Passmark Benchmark Scores

[Barb Magario]

PerformanceTestexecutes a collection of different tests on your computer to test different aspects of it's performance. There is a suite of tests forthe CPU, Disk, Memory, 3D graphics and 2D graphics. For each suite there is a "Mark" value. For example the CPUmark. Thesemark values are then combined into a single overall score called the PassMark rating.

The CPUmark value is a measure of the CPU's performance. The PassMark rating is a measure of the entire system's performance. If you want to understand how all the individual scores are combined into Mark values you can find the PerformanceTest formula documented here.

The Mark values are good for a quick assessment of the hardware's performance. However people use computers in different ways with different software. While an attempt was made by us, the developer, to write benchmark codethat resembled real life code used in real applications, it is impossible for any benchmark software to exactly reproduce any particular individual's usage patterns. Some computers are used for gaming, some for web servers, some for office tasks. So you need to apply some common sense when interpreting the results. For example the 3DMark value isn't particularly relevant to an office worker.

For more details of the benchmark tests performed, see the Help file included with the PerformanceTest software and the CPU test description page,Graphics test description page,Disk test description page andRAM test description page

Taking the CPUMark as an example. The CPUMark score is mostly made up of benchmark algorithms that A) execute almost exclusively on the CPU and B) Fully uses the all the CPUs cores that are available.There isn't any point, for example, having a CPU benchmark whose result is linked to the speed of the hard disk. In more technical terms the CPU benchmark is CPU bound.However many real world applications are not CPU bound. They spend some of their time waiting for the hard drive to read a file, some of their time receiving data from the Internet, some of their timeupdating the display, etc. Also many real world applications are not very well "threaded" and only run on one CPU core. So for these applications you won't see double the performance from adoubling in the CPUMark.

For poorly threaded applications that run on a single CPU core, it makes more sense to look at the single threaded benchmark chart.as this will give a much more realistic indication of performance compared to the main CPU benchmark charts.

Also the CPU test has a small dependence on the RAM speed, so at least for the faster CPUs, better RAM can make the CPU look slightly faster. Likewise the 3D, 2D & RAM tests have some dependencies on the CPU speed. So upgrading to a new video card which in theory is double the power, might not give the desired results if the performance is being bottlenecked by a slow CPU.

This chart is made using thousands of PerformanceTest benchmark results and is updated daily. These overall scores are calculated from three different tests measuring the read speed, write speed and seek time of hard disk drives. The chart contains drives from many of the major manufacturers.

In computing, a benchmark is the act of running a computer program, a set of programs, or other operations, in order to assess the relative performance of an object, normally by running a number of standard tests and trials against it.[1]

Benchmarking is usually associated with assessing performance characteristics of computer hardware, for example, the floating point operation performance of a CPU, but there are circumstances when the technique is also applicable to software. Software benchmarks are, for example, run against compilers or database management systems (DBMS).

Benchmarks provide a method of comparing the performance of various subsystems across different chip/system architectures. Benchmarking as a part of continuous integration is called Continuous Benchmarking.[2]

As computer architecture advanced, it became more difficult to compare the performance of various computer systems simply by looking at their specifications. Therefore, tests were developed that allowed comparison of different architectures. For example, Pentium 4 processors generally operated at a higher clock frequency than Athlon XP or PowerPC processors, which did not necessarily translate to more computational power; a processor with a slower clock frequency might perform as well as or even better than a processor operating at a higher frequency. See BogoMips and the megahertz myth.

Benchmarks are designed to mimic a particular type of workload on a component or system. Synthetic benchmarks do this by specially created programs that impose the workload on the component. Application benchmarks run real-world programs on the system. While application benchmarks usually give a much better measure of real-world performance on a given system, synthetic benchmarks are useful for testing individual components, like a hard disk or networking device.

Benchmarks are particularly important in CPU design, giving processor architects the ability to measure and make tradeoffs in microarchitectural decisions. For example, if a benchmark extracts the key algorithms of an application, it will contain the performance-sensitive aspects of that application. Running this much smaller snippet on a cycle-accurate simulator can give clues on how to improve performance.

Computer manufacturers are known to configure their systems to give unrealistically high performance on benchmark tests that are not replicated in real usage. For instance, during the 1980s some compilers could detect a specific mathematical operation used in a well-known floating-point benchmark and replace the operation with a faster mathematically equivalent operation. However, such a transformation was rarely useful outside the benchmark until the mid-1990s, when RISC and VLIW architectures emphasized the importance of compiler technology as it related to performance. Benchmarks are now regularly used by compiler companies to improve not only their own benchmark scores, but real application performance.

Given the large number of benchmarks available, a manufacturer can usually find at least one benchmark that shows its system will outperform another system; the other systems can be shown to excel with a different benchmark.

Manufacturers commonly report only those benchmarks (or aspects of benchmarks) that show their products in the best light. They also have been known to mis-represent the significance of benchmarks, again to show their products in the best possible light. Taken together, these practices are called bench-marketing.

Ideally benchmarks should only substitute for real applications if the application is unavailable, or too difficult or costly to port to a specific processor or computer system. If performance is critical, the only benchmark that matters is the target environment's application suite.

Features of benchmarking software may include recording/exporting the course of performance to a spreadsheet file, visualization such as drawing line graphs or color-coded tiles, and pausing the process to be able to resume without having to start over. Software can have additional features specific to its purpose, for example, disk benchmarking software may be able to optionally start measuring the disk speed within a specified range of the disk rather than the full disk, measure random access reading speed and latency, have a "quick scan" feature which measures the speed through samples of specified intervals and sizes, and allow specifying a data block size, meaning the number of requested bytes per read request.[3]

Benchmarking is not easy and often involves several iterative rounds in order to arrive at predictable, useful conclusions. Interpretation of benchmarking data is also extraordinarily difficult. Here is a partial list of common challenges:

Equipping your school district with the right Chromebooks requires careful consideration. Processing power is a key factor, but deciphering benchmark scores can be complex. Here's a breakdown of two industry-standard tools, Geekbench 6 and PassMark, to help you effectively compare Chromebooks for educational needs:

Remember: Benchmarks are just one data point. Other factors like battery life, display quality, and device durability also play a crucial role. Evaluate these alongside benchmarks to make informed decisions for your school district's Chromebook needs.

By leveraging the detailed performance data provided by PassMark and Geekbench 6 benchmarks, IT decision-makers can make well-informed choices that align with their organization's needs, ensuring they select Chromebooks that offer the best performance, value, and longevity.

3a8082e126