Iâ€™ve been testing the Acer Aspire V5 122P, a subnotebook based on the new AMD Temash platform. As part of my testing Iâ€™ve been doing some CPU and GPU-specific tests that will give people and idea of the processing power and efficiency of the A6-1450 platform. You are invited to request a test if you feel it will add something to the assessment.
Test device: Acer Aspire V5 122P with 4GB RAM, 500GB Hard Drive. Original OS build (Windows 8)
Processes after boot: 59.
All tests run in High-Performance mode and CPU speed checked: 1.39Ghz.
Heat / Noise of the system will be addresses in the product review. No comment or summary is being made here. This post is just for test results. Problems of achieving a constant 1.39Ghz clock will be addressed in the Acer Aspire V5 122P review.
IMPORTANT NOTE: A background process is continuously taking 2-10% while these tests (System process, average 7%.) When assessing CPU performance the figures should be considered as 0.93 X total maximum possible.
- IE 11 – 456ms
- Chrome 26.0 – 630ms
Peacekeeper Browser Test
Chrome 26.0 – 1205
Passmark performance test
Comparisons in brackets are always against the average of three Passmark scores for the Core i3 2377M.) Overall score (includes disk testing) 741
- CPU Mark: 1840 (A Sandy Bridge Core i3 2377M at 1.5Ghz is 5% faster according to PassMark)
- Normalised clock CPU Mark (taking into consideration the 7% b/g CPU usage) 2119:1935(Core i3 2377M at 1.5Ghz ) =Â (1.09:1)
- Integer Math: 4066 (Core i3 2377M at 1.5Ghz = 26% slower)
- Floating Point Math: 1944 (Core i3 2377M = 27% slower)
- Prime Numbers: 3.98 (Core i3-2377M = 80% faster)
- Extended Instructions SSE: 6.2 (Core i3-2377M = 48% faster)
- CPU Compression: 2663 (Core i3-2377M =Â 8% slower)
- CPU Encryption: 387.5 (Core i3-2377M =Â 35% slower)
- CPU Physics: 86.2 (Core i3-2377M =Â 50% faster)
- CPU Sorting: 1630 Core i3-2377M =Â 10% slower)
- CPU Single Thread: 564Â (Core i3-2377M =Â 40% faster)
Passmark Graphics Tests:
- 3D Graphics Mark: 276.6 (Core i3-2377M =Â 3% slower)
- Graphics 3D â€“ DirectX 9 Simple: 22.0 (Core i3-2377M =Â 11% slower)
- Graphics 3D â€“ DirectX 9 Complex: 12.3 (Core i3-2377M =Â 3% slower)
- Graphics 3D â€“ DirectX 10: 1.63 (Core i3-2377M =Â 76.% faster)
- Graphics 3D â€“ DirectX 11: 5.1 (n/a)
- Graphics 3D â€“ DirectCompute: 152.5 (n/a)
Windows Media Player: H.264 + Dolby (.mts AVCHD) 50fps 30Mbps 1080p – CPU level: 5-9% (WMP process only)
YouTube 1080p Playback (Planet Earth: Amazing Nature Scenery 1080p HD)
- Google Chrome Flash playback: 100% CPU in use, some frame drops.
- Google Chrome HTML5 playback: Approx 20% CPU used by Chrome processes
- IE10 HTML5: 5-7% CPU
- IE 10 Flash: Approx 10%
CrystalMark 2004R3 CPU tests
- ALU Fibonacci: 8239
- ALU Napeirian: 5370
- ALU Eratosthenes: 2529
- ALU Quick Start: 5206
- ALU Total: 21366
- FPU MikoFPU:2569
- FPU RandMeanSS: 8670
- FPU FFT:4563
- FPU Mandelbrot:3276
- FPU Total: 19100
CPU power usage.
Without specialised test equipment it is difficult to do this in a controlled way but by using Perfmon to show the battery power drain figures and running a pure CPU test in quiescent and test state and by noting the % CPU load used by the test process, a rough figure can be calculated. Some DC-DC losses must be factored into the equation but these are estimated at <10%. Update: There may be memory/bus usage during these tests.
Test done on high-performance profile under battery power.
Test 2 â€“ CrystalmarKÂ ALU
Standing usage immediately before test: 7.9W (7% utilization, ave 1Ghz clock in quiescent state)
System max power drain during test: 12.3W (94% CPU load by Crystalmark Process)
Test power: 4.4W
Test 2 â€“ CrystalmarK FPU
Standing usage immediately before test: 8.1W (7% utilization, ave 1Ghz clock in quiescent state)
System max power drain during test: 13.1W (94% CPU load by Crystalmark Process)
Test power: 5W
Update 13:40 13 May 2013:
Test 3 – Prime95 Torture Test (Blend â€“ includes memory testing)
Standing usage immediately before test: 6.7W (7% utilization, ave 1Ghz clock in quiescent state)
System max power drain during test : 17.8W (91% CPU load by Prime95 Process)
Test power: 11.1W
Test 4 – Prime95 Torture Test (Small FFT â€“ minimal memory usage)
Standing usage immediately before test: 7.2W (7% utilization, ave 1Ghz clock in quiescent state)
Test max power drain : 15.8W (91% CPU load by Prime95 Process)
Test power: 8.6W
Normalised: 1700mW / Core / Ghz
Test5Â â€“ Prime95 Toture (Blend) + Cinebench OPenGL
Standing usage immediately before test: 7.2W (7% utilization, buy cheap viagra internet ave 1Ghz clock in quiescent state)
System max power drain during test : 21.1W
Test power: 13.9 (CPU, GPU, Memory)
Estimated max power usage of 4 Temash CPU-cores at 1Ghz, 100%: 3.6W (+/- 10%)
Estimated max power usage of 4 Temash CPU-cores at 1.4Ghz, 100%: 5W (+/- 10%)
CrystalMark 2004R3 Memory Performance Tests
- Read: 4387 MB/s
- Write: 2104 MB/s
- Read/Write: 2116MB/s
- Cache: 44632 MB/s
- Mem Total: 13092
CrystalMark Overall Result at 1.4Ghz
Acer Aspire V5 122P CrystalMark – 85431
Cinebench and Power Utilisation
Again, note that these scores are with an average 7% CPU being taken by a â€˜Systemâ€™ processing the background. Done under battery power, high performance mode. CPU is at 1.39Ghz during the tests.
Test 1 â€“ Cinebench CPU multi-core â€“ 1.3 (1.39 theoretical at 100% CPU availability)
Perfmon drain measured differential: average, high-power profile: Standing average: 6.4W (7% utilization, ave 1Ghz clock), test average: 13.8 (88.2% CPU load by Cinebench Process = < 7.4W)
Test 2 â€“ Cinebench CPU single-core â€“ 0.36
Perfmon drain measured differential: average, high-power profile: Standing average: 6.4W (7% utilization, ave 1Ghz clock), test average: 9.8W (37% CPU load by Cinebench process = < 3.4W)
Power figures assume all additional power drain is due to additional CPU load. Difference in core/Ghz power usage is high between the two tests but fan overhead and GPU rendering work must be taken into account. This could be a significant part of the power drain.
Cinebench OpenGL â€“ 10.58 (best of three)
Power measurements using perfmon. Standing average: 6.6W (7% utilization, ave 1Ghz clock), test max: 17.7W Cinebench process was using 50% CPU. Differential: 11.1W
Platform Idle Power Utilisation
WiFi off, BT off, Sound Off, keyboard backlight off, Screen lowest setting, power saving mode, no foreground apps running, background tasks 7% average CPU utilisation. Power measured by Perfmon. (minimum figure taken.) Some pre-installed apps removed. (Office trial, WildTangent, Noton, Mcaffee)
Screen minimum: 4.14 W
Screen off: 4.04W
Screen 100%: 5.1W
Screen 50%: (enough for living-room usage) , 4.5W
Screen 50%, Wi-Fi On connected (802.11n, two walls from hotspot): 5.2W
Note/Warning: Keyboard backlight adds approx 1W
PCMark Â 7
PCMark Â 7 (System test – Acer Aspire V5-122P) – 1364
3DMark06 – 2946 (1280×768 resolution)
3DMark11 – 534 Points (1280×720 resolution,Â centred)
Power Director 10 Rendering Test.
Source: 55 second 1080p, 30Mbps, 25FPS, H.264 with DOlby audio.
Rendered in PowerDirector 10 with a 6mbps 720p H.264 profile in 79 seconds, Fast video rendering option not available.
Rendered in PowerDirector 11 with a 6mbps 720p H.264 profile in 54 seconds,Â Fast video rendering optionÂ available, enabled.
Rendered in PowerDirector 11 with a 6mbps 720p H.264 profile in 80 seconds,Â Fast video rendering optionÂ available, disabled.
Notes: Enabling ‘OPenCL acceleration’ in PowerDirector 11 as well as the default hardware acceleration resulted in no difference in rendering time.
As with previous AMD APUs it seems that the CUDA acceleration isn’t that strong.
Testing PD11 next.Â
Performance is on-par with Intel Clovertrail. 720p editing possible with an SSD-based Temash system in our opinion. (PowerDirector 11 is a mid-range video editor that supports many forms of hardware acceleration)
Gaming – Just Cause 2 Demo
I’ve chosen this demo as it’s the one I use fortesting and I’m glad I did because it’s just beat a Lenovo X1 Carbon X1 in optimised settings. In default settings it lies somewhere between the HD3000 and HD4000 performance results we’ve seen to date which is more than the 3D benchmarks would suggest.
If this was ifixit you’d probably being seeing a score of 8 or more because there are a lot ofÂ serviceableÂ parts inside. Even the heatsink is easy take off. You’ll see a close-up of the AMD A6-1450 below. A world exclusive of course ;-) Click for larger images.
- CPU ID: AT1450IDJ44HM
- IA 1309SSY