UMPCFever continue their hands-on with the Aigo MID and have been playing with the device running under Windows. While they were there they did a CrystalMark test which gives us the first ever look at how various parts of a Silverthorne-based MID might perform. However, I would take these results with a large pinch of salt as they appear to be on the low side. The memory speed and disk speed figures look especially low so there could be some driver issues. Certainly the graphics figures should be ignored at this stage.
I’d advise to wait for real-life browsing and video figures from the system while running the Atom-optimised Moblin build rather than a vanilla XP build that has never heard of Poulsbo or Silverthorne!
On the image at the top right, from the top are the total score, the ALU test score, the FPU test score the MEM, HDD, GDI, D2D and OGL scores from the Crystalmark test. For a list of UMPC crystalmark scores, see Ctitanics table of results from various sources.
UMPCFever Aigo MID CrystalMark test video.
Update: A more detailed discussion is continuing on Atom performance details in the forum here.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:20 am
Not bad, for a 800MHz version without Hyperthreading. The ALU and the FPU tests are unaffected by drivers, and it scales nearly 100% with CPU clock speed. From here: http://www.tweaks2k2.com/Vista_score.htm
If we scale the clock to 1.86GHz the ALU score would come out to be 4200 and FPU as 4000, which is better than what Q1P with Pentium M 1GHz would score, and that’s NOT accounting for hyperthreading.
By the way, some questioned that the good integer performance doesn’t help games, but good FP will. IT IS WRONG. FP operations are done on GPUs and integer operations help with handling the drivers, running the AI and Physics.
Reply (threaded)
May 19th, 2008 at 3:45 am
Is Atom 800Mhz really that good? I just tested my HP Mini 2133 1Ghz version with XP, and it got ALU 1628, FPU 1595.
Reply (threaded)
May 19th, 2008 at 4:28 am
“Is Atom 800Mhz really that good? I just tested my HP Mini 2133 1Ghz version with XP, and it got ALU 1628, FPU 1595.”
Not itn’s not that the Atom is really “that good” it’s just that the C7 is really that bad. The C7 is just a dog. It had it’s place in the market several years ago, but it’s time has come and gone. It offers neither power-savings nor performance that make it at all attractive. What it offered was low low cost and availablity that HP needed to get their netbook into production to be available for schools to buy for this school year. The C7 is dead, make way for Isaiah!
Reply (threaded)
May 19th, 2008 at 7:04 am
yes, the performance of Intel Atom Z500 is not that good. even worse than Kohjinsha SH6 running at 600MHz (Intel A100 processor)
http://www.umpcfever.com/news/?postid=793
Reply (threaded)
May 19th, 2008 at 9:42 am
DavidC1.
How do we know that this is a single-threaded result? I thought Crystal Mark would use HT
Steve.
Reply (threaded)
May 19th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
“DavidC1.
How do we know that this is a single-threaded result? I thought Crystal Mark would use HT
Steve.”
Per Intel, the 800Mhz version of Atom is not HT enabled.
Reply (threaded)
May 19th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Weezedog.
Thanks. I must pay more attention in class!
Steve.
Reply (threaded)
May 20th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Even the Pentium-M ULV was more powerful/watt compared to the C7 ULV. Looks to me like Isaiah won’t have a competitive advantage over the Atom… at least the C7 was cheaper than the Pentium-M.
Lets hope OQO brings out the Model 03 with the 1.86GHz CPU soon! A revised (and cheaper) Shift would be nice as well.
Reply (threaded)
May 20th, 2008 at 4:10 am
About OQO model03, rumors said it may possibly use Isaiah, but not confirmed yet.
Comparing to Isaiah 1.0Ghz CrystalMark score, the war just begun.
Reply (threaded)