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 hdparm Timed Disk Reads Disk To Read: /dev/sda MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 524.51 |==================================================== Himeno Benchmark 3.0 Poisson Pressure Solver MFLOPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 1840.50 |================================================ 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 |=========== Timed HMMer Search 2.3.2 Pfam Database Search Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 19.24 |================================================== 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: G-Ffte GFLOP/s > 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-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: G-Random Access GUP/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 0.00204 |================================================ HPC Challenge 1.5.0 Test / Class: Random Ring Latency usecs < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 0.66375 |================================================ 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: Max Ping Pong Bandwidth MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 7551.60 |================================================ High Performance Conjugate Gradient 3.0 GFLOP/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 1.09 |=================================================== 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 |=================== 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 |==================================================== 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 |===================================================== Java Gradle Build 1.0 Gradle Build: Reactor Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 30.76 |================================================== 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 |================================================ 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 |============= 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 |======================================================= LAMMPS Molecular Dynamics Simulator 1.0 Test: Rhodopsin Protein Loop Time < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 44.46 |================================================== LLVM Test Suite 6.0.0 Time To Run Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 293.54 |================================================= 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 |================================================ 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 |==================================================== 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 |=================================================== 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 |==============