Formula CPU mark, memory mark and disk mark

[Richard (PassMark)]

Any other formula used for mobile devices? If so, how it is supposed to compare them?

Only the CPU and Memory Tests has been standardize across platforms and the CPU Mark and Memory Mark can be compared directly with other PerformanceTests editions. The remaining tests (Disk, 2D and 3D) are not the same on the Mobile vs the Windows release of PerformanceTest and cannot be compared directly.

[Ausfarmerjoe66]

Passmark Rating = 1 / (((1 / (10185.8 * 0.396566187)) + (1 / (812.1 * 3.178718116)) + (1 / (4411 * 2.525195879)) + (1 / (2546 * 1.757085479)) + (1 / (4968 * 1.668158805)))/5) = 4677.595655

This is a non-sensical rating and far too biased towards 2D tests. Take for example the following 2 scenarios

PC 1
CPU 19,000
2D 940
3D 16,000
Mem 3000
Disk 20000


Passmark rating = 7083

PC 2
CPU 40,000
2D 770
3D 25,000
Mem 3000
Disk 20000

Passmark rating = 7070

Can't tell me PC2 is not an overwhelmingly better PC than PC1 in any objective measure.

[David (PassMark)]

I don't think you did the calculation correctly. I got 7024 for PC1 using the PT10 formula.

But the algorithm for the overall machine's rating (the PassMark rating) doesn't let one super fast component dominate the result. And conversely one super weak component can hold back the whole machine. It favours balanced machines.

So a score of 40,000 for the CPUMark is something around 4x a typical average CPU (sold over the last few years). But a 2DMark score of 770 is probably around the average for run of the mill machine. Big part of the problem is that hardware vendors haven't improved the 2D performance very much at all of the last 15 years. But CPUs and 3D performance has increased a lot.
I agree at some point we'll need to rebalance it.

[Leevis]

Hi, Tim,
I couldn't get the CPU Mark value by substituting the values with the following formula:

CPU Mark = 1 / AVERAGE ( test values ) * 1.65
Overall CPU mark is scaled up to be closer to PT9 result

1 / ( 0.149001983 * CPU Integer Math)
1 / ( 0.271311984 * CPU - Floating Point Math)
1 / ( 296.1871085 * CPU - Prime Numbers)
1 / (0.758484696 * CPU - Extended Instructions (SSE))
1 / (0.034970332 * CPU - Compression)
1 / (0.8766779 * CPU - Encryption)
1 / (17.81818182 * CPU - Physics)
1 / (0.392310713 * CPU - Sorting)
1 / (4.908772082 * CPU - Single Threaded)

Below are my results getting from running the test on chromebook with Android app PerformanceTest Mobile V10:

	w	x	1 / (W * X)
CPU Test (Multi-thread)		2149
Integer Math	0.149001983	7173	0.000935636
Floating Point Math	0.271311984	3973	0.00092771
FindPrime Numbers	296.1871085	8.9	0.000379353
Random String Sorting	0.392310713	3971	0.000641904
Data Encryption	0.8766779	1383	0.000824779
Data Compression	0.034970332	28.5	1.003356768
Physics	17.81818182	181	0.000310069
Extended Instructions	0.758484696	740	0.001781646
Single Thread (MOps/Sec)	4.908772082	1533	0.000132888

CPUMark = 2149
As manual calculation, CPU Mark = 1 / AVERAGE( 1 / (W * X))) * 1.65 = 14.71330232
The scaler: 2149/14.71330232 = 146.0583051

How to How to estimate the correct CPU Mark?
Is the scaler a fixed value? or depend on different values produced by different devices?
Thanks.

[Tim (PassMark)]

Data compression is displayed slightly differently in the mobile version (MBytes , while PT windows displays Kbytes).

Changing your data compression value to =8.5 * 1024 should result in the correct calculation (any discrepancy to what is displayed should then just be a rounding issue from not using the exact values and only be out slightly).

[Leevis]

Hi, Tim,
Thanks a lot for your help. Appreciate your effort in showing me the calculation in such a clear way.

[Simon (PassMark)]

For version 11, the updated numbers are:


Passmark Rating = 1 / (((1 / (CPU Mark * 0.33)) + (1 / (2D Mark * 50)) + (1 / (3D Mark * 0.5)) + (1 / (Memory Mark * 1.92)) + (1 / (Disk Mark * 0.37)))/5)
Rebalanced to make 2D have less of an impact on overall score


CPU Mark = 1 / AVERAGE ( test values ) * 1.65

1 / (0.149001983 * CPU Integer Math)
1 / (0.271311984 * CPU - Floating Point Math)
1 / (296.1871085 * CPU - Prime Numbers)
1 / (0.758484696 * CPU - Extended Instructions (SSE))
1 / (0.034970332 * CPU - Compression)
1 / (0.8766779 * CPU - Encryption)
1 / (17.81818182 * CPU - Physics)
1 / (0.392310713 * CPU - Sorting)
1 / (4.908772082 * CPU - Single Threaded)


2D Graphics Mark = 1 / AVERAGE ( test values )

1 / (60.25393099 * Graphics 2D - Simple Vectors)
1 / (3.649649659 * Graphics 2D - Fonts and Text)
1 / (15.78231555 * Graphics 2D - Windows Interface)
1 / (0.463690633 * Graphics 2D - Image Filters)
1 / (4.196513 * Graphics 2D - Image Rendering)
1 / (15.80278134 * Graphics 2D - Direct 2D)
1 / (16.39344251 * Graphics 2D - PDF Rendering)
1 / (13 * Graphics 2D - Direct 2D - SVG)


3D Graphics Mark = 1 / AVERAGE (test values) * 2.35

If no DX10 then 40% penalty is applied, if no DX11/DX12 a 20% penalty is applied
1 / (28.77991307 * Graphics 3D - DirectX 9 Complex)
1 / (88 * Graphics 3D - DirectX 10)
1 / (60 * Graphics 3D - DirectX 11)
1 / (95.96088498 * Graphics 3D - DirectX 12)
1 / (1.093968291 * Graphics 3D - DirectCompute)


Memory Mark = 1 / AVERAGE (test values)

1 / (2.5 * Memory - Database Operations)
1 / (0.077817619 * Memory - Read Cached)
1 / (0.171576582 * Memory - Read Uncached)
1 / (0.282054375 * Memory - Write)
1 / (0.44326614 * Memory - Available RAM)
1 / (48454.32714 * (1 / Memory - Latency))
1 / (0.126149451 * Memory - Threaded)


Disk Mark = test value * 12

Disk mark is a straight average unlike the inverse averages used for the other tests
(Sequential Read + Sequential Write + IOPS 32KQD20 + IOPS 4KQD1) / 4

[Doug Barrett]

The PerformanceTest 11.0 results include a couple values:

****
..
..
Cross-platform Mark (Composite average) : XXXXX (XX%)
Gaming Score (Composite average) : XXXX (XX%)
..
..
****

Am I correct to conclude that these values are not used in either the "CPUMark" or the "Passmark Rating" formula calculations in any way? (I do not see them in the formula calculations shown above, but maybe I missed something somewhere.)

[David (PassMark)]

Correct, these are derived values.

We'll be removing the Cross-platform Mark in the future as it isn't required anymore, this is because we all the CPU benchmarks are now cross platform (Windows, Linux, Mac & Mobile, x86 & ARM). So they are directly comparable now. In older releases just a sub-set of the CPU benchmarks were comparable.

[Doug Barrett]

David - your mention of compatibility across OS's above raises a question that I was wondering about - If I have Performance Test v10 results and Performance Test V11 results for a given system, how well should they correlate? For example, running Windows 10 and Performance Test10, then install Windows 11 and run PerformanceTest11 on the exact same board, should my results be close? Especially on the CPU Mark and Single Thread Mark results? And other results? (And how about going back to earlier versions of Performance Test?)

Thanks.

(My apologies in advance if this question is handled elsewhere and I have missed it.)

[David (PassMark)]

There are a bunch of other posts in the forum comparing V9, V10 and V11. But the short version is that.

1. The benchmarks changed only very slightly between V11 and V10 (more significantly on ARM however, compared to x86). There were much bigger changes between versions V9 and V10. Bigger changes are coming in V12 however.
2. We tried to make the CPUMark value comparable (and it roughly is) between all versions.
3. Use the same release if you can when making comparisons as it removes one more variable.