GXmark Results For Pocket PCs

[Janak Parekh]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.int13.net/gxmark_results.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.int13.net/gxmark_results.htm</a><br /><br /></div>Curious about how your Pocket PC's graphics performance stacks up to the competition? Well, the folks who make the <a href="http://www.int13.net/gxmark.htm">GXmark graphics/gaming benchmarking tool</a> have tested a ton of Pocket PCs (37, to be precise) and have graphed the results. Unsurprisingly, the 624MHz Axim X30 comes in top, but after that the results get interesting. Take a look!

[Duncan]

Nice to see the Loox 420 as high as joint 5th with the iPAQ h4150. Heavens - anyone would think they were identical inside...! :wink:

[Steven Cedrone]

Great showing by the 22xx series! :roll:

Steve

[Ryan Joseph]

The 194x series did better than the XDA II?

Very interesting...very interesting. Too bad the new devices aren't on there yet. :wink:

[Kevin C. Tofel]

I'm very surprised by the relative poor performance of the PPC's with a separate video controller. I would have expected those to do better, but maybe that's a poor assumption on my part. Figuring they had their own dedicated memory (I think the ATI 3200 has 2Mg of integrated memory), I expected better......

KCT

[scargill]

The e800 seems very low.

Would really like to see the hx4700 performance, but all in all I'm more and more thinking that a VGA screen just isn't for me, it would be "nice" but not worth the extra cost/weight/battery drain when I can get an X30 which will do EVERYTHING that I need it too.

[france]

Hello,

Two quick answer..

We don't support VGA device on 2003SE but after installing this soft : http://www.pocketgear.com/software_detail.asp?id=14679 GXmark can bench them.. We are of course interested to have some benchmark of new devices :)

And.. the ATI imageon 3200 has only 384KB in fact.

Problems with graphic chip are difficult to explain with my poor english, but one of these problems are that internal BUS frequency of MediaQ and ATI chip aren't the same as the processor BUS frequency..

[picard]

We don't support VGA device on 2003SE but after installing this soft : http://www.pocketgear.com/software_detail.asp?id=14679 GXmark can bench them.. We are of course interested to have some benchmark of new devices :)
will GAPI DRAMBuffered devices supported by GXMark in the future? on the new VGA devices it will probably not so easy to change into real QVGA mode.

[france]

We don't support VGA device on 2003SE but after installing this soft : http://www.pocketgear.com/software_detail.asp?id=14679 GXmark can bench them.. We are of course interested to have some benchmark of new devices :)
will GAPI DRAMBuffered devices supported by GXMark in the future? on the new VGA devices it will probably not so easy to change into real QVGA mode.

We're planning to release a new version of GXmark in few months but.. GXmark is based on our graphic library and it changed a lot since the last version of this bench..

Whatever, the new version of our lib (uEngine) is perfectly compatible with 2003SE now..

[jonathanchoo]

Problems with graphic chip are difficult to explain with my poor english, but one of these problems are that internal BUS frequency of MediaQ and ATI chip aren't the same as the processor BUS frequency..

In other words it takes a whole cycle more to process since the GPU's bus is not in sync with the PXA's bus. That is what I think anyway.

[whydidnt]

Can somebody explain for me the difference in the two benchmarks:?
(1) flipscreen (duration of the hardware screen refresh)
(2) duration of some graphic functions used in video games

It seems those units with a dedicated processor are much slower at #1, and perform well on #2. Does this mean that for general usage these guys will be relatively slow, but if you plan on playing games, they'll run fine? Or am I misinterpreting this? The 22xx series for example is very slow in the first score, but pretty quick in the 2nd.

[picard]

In other words it takes a whole cycle more to process since the GPU's bus is not in sync with the PXA's bus. That is what I think anyway.
example the mediaq chip (in h2210) has 33Mhz 16bit interface (one 16bit word transfer is many-many cycles and no burst transfer mode). it's a joke.

[gorkon280]

Nice to see the Loox 420 as high as joint 5th with the iPAQ h4150. Heavens - anyone would think they were identical inside...! :wink:

I'd also say the 4350 would be in there as well as it seems to be pretty much the same as the 4100 series. It also is faster then my 5555 ever was. What I found surprising that it seems a ATI Imageon or other graphic acellerator doesn't really seem to be doing the job. That and several older Strongarm 206 MHz based machines beat out newer PXA250 and PXA255's! This also goes to show you how different each device may be even though they may be seen as equal, differences in the hardware that we don't know about seem to make it peform better. So maybe, just maybe the cost isn't justified for HP to make a upgrade. I still will complain though.

[JonnoB]

Great showing by the 22xx series! :roll:

Steve

That totally surprised me... the 22xx device has been great in general terms, I guess it just isn't a good game device.

[sylvangale]

I think the h2200 has a video processor bottleneck which really hurts it in performance.

Nice to see the h1945 in it's place. I didn't know it was faster than an e800... Now I'm not sure if I should upgrade yet!

[Kevin C. Tofel]

Hello,

Two quick answer..

We don't support VGA device on 2003SE but after installing this soft : http://www.pocketgear.com/software_detail.asp?id=14679 GXmark can bench them.. We are of course interested to have some benchmark of new devices :)

And.. the ATI imageon 3200 has only 384KB in fact.

Problems with graphic chip are difficult to explain with my poor english, but one of these problems are that internal BUS frequency of MediaQ and ATI chip aren't the same as the processor BUS frequency..

OK...not sure I'm understanding...hoping you can clarify.

The Toshiba e80x specs (per Toshiba's US website) show the ATI controller has 2Mg of internal memory. I can understand the the ATI cycle speed may not be the same as that as the CPU, but I would still hope that a dedicated 2Mg of video memory on a VGA capable device would perform better than a standard QVGA device with an integrated graphics controller.

Is it possible that the Toshiba you benchmarked was not a US device and as such has only 384kb of video memory? If so, I'd be curious to benchmark the Toshiba with 2Mg of memory....

Thanks!
KCT

[foebea]

wha wha what??

I am perfectly happy with the 2215 and I must say the results here amaze me a bit.

I primarily play games on this device and i have never had to wait long for anything to load, and the graphics all games are perfectly smooth and happy. If this is only midrange results, then I am not sure i know what highend is needed for, todays games dont touch it i guess.
also video playback is flawless as well (wmv 320x240, 80 megs per half hour from a CF or SD card.)

[france]

OK...not sure I'm understanding...hoping you can clarify.

The Toshiba e80x specs (per Toshiba's US website) show the ATI controller has 2Mg of internal memory. I can understand the the ATI cycle speed may not be the same as that as the CPU, but I would still hope that a dedicated 2Mg of video memory on a VGA capable device would perform better than a standard QVGA device with an integrated graphics controller.

Is it possible that the Toshiba you benchmarked was not a US device and as such has only 384kb of video memory? If so, I'd be curious to benchmark the Toshiba with 2Mg of memory....

Thanks!
KCT

I don't have any e800.. I just saw some specs in the Ati website, http://www.ati.com/products/imageon3200/features.html

Perhaps your right..

[volwrath]

I am even happier with my X3i! I knew it was smokin...

[ricksfiona]

I'm a little pissed, though not overly surprised with the performance of the iPAQ 5550. It's supposed to be top of the line... But I do notice that video performance isn't what I'd like... That Asus A730 is looking pretty good to me right now... I hope it has 128MB RAM/BT/WiFi/SD/VGA.

[france]

I found my mistake about toshiba e800.. graphic chip is an imageon 3220, not a 3200..

So, 2mb, it's good for hard double buffer :)

[nepats]

I would have to say that this program may not be completely accurate just based on side by side comparison of some of the devices. My friend has a 3800 and I have the 2215. According to their tests his device should be faster than mine. However, my iPaq is noticeably faster in almost every way. While he is always waiting for programs to come up mine always come up very quickly. If I am giving him instructions on how to do a certain thing he is always a couple of steps behind. I ran the program on my iPaq and it gave me an overall score of 911 which according to their website should be slow playing games. However, I have no problems running games on it. I don't know what would cause the difference in the scores between the different PDAs but I know I would never go off of this program to determine my next device.