No announcement yet.

Centrino Duo laptop score of 494

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Centrino Duo laptop score of 494


    Just ran Performance Test 6.0 (1006) Evaluation on my machine and got score of 494. I have searched for Centrino and only found a couple of threads. Is this a good score?

    Spec is:
    Centrino Duo T2500 (2 GHz)
    RAM: 2 Gb 667 MHz
    HD: 100 Gb 7200 rpm
    Graphics: NVIDIA Quadro NVS 120M (512 Mb, SOME shared with system RAM)

    Was initially getting score of 300 when running off battery - is this normal? Is the processor throttled back if on battery?

  • #2
    Scores attached


    • #3
      People who have purchased the PerformanceTest software can download V6 baseline files from our database of more than 3000 benchmark results and easily compare their machine to other machines.

      There are 48 baselines in the database for Core Duo Laptops that you can compare you machine to.

      Your CD and 3D results are low. Memory and CPU are good (for the hardware).



      • #4
        I have LG S1 Express Dual. My score is 531.


        • #5
          I just got this program because I bought a new notebook and wanted to get a feel how much I got for my money.

          I think anything over 400 is decent for a notebook. You're almost 500 and running a T2500. That's great.

          I just paid $1,500 for a ne HP dv6000 loaded. T7200 processor (Core 2 Duo 2.0Mhz) 2GB RAM. 160GB * 5,400 RPM * drive. Nvidia GEFORCE 7400 (256MB) video and I got a 534.

          You're CPU Mark is 1054, mine is 1161 which shows, the clocks being equal, that it confirmed what I've read in that the Core 2 Duo is really not much of an improvement over just the Core Duo (just a scheme to get more people to upgrade to the latest greatest in my opinion.)

          My other notebook which is also an HP which is essentially the two year old version of what I have (was top of the line config when I bought it about 20 months ago) gets a PassMark score of about half my new notebook. So the notebooks have doubled in peformance in about 20 months. I think my $1,500 was well spent (I do video editing).

          Pretty impressive to think some people are getting over 1,000 (not in a notebook of course). Wonder what the main difference is that gets you into that stratosphere. I'm guessing it's primarily having an extreme performance graphics card and a 10,000 RPM SCSI drive or something as I don't think there's that big of a gap as far as CPU and RAM performance between the top notebooks and top PC's but I guess dual processors and such could help?

          Now what I'm trying to figure out is why your Memory - Large RAM is so much better than my score. Guess I need to understand what effects that score. Hope HP isn't using crappy memory!

          Another interesting observation is as expected, just drive RPM is not the only factor in performance. My old notebook has a 7,200 RPM 60GB drive and my new notebook with a 160GB 5,400 RPM drive got better scores on the read and right and about the same on the random seek. The higher denisity helps performance which is why I wasn't worried I wasn't getting a 7,200 RPM drive (why I put * around 5,400 above). It uses more battery anyway.

          Last edited by consultant; Nov-10-2006, 02:35 AM.


          • #6
            Some quick comments,

            - The really big scores are being done with
            + RAID systems and high RPM drives (10K and 15K RPM)
            + Overclocked CPUs
            + 64bit systems with 64 bit O/S
            + High end graphics cards (and / or dual cards)
            + Systems with multiple CPUs
            + Lots of fast RAM

            - The large RAM score depends mostly on how much free RAM you have.

            - Yes, the density of the data on the hard drive platters is as important as the rotation speed.


            • #7
              Originally posted by passmark View Post
              Some quick comments,

              - The large RAM score depends mostly on how much free RAM you have.
              Both I and Wiggzie had 2GB of RAM for the test. I'm assuming, like me, he had no other applications open. So we both had AT LEAST 1.6GB free I'd estimate, probably more. So I still don't understand how the LARGE RAM scores could be so different when we have similar setups otherwise.

              So what would make the difference? How large of a chunk does it try to read and write?


              • #8
                Well I went in and disabled all startup programs and virus checking (amazing all the crap running in the background on these new computers). Re-ran the test and more than doubled my LARGE RAM score.