Intel Core i5-6200U testing with a HP 8079 (N75 Ver. 01.18 BIOS) and Intel HD 520 3072MB on Ubuntu 18.04 via the Phoronix Test Suite.
Compare your own system(s) to this result file with the
Phoronix Test Suite by running the command:
phoronix-test-suite benchmark 1906146-FO-INTELCORE56
intel-core-i5-6200u-280ghz
Intel Core i5-6200U testing with a HP 8079 (N75 Ver. 01.18 BIOS) and Intel HD 520 3072MB on Ubuntu 18.04 via the Phoronix Test Suite.
SAMSUNG MZNLN256:
Processor: Intel Core i5-6200U @ 2.80GHz (2 Cores / 4 Threads), Motherboard: HP 8079 (N75 Ver. 01.18 BIOS), Chipset: Intel Xeon E3-1200 v5/E3-1500, Memory: 16384MB, Disk: 256GB SAMSUNG MZNLN256, Graphics: Intel HD 520 3072MB (1000MHz), Audio: Conexant CX20724, Network: Intel Connection I219-V + Intel Wireless 8260
OS: Ubuntu 18.04, Kernel: 4.18.0-21-generic (x86_64), Desktop: GNOME Shell 3.28.4, Display Driver: modesetting 1.20.1, OpenGL: 4.5 Mesa 18.2.8, Compiler: GCC 7.4.0, File-System: ext4, Screen Resolution: 1920x1080
Intel Core i5-6200U:
Processor: Intel Core i5-6200U @ 2.80GHz (2 Cores / 4 Threads), Motherboard: HP 8079 (N75 Ver. 01.18 BIOS), Chipset: Intel Xeon E3-1200 v5/E3-1500, Memory: 16384MB, Disk: 256GB SAMSUNG MZNLN256, Graphics: Intel HD 520 3072MB (1000MHz), Audio: Conexant CX20724, Network: Intel Connection I219-V + Intel Wireless 8260
OS: Ubuntu 18.04, Kernel: 4.18.0-21-generic (x86_64), Desktop: GNOME Shell 3.28.4, Display Driver: modesetting 1.20.1, OpenGL: 4.5 Mesa 18.2.8, Compiler: GCC 7.4.0, File-System: ext4, Screen Resolution: 1920x1080
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079:
Processor: Intel Core i5-6200U @ 2.80GHz (2 Cores / 4 Threads), Motherboard: HP 8079 (N75 Ver. 01.18 BIOS), Chipset: Intel Xeon E3-1200 v5/E3-1500, Memory: 16384MB, Disk: 256GB SAMSUNG MZNLN256, Graphics: Intel HD 520 3072MB (1000MHz), Audio: Conexant CX20724, Network: Intel Connection I219-V + Intel Wireless 8260
OS: Ubuntu 18.04, Kernel: 4.18.0-21-generic (x86_64), Desktop: GNOME Shell 3.28.4, Display Driver: modesetting 1.20.1, OpenGL: 4.5 Mesa 18.2.8, Compiler: GCC 7.4.0, File-System: ext4, Screen Resolution: 1920x1080
Intel HD 520:
Processor: Intel Core i5-6200U @ 2.80GHz (2 Cores / 4 Threads), Motherboard: HP 8079 (N75 Ver. 01.18 BIOS), Chipset: Intel Xeon E3-1200 v5/E3-1500, Memory: 16384MB, Disk: 256GB SAMSUNG MZNLN256, Graphics: Intel HD 520 3072MB (1000MHz), Audio: Conexant CX20724, Network: Intel Connection I219-V + Intel Wireless 8260
OS: Ubuntu 18.04, Kernel: 4.18.0-21-generic (x86_64), Desktop: GNOME Shell 3.28.4, Display Driver: modesetting 1.20.1, OpenGL: 4.5 Mesa 18.2.8, Compiler: GCC 7.4.0, File-System: ext4, Screen Resolution: 1920x1080
Intel Connection I219-V:
Processor: Intel Core i5-6200U @ 2.80GHz (2 Cores / 4 Threads), Motherboard: HP 8079 (N75 Ver. 01.18 BIOS), Chipset: Intel Xeon E3-1200 v5/E3-1500, Memory: 16384MB, Disk: 256GB SAMSUNG MZNLN256, Graphics: Intel HD 520 3072MB (1000MHz), Audio: Conexant CX20724, Network: Intel Connection I219-V + Intel Wireless 8260
OS: Ubuntu 18.04, Kernel: 4.18.0-21-generic (x86_64), Desktop: GNOME Shell 3.28.4, Display Driver: modesetting 1.20.1, OpenGL: 4.5 Mesa 18.2.8, Compiler: GCC 7.4.0, File-System: ext4, Screen Resolution: 1920x1080
HPC Challenge 1.5.0
Test / Class: G-Ptrans
GB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 0.31648 |================================================
HPC Challenge 1.5.0
Test / Class: EP-STREAM Triad
GB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 4.72101 |================================================
HPC Challenge 1.5.0
Test / Class: Random Ring Bandwidth
GB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 2.70117 |================================================
HPC Challenge 1.5.0
Test / Class: G-Ffte
GFLOP/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 3.21539 |================================================
High Performance Conjugate Gradient 3.0
GFLOP/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 1.09 |===================================================
HPC Challenge 1.5.0
Test / Class: G-HPL
GFLOPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 20.15 |==================================================
HPC Challenge 1.5.0
Test / Class: G-Ffte
GFLOPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 3.21539 |================================================
HPC Challenge 1.5.0
Test / Class: EP-DGEMM
GFLOPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 5.22681 |================================================
HPC Challenge 1.5.0
Test / Class: G-Random Access
GUP/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 0.00204 |================================================
hdparm Timed Disk Reads
Disk To Read: /dev/sda
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 524.51 |====================================================
HPC Challenge 1.5.0
Test / Class: Max Ping Pong Bandwidth
MB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 7551.60 |================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 1MB - File Size: 2GB - Disk Test: Read Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 6933.19 |===================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 1MB - File Size: 4GB - Disk Test: Read Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 6254.56 |===================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 1MB - File Size: 8GB - Disk Test: Read Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 6987.80 |===================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 4Kb - File Size: 2GB - Disk Test: Read Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 3393.89 |===================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 4Kb - File Size: 4GB - Disk Test: Read Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 3677.40 |===================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 4Kb - File Size: 8GB - Disk Test: Read Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 3726.18 |===================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 1MB - File Size: 2GB - Disk Test: Write Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 254.98 |====================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 1MB - File Size: 4GB - Disk Test: Write Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 264.61 |====================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 1MB - File Size: 8GB - Disk Test: Write Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 285.24 |====================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 4Kb - File Size: 2GB - Disk Test: Write Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 255.24 |====================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 4Kb - File Size: 4GB - Disk Test: Write Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 271.24 |====================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 4Kb - File Size: 8GB - Disk Test: Write Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 279.97 |====================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 64Kb - File Size: 2GB - Disk Test: Read Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 6208.18 |===================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 64Kb - File Size: 4GB - Disk Test: Read Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 6527.39 |===================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 64Kb - File Size: 8GB - Disk Test: Read Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 7201.02 |===================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 1MB - File Size: 512MB - Disk Test: Read Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 4076.12 |===================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 4Kb - File Size: 512MB - Disk Test: Read Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 2801.75 |===================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 64Kb - File Size: 2GB - Disk Test: Write Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 261.09 |====================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 64Kb - File Size: 4GB - Disk Test: Write Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 278.01 |====================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 64Kb - File Size: 8GB - Disk Test: Write Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 285.38 |====================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 1MB - File Size: 512MB - Disk Test: Write Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 233.79 |====================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 4Kb - File Size: 512MB - Disk Test: Write Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 230.88 |====================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 64Kb - File Size: 512MB - Disk Test: Read Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 4390.42 |===================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 64Kb - File Size: 512MB - Disk Test: Write Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 205.94 |====================================================
lzbench 2017-08-08
Test: XZ 0 - Process: Compression
MB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 25 |=====================================================
lzbench 2017-08-08
Test: XZ 0 - Process: Decompression
MB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 69 |=====================================================
lzbench 2017-08-08
Test: Zstd 1 - Process: Compression
MB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 279 |====================================================
lzbench 2017-08-08
Test: Zstd 1 - Process: Decompression
MB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 749 |====================================================
lzbench 2017-08-08
Test: Brotli 0 - Process: Compression
MB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 288 |====================================================
lzbench 2017-08-08
Test: Brotli 0 - Process: Decompression
MB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 377 |====================================================
lzbench 2017-08-08
Test: Libdeflate 1 - Process: Compression
MB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 145 |====================================================
lzbench 2017-08-08
Test: Libdeflate 1 - Process: Decompression
MB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 735 |====================================================
Himeno Benchmark 3.0
Poisson Pressure Solver
MFLOPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 1840.50 |================================================
Java SciMark 2.0
Computational Test: Composite
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 1708.37 |================================================
Java SciMark 2.0
Computational Test: Monte Carlo
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 684.09 |=================================================
Java SciMark 2.0
Computational Test: Fast Fourier Transform
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 1070.06 |================================================
Java SciMark 2.0
Computational Test: Sparse Matrix Multiply
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 1587.21 |================================================
Java SciMark 2.0
Computational Test: Dense LU Matrix Factorization
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 4189.24 |================================================
Java SciMark 2.0
Computational Test: Jacobi Successive Over-Relaxation
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 1011.26 |================================================
LuaJIT 2.1-git
Test: Composite
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 918.47 |=================================================
LuaJIT 2.1-git
Test: Monte Carlo
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 347.12 |=================================================
LuaJIT 2.1-git
Test: Fast Fourier Transform
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 213.57 |=================================================
LuaJIT 2.1-git
Test: Sparse Matrix Multiply
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 886.88 |=================================================
LuaJIT 2.1-git
Test: Dense LU Matrix Factorization
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 2103.34 |================================================
LuaJIT 2.1-git
Test: Jacobi Successive Over-Relaxation
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 1041.41 |================================================
MBW 2018-09-08
Test: Memory Copy - Array Size: 128 MiB
MiB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 11241.69 |===============
MBW 2018-09-08
Test: Memory Copy - Array Size: 512 MiB
MiB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 10718.61 |===============
MBW 2018-09-08
Test: Memory Copy - Array Size: 1024 MiB
MiB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 10260.92 |===============
MBW 2018-09-08
Test: Memory Copy - Array Size: 4096 MiB
MiB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 11004.83 |===============
MBW 2018-09-08
Test: Memory Copy, Fixed Block Size - Array Size: 128 MiB
MiB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 6639.58 |================
MBW 2018-09-08
Test: Memory Copy, Fixed Block Size - Array Size: 512 MiB
MiB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 6594.01 |================
MBW 2018-09-08
Test: Memory Copy, Fixed Block Size - Array Size: 1024 MiB
MiB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 6504.00 |================
MBW 2018-09-08
Test: Memory Copy, Fixed Block Size - Array Size: 4096 MiB
MiB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 6628.22 |================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Simple Blit - Size: 32x32
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 279587.55 |=====================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: 12pt Text LCD - Size: 32x32
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 155143.98 |=====================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Simple Blit - Size: 128x128
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 256952.41 |=====================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Simple Blit - Size: 256x256
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 95895.51 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Simple Blit - Size: 512x512
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 19533.35 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: 12pt Text LCD - Size: 128x128
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 111009.44 |=====================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: 12pt Text LCD - Size: 256x256
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 83352.80 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: 12pt Text LCD - Size: 512x512
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 54373.89 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Put Composition - Size: 32x32
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 15173.87 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Simple Blit - Size: 1024x1024
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 8912.70 |=======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: 12pt Text LCD - Size: 1024x1024
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 32526.56 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Put Composition - Size: 128x128
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 11500.01 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Put Composition - Size: 256x256
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 8503.61 |=======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Put Composition - Size: 512x512
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 5392.88 |=======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Rects Composition - Size: 32x32
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 45354.17 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: 12pt Text Grayscale - Size: 32x32
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 154396.17 |=====================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Put Composition - Size: 1024x1024
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 3346.52 |=======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Rects Composition - Size: 128x128
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 35241.23 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Rects Composition - Size: 256x256
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 17805.89 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Rects Composition - Size: 512x512
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 9935.02 |=======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: 12pt Text Grayscale - Size: 128x128
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 110398.30 |=====================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: 12pt Text Grayscale - Size: 256x256
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 82554.46 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: 12pt Text Grayscale - Size: 512x512
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 53410.09 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Gradient+Temp Texture - Size: 32x32
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 15246.71 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Linear Gradient Blend - Size: 32x32
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 17945.19 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Radial Gradient Paint - Size: 32x32
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 17662.90 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Rects Composition - Size: 1024x1024
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 5522.11 |=======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: 12pt Text Grayscale - Size: 1024x1024
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 31971.61 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Gradient+Temp Texture - Size: 128x128
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 14172.79 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Gradient+Temp Texture - Size: 256x256
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 8897.58 |=======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Gradient+Temp Texture - Size: 512x512
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 3209.43 |=======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Linear Gradient Blend - Size: 128x128
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 16740.94 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Linear Gradient Blend - Size: 256x256
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 10637.60 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Linear Gradient Blend - Size: 512x512
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 4036.64 |=======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Radial Gradient Paint - Size: 128x128
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 16951.51 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Radial Gradient Paint - Size: 256x256
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 12015.59 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Radial Gradient Paint - Size: 512x512
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 5169.43 |=======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Transformed Blit Linear - Size: 32x32
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 205110.25 |=====================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Gradient+Temp Texture - Size: 1024x1024
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 2216.68 |=======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Linear Gradient Blend - Size: 1024x1024
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 1828.74 |=======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Radial Gradient Paint - Size: 1024x1024
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 2347.42 |=======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Transformed Blit Bilinear - Size: 32x32
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 46869.12 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Transformed Blit Linear - Size: 128x128
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 193198.67 |=====================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Transformed Blit Linear - Size: 256x256
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 55114.49 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Transformed Blit Linear - Size: 512x512
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 15423.63 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Transformed Texture Paint - Size: 32x32
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 49441.50 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Transformed Blit Bilinear - Size: 128x128
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 42486.65 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Transformed Blit Bilinear - Size: 256x256
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 25935.29 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Transformed Blit Bilinear - Size: 512x512
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 8860.07 |=======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Transformed Blit Linear - Size: 1024x1024
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 69108.10 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Transformed Texture Paint - Size: 128x128
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 46929.59 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Transformed Texture Paint - Size: 256x256
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 18621.36 |======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Transformed Texture Paint - Size: 512x512
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 9579.63 |=======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Transformed Blit Bilinear - Size: 1024x1024
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 4985.11 |=======================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Transformed Texture Paint - Size: 1024x1024
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 5441.06 |=======================================================
Memcached mcperf 1.5.10
Method: Add
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 51217.83 |===============
Memcached mcperf 1.5.10
Method: Get
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 79289.33 |===============
Memcached mcperf 1.5.10
Method: Set
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 51305.17 |===============
Memcached mcperf 1.5.10
Method: Append
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 53966.17 |===============
Memcached mcperf 1.5.10
Method: Delete
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 79660.00 |===============
Memcached mcperf 1.5.10
Method: Prepend
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 54382.63 |===============
Memcached mcperf 1.5.10
Method: Replace
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 53288.20 |===============
Hierarchical INTegration 1.0
Test: FLOAT
QUIPs > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 281417773.33 |===========
Hierarchical INTegration 1.0
Test: DOUBLE
QUIPs > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 653886506.44 |===========
John The Ripper 1.8.0-jumbo-1
Test: Blowfish
Real C/S > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 2501 |===================================================
John The Ripper 1.8.0-jumbo-1
Test: Traditional DES
Real C/S > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 9620333 |================================================
John The Ripper 1.8.0-jumbo-1
Test: MD5
Real C/S > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 80361 |==================================================
JuliaGPU 1.2pts1
OpenCL Device: CPU
Samples/sec > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 2211179.80 |=============
JuliaGPU 1.2pts1
OpenCL Device: CPU+GPU
Samples/sec > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 2210997.73 |=============
MandelbulbGPU 1.0pts1
OpenCL Device: CPU
Samples/sec > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 602304.57 |==============
MandelbulbGPU 1.0pts1
OpenCL Device: CPU+GPU
Samples/sec > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 602012.27 |==============
MandelGPU 1.3pts1
OpenCL Device: CPU
Samples/sec > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1650179.50 |=============
MandelGPU 1.3pts1
OpenCL Device: CPU+GPU
Samples/sec > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1650582.83 |=============
Java 2D Microbenchmark 1.0
Rendering Test: Text Rendering
Units Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 11706.17 |======================================================
Java 2D Microbenchmark 1.0
Rendering Test: Image Rendering
Units Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 1555369.89 |====================================================
Java 2D Microbenchmark 1.0
Rendering Test: All Rendering Tests
Units Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 1042552.33 |====================================================
Java 2D Microbenchmark 1.0
Rendering Test: Vector Graphics Rendering
Units Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 895154.66 |=====================================================
LAMMPS Molecular Dynamics Simulator 1.0
Test: Rhodopsin Protein
Loop Time < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 44.46 |==================================================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: X - Background Load: Burn
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 246 |====================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: X - Background Load: Read
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 48 |=====================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: Audio - Background Load: X
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.25 |===================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: Video - Background Load: X
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 16.83 |==================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: X - Background Load: Video
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 34 |=====================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: X - Background Load: Write
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 86 |=====================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: Gaming - Background Load: X
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 2.10 |===================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: X - Background Load: Compile
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 446 |====================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: X - Background Load: Memload
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 15 |=====================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: Audio - Background Load: Burn
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 4.53 |===================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: Audio - Background Load: Read
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.60 |===================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: Video - Background Load: Burn
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 48.20 |==================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: Video - Background Load: Read
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 5.98 |===================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: Audio - Background Load: Video
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.20 |===================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: Audio - Background Load: Write
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 124.02 |=================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: Gaming - Background Load: Burn
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 100.08 |=================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: Video - Background Load: Write
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 122.48 |=================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: Gaming - Background Load: Write
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 51.20 |==================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: Audio - Background Load: Compile
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 127.43 |=================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: Audio - Background Load: Memload
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.68 |===================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: Video - Background Load: Compile
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 142.68 |=================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: Video - Background Load: Memload
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.38 |===================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: Gaming - Background Load: Compile
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 267.97 |=================
Interbench 0.31
Benchmark: Gaming - Background Load: Memload
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 2.80 |===================
Timed HMMer Search 2.3.2
Pfam Database Search
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 19.24 |==================================================
Java Gradle Build 1.0
Gradle Build: Reactor
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 30.76 |==================================================
LLVM Test Suite 6.0.0
Time To Run
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 293.54 |=================================================
m-queens 1.2
Time To Solve
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 547.31 |=================================================
Timed MAFFT Alignment 7.392
Multiple Sequence Alignment
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 9.72 |===================================================
Mencoder 1.3.0
AVI To LAVC
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 25.56 |==================================================
HPC Challenge 1.5.0
Test / Class: Random Ring Latency
usecs < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 0.66375 |================================================