When can we expect to see Official Benchmarking of x51 vs x50 on WM 5?
I am suprised that none of the enthusiast sites such as Aximsite, Pocket PC Thoughts, Pocketnow, Brighthand, Mobiletech Review, or PDAGOLD have not yet reported on an "official" benchmarking review of an x51 with an upgraded x50.
With the x51 removing the back up battery and ability to shut off, there must be differences in battery life?
And with the x51 using NAND flash & x50 using NOR, there must be diffrences in performance as well?
I am suprised that no media outlet has done this yet? The x50 Upgrade has been out now for 2 weeks.
I am suprised that none of the enthusiast sites such as Aximsite, Pocket PC Thoughts, Pocketnow, Brighthand, Mobiletech Review, or PDAGOLD have not yet reported on an "official" benchmarking review of an x51 with an upgraded x50.
With the x51 removing the back up battery and ability to shut off, there must be differences in battery life?
And with the x51 using NAND flash & x50 using NOR, there must be diffrences in performance as well?
I am suprised that no media outlet has done this yet? The x50 Upgrade has been out now for 2 weeks.
The reason X51v is superior in battery life compared to X50, is indeed the use of NAND Flash ROM. Since flash ROM doesn't need constant flow of battery power unlike the X50's. Altho it's way slower than RAM, it isn't really noticeable while using a X51.
I think on heavy usage the difference between X50 and X51 was about 1-2 hours extra battery life? (depending on what you are running tho BT/WiFi/Sound/CPU)
No, i am referring to X50 on Wm 5 with PSD not a STD x50
Originally Posted by xSunnYx
The reason X51v is superior in battery life compared to X50, is indeed the use of NAND Flash ROM. Since flash ROM doesn't need constant flow of battery power unlike the X50's. Altho it's way slower than RAM, it isn't really noticeable while using a X51.
I think on heavy usage the difference between X50 and X51 was about 1-2 hours extra battery life? (depending on what you are running tho BT/WiFi/Sound/CPU)
Thanks, but i am reffering to upgraded x5o not std x50 on 2003 se
I don't think the type of ROM has ANYTHING to do with battery life. The reason WM5 has better battery life is because the OS can drain the battery farther, since there is nothing in RAM. In older devices, the OS would cut the system off with enough juice left in the battery to provide ~72 hrs of RAM protection. Since nothing is stored such in WM5, the OS is allowed to use that power for actual use ...
That and a couple other things like more effecient use of WiFi, etc. The OS, IMHO, is what give the better bat life. Just like some of the ROM upgrades gave the X50 better life, so does wm5. Most, all the hardware is the same except the type of ROM and how much of it.
I don't think the type of ROM has ANYTHING to do with battery life. The reason WM5 has better battery life is because the OS can drain the battery farther, since there is nothing in RAM. In older devices, the OS would cut the system off with enough juice left in the battery to provide ~72 hrs of RAM protection. Since nothing is stored such in WM5, the OS is allowed to use that power for actual use ...
The x51 and x50 are different in the type of Flash rom, and the x51 does not have a back up battey, because of these differences they might be even running a different OS ROM.
For example a 2003-2005 BMW Z4 2.5 has a 2.5liter inline 6, but a 2006 has redesigned engine with valvtronic increasing horsepower & torque.
There would have to likewise some be performance differences in read times, write times and even battery length with the x51 & x50.
Dell/HTC decided to remove the backup battery and change the Flash Rom type for a reason.
The question was it a cost cutting measure or does it make the x51 run better on WM5 than an x50 would?
That is the $64,000 question
Let's see some real numbers
That's why I am asking why we haven't seen any "official" benchmarking by the "pros"
correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Paul_loren is talking about like for like testing.
Both devices are still using ram to cache os files, so unless you use the full power off feature (which effectively soft resets the device) there will still be battery drain when the device is just on standby.
From what I've seen on here users with upgraded x50's aren't able to initiate the full power off.
I'd also be interested in seeing the numbers. Everyone can have an opinion on this but without some benchmarking there is no way to know for sure how the x51v compares to the x50v upgraded with WM5.
I too would like to see benchmarks between the the X50v running WM2005 and the X51. First of all, I've noticed that any access to the "built in storage" of my X50v is painfully slow. My SD card is mucho faster, and so I store all my speed sensitive apps on it. In fact, my 4GB CF microdrive is faster than my "built in storage". It would be interesting to see if the X51 has the same super slow access, or if the new memory type speeds that up.
Second, I'd like to see a battery life comparison between the X50v with 2003, an X50v with 2005, and an X51. I know 2005 supports full power off, but even if you don't have full power off enabled it should still get better battery life because it doesn't have to have a 72 hour reserve for the RAM (even even if you aren't running in full power off, and it is keeping power to the RAM while off, it still doesn't have to worry if the RAM is lost because the battery is drained - it will just reload from ROM once the battery is restored and move on with life). For those who may not be aware, Microsoft mandated that any device running Pocket PC / CE before WM2005 keep enough battery to preserve the contents of RAM for up to 72 hours once the device auto shuts off because of low battery. So, once your Axim forces itself off because of "low battery", you still have 72 hours before you need to recharge before you lose your RAM contents (even though you won't be able to power on the Axim for those 72 hours). This means that when your WM2003 Axim is saying you only have 4% battery left and it is about to shut off, it really has 4% PLUS 72 hours! Because WM2005 doesn't care about preserving the content of RAM, it gets rid of that 72 hour reserve - so, when it says 4% battery left, it means 4% battery left.
I am still wondering why the PPC Media has not reported yet?
Originally Posted by anodos
I too would like to see benchmarks between the the X50v running WM2005 and the X51. First of all, I've noticed that any access to the "built in storage" of my X50v is painfully slow. My SD card is mucho faster, and so I store all my speed sensitive apps on it. In fact, my 4GB CF microdrive is faster than my "built in storage". It would be interesting to see if the X51 has the same super slow access, or if the new memory type speeds that up.
Second, I'd like to see a battery life comparison between the X50v with 2003, an X50v with 2005, and an X51. I know 2005 supports full power off, but even if you don't have full power off enabled it should still get better battery life because it doesn't have to have a 72 hour reserve for the RAM (even even if you aren't running in full power off, and it is keeping power to the RAM while off, it still doesn't have to worry if the RAM is lost because the battery is drained - it will just reload from ROM once the battery is restored and move on with life). For those who may not be aware, Microsoft mandated that any device running Pocket PC / CE before WM2005 keep enough battery to preserve the contents of RAM for up to 72 hours once the device auto shuts off because of low battery. So, once your Axim forces itself off because of "low battery", you still have 72 hours before you need to recharge before you lose your RAM contents (even though you won't be able to power on the Axim for those 72 hours). This means that when your WM2003 Axim is saying you only have 4% battery left and it is about to shut off, it really has 4% PLUS 72 hours! Because WM2005 doesn't care about preserving the content of RAM, it gets rid of that 72 hour reserve - so, when it says 4% battery left, it means 4% battery left.
I would have thought Aximsite, PPCthoughts, PocketNow etc Editors would have been all over this.
I too would like to see benchmarks between the the X50v running WM2005 and the X51. First of all, I've noticed that any access to the "built in storage" of my X50v is painfully slow.
There isn't any point in doing WM5 benchmarking at this point, especially on the X50v. It is a 0.5 release from Dell's perspective, and is far from being stable enough for performance testing. We really need to wait a rev or two for them to code out the bottleneck-causing bugs before we make any comparisons.
__________________ Dell Support Rep on 1/12/06: Only a small number of users are having issues (WM5 on x50v)... Dell will be releasing (update for x50v) but it will not be soon.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
