framerate start to drop.
Has anyone tried BF3?
Anyone trying COD MW3 in x64?
MOVZX said:
Anyone trying COD MW3 in x64?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i did, i do and i am
Strike_Eagle said:
Somehow Windows 8 use resource better than Windows 7.
But you can try to reinstall FRESH Windows 7 and install only one game you gonna play, you would have the same result.
I still don't know why when i install more Applications/Softwares, i lost my FPS while playing games, even they don't run on Background.
Tested with both Modern Warfare 2/3, Battlefield 3, Battlefield Bad Company 2.
I got like the whole smooth gameplay when i had just reinstalled Windows and nothing else but Steam and my games.
But when i start to get my Microsoft Office / Adobe Photoshop in, the Framerate start to drop.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
its because your hard drive becomes fragmented,and its slower to load resources,so more cpu time is wasted waiting for objects to be read.
o2neouzr said:
its because your hard drive becomes fragmented,and its slower to load resources,so more cpu time is wasted waiting for objects to be read.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wrong, i have my Disk Defrag every Wednesday...
I install windows 8 on my w500 games played great on it. So I believe when windows 8 comes out will optimized for games.
Visit my site http://goo.gl/rqoVI
Stalker shadow of Chernobyle
Stalker Clear Sky
Stalker Call Of Prypiat runs flawlesly on 8 ... but COP had some picture problems after i activate advanced rendering...
I played WoW, Battlefield 2, and Starcraft without issue, this was back in September however. My understanding is that the desktop environment thus far is fairly untouched so drivers and games should work perfectly.
fifa 12 and need for speed works great on win developer preview
Hi all.
Although Windows 8 is a testing versión right now, 3D Mark runs pretty well.
Its even faster than W7. on my acer one 722 I got 2634 against 2577 of W7.
with 3dmark 05.
I did some Bios updates meanwhile, but ok, good result anyway!
I have the dev preview downloaded but never tried it. I might dual boot with win 7 and see what kind of improvements I get with it.
Futuremark Announces 3DMark for Windows 8
Windows 8 will bring with it a variety of changes—all of our Windows 8 coverage to date will give you the quick overview, but features such as the new Metro interface and expanded support for smartphones and tablets certainly raise a few questions. Those interested in benchmarking Windows 8 using 3DMark will be interested to hear that a new version of the benchmark will be coming for the OS, with the ability to compare performance across all devices a feature sets available for Windows 8.
Jukka Mäkinen, CEO of Futuremark, stated, "With Windows 8 gamers will be able to enjoy their games on a wide range of devices from lightweight tablets to heavy-duty desktop rigs. Faced with so much choice it will be hard to work out which devices offer the best value for money. Fortunately 3DMark for Windows 8 will be our most wide-reaching 3DMark ever, able to accurately measure and compare gaming performance across all devices and graphical feature sets available with Windows 8."
Tentatively titled 3DMark for Windows 8, the benchmark provides the following:
Measures and compares gaming performance on all Windows 8 devices
Stunning real-time scenes stress test all levels of hardware
Supports both x86 and ARM-based architectures
Can be used in both Metro UI and 'classic' Windows environments
Created in co-operation with the world’s leading technology companies
Currently in development, expected to be released in 2012
It's obviously too early to get specifics on the benchmark (and the above Futuremark-provided image very likely has nothing to do with 3DMark for Windows 8); however, it will at least be intersting to finally get a chance to compare hardware performance across more devices—including x86 platforms—in an apples-to-apples manner.
good nice thing
What would be fast on a old dell with 1.oghz
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
Debian
Shark_On_Land said:
What would be fast on a old dell with 1.oghz
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm pretty sure Debian would run way faster than Windows 8 on your Dell. My old Toshiba Satellite is running Ubuntu 11.10 way faster than it did Windows Vista.
Shark_On_Land said:
What would be fast on a old dell with 1.oghz
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
of course debian or at least just run windows 7 windows 8 is not PC friendly as much as windows 7 its a dev preview not even a beta yet so its not even worth keeping as a daily OS because march will come around and then youll need to install the beta
im not gonna be one of those ass holes and say its the wrong section lol but yeah dude watch out lucky this aint the android forum
atadres said:
of course debian or at least just run windows 7 windows 8 is not PC friendly as much as windows 7 its a dev preview not even a beta yet so its not even worth keeping as a daily OS because march will come around and then youll need to install the beta
im not gonna be one of those ass holes and say its the wrong section lol but yeah dude watch out lucky this aint the android forum
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, thanks for not completely burning me but I use Windows 8 as my daily OS and even though I mostly post on the Android forums, I think I have some rights to post here right?
Sent from my iPad 2
Windows will never be faster than linux, especially on slower/older computers!
When it comes to net books.
I've found that
Linux is faster than windows 7 32 bit. 64 bit windows is terrible to run.
Windows 8 64 bit runs great almost as good as Ubuntu.
Both the net books I've installed this on are atom based and have maxed memory.
windows 8 is much lighter and quicker than the older versions of windows but i think linux still takes the cake this round but it is still just a dev preview that we are seeing now.
Windows V Linux
There is a lot of populous opinion being regurgitated here. I have to agree though that on older hardware Linux has a better chance of performing well but just like any OS if you want it to feel snappy you wont be able to load it with all of the bells and whistles that a new machine will support.
Beyond that I've done some evaluations between Windows and Linux, Ubuntu specifically. Using a couple of models of laptop ranging from 1-3 years old Windows 7 booted faster and consistently ran better/faster than the same pc on linux. We ran the test as side by side comparisons then switch OS's and reran the test.
These were all default installs with only drivers or applications being tested added where necessary.
Overall Windows required fewer clicks and less time to perform the tasks being tested. The only area where Ubuntu was a clear winner wan in a simpler install and setup process than windows. After that it either tied or lost to windows.
We didn't include cost or time to train in our evaluation.
Lacedaemon said:
I'm pretty sure Debian would run way faster than Windows 8 on your Dell. My old Toshiba Satellite is running Ubuntu 11.10 way faster than it did Windows Vista.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well yeah, vista is the worst system hog Microsoft has ever released.
Windows 8 supposedly is the lightest Os Microsoft has released in a long time. I've seen it work better on some computers than XP. Just my 2¢
Lacedaemon said:
I'm pretty sure Debian would run way faster than Windows 8 on your Dell. My old Toshiba Satellite is running Ubuntu 11.10 way faster than it did Windows Vista.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, Windows Vista was a hot mess, so I don't think that's a good metric
I've found that Windows 7 (and perhaps Windows 8, but it won't slim down enough to fit on my netbook) was much better at handling disk IO than Ubuntu. This was particularly important for my netbook, which has a very cheap 4gb SSD that locks up on writing. Windows XP and Ubuntu were about the same on this problem, Windows 7 seemed to understand that it needed no access time and a few other tweaks, and handled that right out of the box.
In your case, though, given the processor, I'd say Debian would probably run faster. If you want to do some anecdotal benchmarks, though, I'd be curious to see them.
Not really a fair question yet, as Win 8 is not even in beta yet....so none of us really know. I am sure that there is a significant amount of debugging loaded in the current Win 8 dev preview.
That being said, you mentioned old hardware. In that case I believe most responders are correct: debian/linux will likely run faster on that old hw.
I run win7 (re-installed win7 ultimate to get rid of asus bloatware) and ubuntu 11.04 on my Asus G53SX-A1 in dual boot. This laptop packs new hardware.
My observations:
Ubuntu with all graphical enhancements runs faster, and boots significantly quicker than win7. The installation of ubuntu was also quicker than that of windows.
Ubuntu picked pretty much all the hardware and with a few tweaks I got all laptop features working (function keys and all). Overall installation of "ubuntu 11.04 + tweaks and a couple of drivers (new wireless driver and newest binary nvidia drv from PPA" was half that of Windows 7 ultimate + all the drivers from cd and website.
I recently also switched from ubuntu to debian 6.0.3 on my fujitsu e8210 laptop and noticed that debian runs faster and more stable than ubuntu.
Enviado desde mi Milestone usando Tapatalk
mod edit. please use english on xda
Sent from my Milestone using Tapatalk