The conclusion of XO-1.5 being nearly 2.5 times faster than the XO-1 could be verified by comparing their hardware specifications. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC_XO-1 (For XO-1) and http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Hardware_specification_1.5 (For XO-1.5) .Also we can see the test results of James'(quozl) at http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ticket/245 which suggests that XO-1.5 is atleast twice as fast as XO-1.
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 4:45 PM, James Cameron <qu...@laptop.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:57:03AM +0200, Sascha Silbe wrote: > > Excerpts from Anurag Chowdhury's message of Mon Oct 25 19:22:09 +0200 > 2010: > > > > > In my logs I noted an average processing time of 0.85 sec for running > the > > > first run of the update () function (i.e. while rendering of the first > frame > > > ) and since a XO-1.5 is nearly 2.5 times faster than a XO-1 so this > > > processing time would approximate to nearly 2.3 second of delay , [...] > > > > How did you arrive at this number ("2.5 times faster")? For what kind of > > operation? > > I agree with Sascha, I don't think "nearly 2.5 times faster" is a > reliable method to predict an outcome. The hardware is very different; > different CPU, memory, and video "card". I also agree on the point that we should not rely on a vague idea of a faster XO-1.5 than an XO-1 to judge the delay accordingly. But still since the XO-1.5 is much faster than XO-1 , and also the issue relates to rendering of an icon which relates to a graphic processing ability , so we are bound to get better(if not 2.5 times better) results on an XO-1.5. > > -- > James Cameron > http://quozl.linux.org.au/ > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel