In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, P Witte
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Hi Per,
It seems like you are the "geezer" to do a good review of the eeePC and
its capabilities for the QL magazines ... :-)
I guess yall must be slavering after those benchmarks. Well, although
theres no harm in slavering a bit, in the interests of public service,
Ive just gone and sampled them. Here are the results of my endeavours:
(If your email client messes up my nice table, just cut and paste the
text into your favourite plain text editor)
eee Comparative Benchmarks
20080512
1 2 3 4 5
| eee | NB | PC | QXL | SGC/Au|
# C68 Dhrystone v2.1
ms/DS | 47| 24| 10.6| - | - |
DS/s | 21,115| 41,632| 93,985| 8,892| 5,000|
VAXmips | 12,018| 23,695| 53,492| 5.1| - |
# GCC Dhrystone v2.1
ms/DS | 37| 19| 8.5| | |
DS/s | 26,724| 53,419| 118,204| | |
VAXmips | 12,018| 23,695| 53,492| | |
# Bogomips v1.4
bogomips | 28 | 58 | 165 | | 13.8|
1) eee PC, 4Gb Surf, nominally 900MHz, but possibly only 6-700MHz,
running the standard Linux, latest Wine and QPC2
2) Notebook, 1.2GHz, 600MHz FSB, WXP
3) PC, 2 Core duo, 2.66GHz, Vista
4) QXL 20 MHz under W98 DISP_UPDATE 1,0 (D Santachiara, 28/08/1999)
5) SGC/Aurora/24MHz/4Mb/SMSQ/E2.90/Cache on (JG & P Witte, March 1999)
9 years ago it seems we were happy to put up with a fraction of
the speed of the eee PC!
Per
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
--
Malcolm Cadman
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
