|
CPU Integer Performance
| |
Compaq iPAQ |
Casio E-125 |
Casio E-115 |
HP Jornada 548 |
HP Jornada 545 |
| Speed (fps) |
33.47 |
25.07 |
21.48 |
11.97 |
11.99 |
| Performance Leader's Edge (%) |
- |
+
33.50 |
+
55.80 |
+
179.62 |
+
179.15 |
The E-125's 150MHz MIPS CPU is 16.7% faster than
the E-115's 131MHz CPU in this integer test. Even though
the newer Vr4122 processor boasts double the cache of the
Vr4121, the E-125 is less than 2% faster if you
compare MHz to MHz. That shows that most of the increased
performance came from the higher clockspeed, rather than
an improved architecture.
Still, the Intel StrongARM processor proved to be the
speediest in integer performance. At 206MHz, it is 33.5%
faster than the E-125's 150MHz Vr4122! |
CPU Floating Point Performance
| |
Compaq iPAQ |
Casio E-125 |
Casio E-115 |
HP Jornada 548 |
HP Jornada 545 |
| Speed (fps) |
0.564 |
0.651 |
0.399 |
0.143 |
0.144 |
| Performance Leader's Edge (%) |
+
15.46 |
- |
+
63.34 |
+
355.38 |
+
352.22 |
In this test of the CPU's floating point capabilities, the
E-125 now reigns supreme. Even with a slower processor, it
is 15% faster than the Compaq iPAQ in this test.
However, this pathetic performance by the StrongARM
processor is due to the fact that casting is used in this
test. |
Display Performance
| |
Compaq iPAQ |
Casio E-125 |
Casio E-115 |
HP Jornada 548 |
HP Jornada 545 |
| Speed (fps) |
71.54 |
53.88 |
45.05 |
20.72 |
20.79 |
| Performance Leader's Edge (%) |
- |
+
32.79 |
+
58.80 |
+
245.35 |
+
244.11 |
In the display test, the E-125 was 19.6%
faster than the E-115. Although the E-125 was more than
twice as fast as the HP Pocket PCs, it was still a lot
slower than the Compaq iPAQ. |
Flicker Test
| |
Compaq iPAQ |
Casio E-125 |
Casio E-115 |
HP Jornada 548 |
HP Jornada 545 |
| Speed (fps) |
29.57 |
22.18 |
18.82 |
10.27 |
10.35 |
| Performance Leader's Edge (%) |
- |
+
33.32 |
+
57.12 |
+
188.07 |
+
185.70 |
| Flicker? |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
The visual quality of the fractals generated by this test
was best in both the Compaq iPAQ and the Casio E-125
Pocket PCs. The older Pocket PCs like the E-115 and the HP
Jornadas fared poorly, with the fractals flickering
throughout the test. |
3D Performance
| |
Compaq iPAQ |
Casio E-125 |
Casio E-115 |
HP Jornada 548 |
HP Jornada 545 |
| Speed (fps) |
7.70 |
5.18 |
4.40 |
3.45 |
3.60 |
| Performance Leader's Edge (%) |
- |
+
48.65 |
+
75.00 |
+
123.19 |
+
113.89 |
The 3D rendering capabilities of the E-125 improved by 17.8%
over that of the E-115 although the iPAQ is still
significantly faster. |
Memory & CPU Score
| |
Compaq iPAQ |
Casio E-125 |
Casio E-115 |
HP Jornada 548 |
HP Jornada 545 |
| Speed (fps) |
41.60 |
10.40 |
8.70 |
8.75 |
9.30 |
| Performance Leader's Edge (%) |
- |
+
300.00 |
+
378.16 |
+
375.43 |
+
347.31 |
The memory & CPU score of the iPAQ is simply amazing.
The other Pocket PCs is just so far away. Even the E-125
is only 19.5% faster than the E-115. Surprisingly,
the Jornada Pocket PCs performed quite well in this test,
in comparison to the Casio Pocket PCs. |
Real Floating Point Performance
| |
Compaq iPAQ |
Casio E-125 |
Casio E-115 |
HP Jornada 548 |
HP Jornada 545 |
| Speed (fps) |
4.43 |
2.20 |
2.00 |
2.20 |
2.20 |
| Performance Leader's Edge (%) |
- |
+
101.52 |
+
121.67 |
+
101.52 |
+
101.52 |
When it came to the this test, the StrongARM finally
showed its muscle in floating point operations. The E-115
was the weakest while the other Pocket PCs showed the same
level of performance. Weird, eh? |
|
|
|
