I'm assuming people use this free utility to check the speeds of various operations on the Axim:
http://www.spbsoftwarehouse.com/prod...ark/index.html

...and a discussion of various different pdas at Geekzone:
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?ContentId=2028


...but I can't search and find anything on it here at Aximsite.

What is the consensus on the way the Axim fares in this? It seems awfully slow in a number of categories, which I find quite surprising.

Has anyone evaluated this, and I'm just not seeing the thread?

What if this weren't a rhetorical question?

I could not tell if those numbers were with the X3 in Auto or in Max Performance. If they were in Auto, the X3 was set with a PXBus at 100 mhz (where it defaults) while the others on top were running the PXBus at 200 mhz (their only stock setting available).

Anytime I see an Axim benchmark, I always look for this.

There is a thread around here where a gaming site had benchmarked the Axim at the Auto setting. When they were made aware of the difference, they re-did the benchmarks at the proper PXBus setting. If I find the thread, I will post the link here.

-JmE-

Edit:

The thread link is here http://www.aximsite.com/boards/showt...threadid=28927

I looked at the corrected number and it appears to be the same as on the link you provided. Therefore, I would guess that the one you were looking at is running at the Max Performance setting which would be the correct comparison.

Hello!

Good question, and I shall clarify this there... This was on Auto, which is the default. I always run the test using the stock settings.

Cheers!

Mauricio Freitas - www.geekzone.co.nz

Hmmm... that is interesting because the numbers did change for Pyrogamer when they switched.

The problem is that the Axim gives a little more functionality because they make it easy to set the PXA processor via the included utility. Whereas HP does not include that function. Hence, the poor Axim is stuck running at a PXBus of 100 and autoscaling when left at the default setting. The HP, on the otherhand is running at a PXBus of 200 which prohibits Autoscaling.

To me it is like comparing two cars on top speed while one is left in a lower gear.

Axims should not really be compared without setting the speed to Max Performance. It is not a fair comparison.

-JmE-

Fair comment. But I tested it the way a non-power user would see it. Some don't even open the settings app.

If this were a power user test I could add Pocket Hackmaster to the mix, and then I'd have turbo maximum test for all models

Mauricio Freitas - www.geekzone.co.nz

I do not agree. Pocket Hack Master is a thrid party application that can be used to overclock the processor, etc beyond manufacturer's specifications. The Max Performance setting is part of the supplied power savings settings. They simply chose to default it to Auto. HP chose not to even allow the power savings setting. I felt this was a little sneaky of HP when the 2210 came out because it looked great on benchmarks compared to other PPCs (which were set at the lower PXBus setting in PPC2002).

This is not a power user setting. This is a simple power savings setting. I feel those doing benchmarks should take the responsibility to either compare apples to apples (PXBus the same if stock settings allow) or at least note the inequity of benchmark. This is not meant to be inflamatory, but I think it is very reasonable since people might make decisions based up the benchmark.

-JmE-

Again, good points. I'll ammend the article and add information on this.

Mauricio Freitas - www.geekzone.co.nz

Thanks. I do appreciate it.

-JmE-

Can I move back to my original issue with this software, and the way that Axims (X5s in my case) seem to stack up against any and all of the ipaqs?

I would have thought, judging strictly on chip speeds and such, that we would not be looking so very much slower. Has anyone benchmarked the benchmark software? Has this sw been proven to be accurate in the way it evaluates all of the models it tests?

Thanks for your previous replies...or conversations.

What if this weren't a rhetorical question?

Okay, not much interest in this, I guess. I'll post my benchmarked results, in case anyone else ever looks for information on the sdb benchmark software. The reads for the X5 are so low I can hardly believe them...

Spb Benchmark index 366.79 (iPAQ 3650 scored 1000)
CPU index 783.48 (iPAQ 3650 scored 1000)
File system index 205.39 (iPAQ 3650 scored 1000)
Graphics index 420.67 (iPAQ 3650 scored 1000)
Platform index 427.98 (iPAQ 3650 scored 1000)

Main test results

Test Time Speed % of iPAQ 3650* speed
Write 1 MB file 1498 ms 684 KB/sec 86%
Read 1 MB file 713 ms 1.4 MB/sec 8%
Copy 1 MB file 1271 ms 806 KB/sec 102%
Write 10 KB x 100 files 3820 ms 268 KB/sec 48%
Read 10 KB x 100 files 980 ms 1.02 MB/sec 16%
Copy 10 KB x 100 files 4326 ms 237 KB/sec 50%
Directory list of 2000 files 63.5 ms 31.5 thousands of files/sec 26%
Internal database read 2521 ms 397 records/sec 94%
Graphics test: DDB BitBlt 24.5 ms 40.8 frames/sec 152%
Graphics test: DIB BitBlt 81 ms 12.4 frames/sec 91%
Graphics test: GAPI BitBlt 22 ms 45.5 frames/sec 21%
Pocket Word document open 12237 ms 21.3 KB/sec 69%
Pocket Internet Explorer HTML load 5093 ms 4.86 KB/sec 37%
Pocket Internet Explorer JPEG load 4119 ms 61.5 KB/sec 117%
File Explorer large folder list 9418 ms 212 files/sec 41%
Compress 1 MB file using ZIP 18362 ms 55.2 KB/sec 52%
Decompress 1024x768 JPEG file 932 ms 302 KB/sec 94%
Arkaball frames per second 27 ms 37 frames/sec 34%
CPU test: Whetstones MFLOPS 5871 ms 0.063 Mop/sec 137%
CPU test: Whetstones MOPS 1166 ms 54 Mop/sec 158%
CPU test: Whetstones MWIPS 12440 ms 4.02 Mop/sec 135%
Memory test: copy 1 MB using memcpy 15.4 ms 65 MB/sec 92%

What if this weren't a rhetorical question?