Mobility Site - View Single Post

anpaza · 09-03-03, 08:24 AM

I've posted originally this message on the Dell support forum, but I believe this forum is a better place for such kind of questions.

I downloaded a game that was said to run at 50-60 fps on a handheld similar to Axim X5 400MHz that I own, with PPC 2003 A04 preinstalled. Now I run it and see 20-22 fps instead of the expected 50-60.

I got and ran VOBenchmark and the interesting part is that while it shows most numbers as listed in most Web reviews of Dell Axim X5, the video performance is approximatively twice smaller. For example, at http://www.pdabuyersguide.com/dell_axim_x5.htm the "Graphics Bitmap BitBlt" performance listed (measured with the same version of VOBenchmark that I have tried) is 56.60, while I get ~24. Most other numbers are similar to those listed there (most are actually a little bit higher because I believe they used a PXA250 and my palmtop has a PXA255), but everything related to video performance is a LOT slower. (interesting that in the review above iPAQ 3970 also shows a very poor video performance - just a bit faster than my Dell).

Could this be somehow related to the "poor PPC 2003 performace" that is often mentioned in all Axim forums? Can someone with PPC 2003 (how about those lucky people with the A05 ROM?) and with 2002 run the benchmark so that we can compare the results here?

To make a start, here are my results (just most important and the ones that are very different from those listed on the site above):
CPU: FP 12.38/INT 26.40
Graphics: BitBlt 24.36, StretchBlt 0.30
Filled Rectangle: 3.12
Text: 1.61 (maybe because I have enabled text antialiasing).

What's interesting is that most dramatic differences are seen in tests that involves intense video memory access (MediaQ chip problem?). Filled ellipses are just a little slower (just because they are more a matter of CPU than video memory access) than they should be and filled rectangles are twice slower (because CPU is almost not involved here, just plain storing of pixels into video memory).

09-03-03, 08:24 AM	#1 (permalink)
anpaza Aximsite Prospect Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Petersburg Posts: 13 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	PPC 2003 and Video Performance benchmark I've posted originally this message on the Dell support forum, but I believe this forum is a better place for such kind of questions. I downloaded a game that was said to run at 50-60 fps on a handheld similar to Axim X5 400MHz that I own, with PPC 2003 A04 preinstalled. Now I run it and see 20-22 fps instead of the expected 50-60. I got and ran VOBenchmark and the interesting part is that while it shows most numbers as listed in most Web reviews of Dell Axim X5, the video performance is approximatively twice smaller. For example, at http://www.pdabuyersguide.com/dell_axim_x5.htm the "Graphics Bitmap BitBlt" performance listed (measured with the same version of VOBenchmark that I have tried) is 56.60, while I get ~24. Most other numbers are similar to those listed there (most are actually a little bit higher because I believe they used a PXA250 and my palmtop has a PXA255), but everything related to video performance is a LOT slower. (interesting that in the review above iPAQ 3970 also shows a very poor video performance - just a bit faster than my Dell). Could this be somehow related to the "poor PPC 2003 performace" that is often mentioned in all Axim forums? Can someone with PPC 2003 (how about those lucky people with the A05 ROM?) and with 2002 run the benchmark so that we can compare the results here? To make a start, here are my results (just most important and the ones that are very different from those listed on the site above): CPU: FP 12.38/INT 26.40 Graphics: BitBlt 24.36, StretchBlt 0.30 Filled Rectangle: 3.12 Text: 1.61 (maybe because I have enabled text antialiasing). What's interesting is that most dramatic differences are seen in tests that involves intense video memory access (MediaQ chip problem?). Filled ellipses are just a little slower (just because they are more a matter of CPU than video memory access) than they should be and filled rectangles are twice slower (because CPU is almost not involved here, just plain storing of pixels into video memory). __________________ Greetings, Andrew.