08-03-2004, 03:00 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
GXmark Results For Pocket PCs
Curious about how your Pocket PC's graphics performance stacks up to the competition? Well, the folks who make the GXmark graphics/gaming benchmarking tool 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!
|
| |
|
|
|
08-03-2004, 03:08 PM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,468
|
|
Nice to see the Loox 420 as high as joint 5th with the iPAQ h4150. Heavens - anyone would think they were identical inside...! :wink:
|
| |
|
|
|
08-03-2004, 03:17 PM
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,878
|
|
Great showing by the 22xx series! :roll:
Steve
__________________
"My eyes are rolling back in my head so far I can see my grey matter bubbling and frothing from reading this thread....bleh." JD
|
| |
|
|
|
08-03-2004, 03:20 PM
|
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 559
|
|
The 194x series did better than the XDA II?
Very interesting...very interesting. Too bad the new devices aren't on there yet. :wink:
|
| |
|
|
|
08-03-2004, 03:22 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 366
|
|
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
|
| |
|
|
|
08-03-2004, 03:45 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 93
|
|
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
08-03-2004, 03:49 PM
|
|
Neophyte
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4
|
|
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..
|
| |
|
|
|
08-03-2004, 04:10 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 84
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by france
|
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
08-03-2004, 04:17 PM
|
|
Neophyte
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by picard
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by france
|
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..
|
| |
|
|
|
08-03-2004, 04:19 PM
|
|
Theorist
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 258
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by france
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
