SPONSORED LINKS
On Thu, 30 Oct 97 16:41:52 , you wrote: >On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 16:25:38 -0800, Randal Whittle wrote: > >>Attention all 701 "Butterfly" owners: >> >>Emanuel Brown and I have worked out an arrangement with PEP where they will >>do this CPU upgrade on my 701C machine (currently a 486/75 machine with the >>720 MB HD and a 16 MB RAM module installed) for a nominal cost. >> >>The deal is that I am to run the various "real world" tests & benchmarks on >>the upgrade machine and report to everyone on the list (and I presume Mr. >>Brown will report it on his web page as well) for your consumption--so you >>can see whether the CPU upgrade delivers the significant speed increase >>that makes it worth your while to pay for the upgrade or not. >> >>Now here's the problem that needs to be solved: What suite of "tests" do >>you want me to run? I would like to see a consensus among the 701 users >>about what constitutes a fair & unbiased test suite that would give you the >>information necessary to make a judgement about whether PEP's CPU upgrade >>delivers the goods or not. >If possible, try to do tests on OS/2 Warp 3 or 4, and NT 4.0. Maybe >try a test with a DOS game, the PC Mag benchmarks, and the battery >test, because we don't know what difference the upgrade will make on the battery >life. I'm glad to see this, since I'm interested in the results. I'd be glad to posts the results on the IBM page of my web site, and I think a summary ought to go to comp.sys.laptops, since this is a frequent FAQ there as well (processor upgrades in general, rather than just the 701). As for the tests Paul suggests, my own copy of the PCMag benchmarks is on CD, and since it's incredibly large I think that's the only format they're available in. Running them would require using an external CD-ROM which could bias the results. I think it's a good suite, though, so if anyone disagrees and thinks it wouldn't heard, cool. As for a DOS game, while I've played DOOM on a 701C for over a year, it's my recollection that the replacement chip (AMD or Cyrix) don't handle FPU-intensive tasks very well. So that could be seen as stacking the deck against PEP. There is the Windows Magazine program WinBench - I've recommended it on my site because it's relatively small and simple to use, and reasonably comprehensive. It's no where near as intense as PC Mag's (I often feel pangs of sympathy for system's I've put through this), but the figures are unbiased. I'd say WinBench is good at assessing a system's specs and capabilities, while the ZDNet program shows that and precisely how much the unit can take under a heavy workload. My two cents, epbrown Stop by the Portable Computing Center for reviews, editorials, and the FAQ on laptop computers. http://www.enteract.com/~epbrown Laptops: Kiwi 680TX and IBM 510CS