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 1906176-FO-INTELCORE84
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
Qmlbench 2
Test: Moving Images Animations
Frames > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 383.20 |=================
Qmlbench 2
Test: Creation Delegates Flow
Frames > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 285 |====================
Qmlbench 2
Test: Canvas Text Simple
Frames > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 241.20 |=================
Qmlbench 2
Test: Fib10
Frames > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 263.20 |=================
QGears2
Rendering: XRender Extension - Test: Image Scaling
Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 1639.15 |=======================================================
QGears2
Rendering: CPU-based Raster - Test: Image Scaling
Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 1327.76 |=======================================================
QGears2
Rendering: XRender Extension - Test: Gears
Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 186.50 |========================================================
QGears2
Rendering: XRender Extension - Test: Text
Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 280.15 |========================================================
QGears2
Rendering: CPU-based Raster - Test: Gears
Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 179.38 |========================================================
QGears2
Rendering: CPU-based Raster - Test: Text
Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 293.73 |========================================================
QGears2
Rendering: OpenGL - Test: Image Scaling
Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 2389.74 |=======================================================
QGears2
Rendering: OpenGL - Test: Gears
Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 607.31 |========================================================
QGears2
Rendering: OpenGL - Test: Text
Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 532.12 |========================================================
PyBench 2018-02-16
Total For Average Test Times
Milliseconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1521 |===================
Primesieve 7.4
1e12 Prime Number Generation
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 152.26 |=================================================
POV-Ray 3.7.0.7
Trace Time
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 299.17 |=================================================
PostMark 1.51
Disk Transaction Performance
TPS > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 4190 |======================================================
PolyBench-C 4.2
Test: 3 Matrix Multiplications
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 5.74 |===================================================
PolyBench-C 4.2
Test: Correlation Computation
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 8.23 |===================================================
PolyBench-C 4.2
Test: Covariance Computation
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 8.31 |===================================================
Pjdfstest
Seconds < Lower Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 176 |=======================================================
PHPBench 0.8.1
PHP Benchmark Suite
Score > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 445196 |=================
PHP Micro Benchmarks
Test: Zend micro_bench
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 2.93 |===================
PHP Micro Benchmarks
Test: Zend bench
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.59 |===================
PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3
Scaling: Buffer Test - Test: Heavy Contention - Mode: Read Write
TPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1189.81 |================
PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3
Scaling: Mostly RAM - Test: Heavy Contention - Mode: Read Write
TPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.04 |===================
PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3
Scaling: Buffer Test - Test: Heavy Contention - Mode: Read Only
TPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 35013.44 |===============
PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3
Scaling: Mostly RAM - Test: Heavy Contention - Mode: Read Only
TPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.07 |===================
PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3
Scaling: Buffer Test - Test: Single Thread - Mode: Read Write
TPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 148.94 |=================
PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3
Scaling: On-Disk - Test: Heavy Contention - Mode: Read Write
TPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 309.28 |=================
PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3
Scaling: Buffer Test - Test: Single Thread - Mode: Read Only
TPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 14427.70 |===============
PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3
Scaling: On-Disk - Test: Heavy Contention - Mode: Read Only
TPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 51056.70 |===============
PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3
Scaling: Mostly RAM - Test: Single Thread - Mode: Read Only
TPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.01 |===================
PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3
Scaling: Buffer Test - Test: Normal Load - Mode: Read Write
TPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 870.09 |=================
PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3
Scaling: Mostly RAM - Test: Normal Load - Mode: Read Write
TPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.04 |===================
PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3
Scaling: Buffer Test - Test: Normal Load - Mode: Read Only
TPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 38060.55 |===============
PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3
Scaling: On-Disk - Test: Single Thread - Mode: Read Write
TPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 91.69 |==================
PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3
Scaling: Mostly RAM - Test: Normal Load - Mode: Read Only
TPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.07 |===================
PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3
Scaling: On-Disk - Test: Single Thread - Mode: Read Only
TPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 20890.87 |===============
PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3
Scaling: On-Disk - Test: Normal Load - Mode: Read Write
TPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 312.78 |=================
PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3
Scaling: On-Disk - Test: Normal Load - Mode: Read Only
TPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 55342.67 |===============
Perl Benchmarks
Test: Interpreter
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 0.00138340 |=============================================
Perl Benchmarks
Test: Pod2html
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 0.17173742 |=============================================
Parboil 2.5
Test: OpenMP MRI Gridding
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 30.74 |==================================================
Parboil 2.5
Test: OpenMP Stencil
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 33.54 |==================================================
Parboil 2.5
Test: OpenMP CUTCP
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 23.08 |==================================================
Parboil 2.5
Test: OpenMP LBM
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 181.55 |=================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1920 x 1080
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 150.43 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1920 x 1080
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 14.43 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1680 x 1050
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 150.44 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1680 x 1050
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 14.44 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1600 x 1024
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 150.58 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1600 x 1024
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 14.45 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1400 x 1050
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 151.91 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1400 x 1050
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 14.58 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1280 x 1024
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 152.53 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1280 x 1024
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 14.64 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1920 x 1080
MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 335.61 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1920 x 1080
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 20.97 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1680 x 1050
MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 335.81 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1680 x 1050
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 20.99 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1600 x 1024
MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 334.93 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1600 x 1024
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 20.93 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1400 x 1050
MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 341.83 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1400 x 1050
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 21.36 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1280 x 1024
MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 345.95 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1280 x 1024
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 21.62 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1600 x 900
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 175.01 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1600 x 900
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 16.80 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1440 x 900
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 175.16 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1440 x 900
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 16.81 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1440 x 810
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 199.22 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1440 x 810
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 19.12 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1400 x 900
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 175.53 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1400 x 900
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 16.84 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1368 x 768
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 214.18 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1368 x 768
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 20.55 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1280 x 960
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 163.83 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1280 x 960
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 15.72 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1280 x 800
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 203.27 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1280 x 800
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 19.50 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1024 x 768
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 215.04 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1024 x 768
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 20.63 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1024 x 576
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 335.16 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1024 x 576
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 32.16 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1600 x 900
MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 384.45 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1600 x 900
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 24.03 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1440 x 900
MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 386.32 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1440 x 900
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 24.14 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1440 x 810
MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 428.15 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1440 x 810
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 26.76 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1400 x 900
MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 387.66 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1400 x 900
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 24.23 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1368 x 768
MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 452.36 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1368 x 768
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 28.27 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1280 x 960
MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 367.08 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1280 x 960
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 22.94 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1280 x 800
MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 433.66 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1280 x 800
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 27.10 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1024 x 768
MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 457.66 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1024 x 768
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 28.60 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1024 x 576
MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 607.32 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1024 x 576
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 37.96 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 800 x 600
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 320.66 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 800 x 600
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 30.77 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 800 x 600
MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 586.84 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 800 x 600
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 36.68 |=========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1920 x 1080
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 489.54 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1920 x 1080
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 4.88 |==========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1680 x 1050
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 489.43 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1680 x 1050
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 4.88 |==========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1600 x 1024
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 490.80 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1600 x 1024
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 4.89 |==========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1400 x 1050
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 491.74 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1400 x 1050
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 4.91 |==========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1280 x 1024
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 492.47 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1280 x 1024
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 4.91 |==========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1600 x 900
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 495.22 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1600 x 900
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 4.94 |==========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1440 x 900
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 496.10 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1440 x 900
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 4.95 |==========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1440 x 810
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 498.74 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1440 x 810
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 4.97 |==========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1400 x 900
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 494.32 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1400 x 900
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 4.93 |==========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1368 x 768
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 501.96 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1368 x 768
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 5.01 |==========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1280 x 960
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 495.97 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1280 x 960
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 4.95 |==========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1280 x 800
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 499.93 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1280 x 800
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 4.99 |==========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1024 x 768
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 501.01 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1024 x 768
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 5.00 |==========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1024 x 576
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 503.21 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1024 x 576
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 5.02 |==========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 800 x 600
MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 504.59 |========================================================
ParaView 5.4.1
Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 800 x 600
Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 5.03 |==========================================================
OSBench
Test: Memory Allocations
Ns Per Event < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 106.60 |=================
OSBench
Test: Create Processes
us Per Event < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 34.92 |==================
OSBench
Test: Launch Programs
us Per Event < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 118.63 |=================
OSBench
Test: Create Threads
us Per Event < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 19.31 |==================
OSBench
Test: Create Files
us Per Event < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 20.43 |==================
Optcarrot
Optimized Benchmark
FPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 82.75 |==================
OpenSSL 1.1.1
RSA 4096-bit Performance
Signs Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 410.97 |=================================================
OpenArena 0.8.8
Resolution: 2560 x 1440 - Total Frame Time
Milliseconds < Lower Is Better
Intel HD 520 . MIN: 1.0 AVG: 5.0 MAX: 13.0
OpenArena 0.8.8
Resolution: 2560 x 1440
Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 197.00 |========================================================
OpenArena 0.8.8
Resolution: 1920 x 1080 - Total Frame Time
Milliseconds < Lower Is Better
Intel HD 520 . MIN: 3.0 AVG: 20.3 MAX: 46.0
OpenArena 0.8.8
Resolution: 1920 x 1080
Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 49.07 |=========================================================
OpenArena 0.8.8
Resolution: 1024 x 768 - Total Frame Time
Milliseconds < Lower Is Better
Intel HD 520 . MIN: 1.0 AVG: 7.8 MAX: 16.0
OpenArena 0.8.8
Resolution: 1024 x 768
Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 126.23 |========================================================
OpenArena 0.8.8
Resolution: 800 x 600 - Total Frame Time
Milliseconds < Lower Is Better
Intel HD 520 . MIN: 1.0 AVG: 5.5 MAX: 14.0
OpenArena 0.8.8
Resolution: 800 x 600
Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 178.87 |========================================================
Nuttcp 8.1.4
Test: TCP Transfer - Default - Server Address: 5.20.0.41
Mbits/sec > Higher Is Better
Intel Connection I219-V . 127.38 |=============================================
Nuttcp 8.1.4
Test: 10G+ UDP - Server Address: 5.20.0.41
Mbits/sec > Higher Is Better
Intel Connection I219-V . 166.07 |=============================================
Numpy Benchmark
Nanoseconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 7139022 |================================================
Numenta Anomaly Benchmark 2018-11-09
Time To Completion
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 961.02 |=================
NAS Parallel Benchmarks 3.3.1
Test / Class: SP.A
Total Mop/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 1855.80 |================================================
NAS Parallel Benchmarks 3.3.1
Test / Class: LU.C
Total Mop/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 5892.73 |================================================
NAS Parallel Benchmarks 3.3.1
Test / Class: LU.A
Total Mop/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 6925.97 |================================================
NAS Parallel Benchmarks 3.3.1
Test / Class: FT.B
Total Mop/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 3836.75 |================================================
NAS Parallel Benchmarks 3.3.1
Test / Class: FT.A
Total Mop/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 3800.46 |================================================
NAS Parallel Benchmarks 3.3.1
Test / Class: EP.C
Total Mop/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 127.79 |=================================================
NAS Parallel Benchmarks 3.3.1
Test / Class: BT.A
Total Mop/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 2094.00 |================================================
Node.js Octane Benchmark
Score > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 27150 |==================================================
NGINX Benchmark 1.9.9
Static Web Page Serving
Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 22358.24 |===============
Loopback TCP Network Performance
Time To Transfer 10GB Via Loopback
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Connection I219-V . 12.39 |==============================================
Open FMM Nero2D 2.0.2
Total Time
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 241.16 |=================================================
NAMD 2.13b1
ATPase Simulation - 327,506 Atoms
days/ns < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 10.46 |==================================================
N-Queens 1.0
Elapsed Time
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 96.74 |==================================================
Multichase Pointer Chaser
Test: 1GB Array, 256 Byte Stride, 4 Threads
ns < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 187.87 |=================================================
Multichase Pointer Chaser
Test: 1GB Array, 256 Byte Stride, 2 Threads
ns < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 99.84 |==================================================
Multichase Pointer Chaser
Test: 256MB Array, 256 Byte Stride
ns < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 91.63 |==================================================
Multichase Pointer Chaser
Test: 1GB Array, 256 Byte Stride
ns < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 90.39 |==================================================
Multichase Pointer Chaser
Test: 4MB Array, 64 Byte Stride
ns < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 9.53 |===================================================
Timed MrBayes Analysis 3.1.2
Primate Phylogeny Analysis
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 576.39 |=================================================
GNU MPC 1.1.0
Multi-Precision Benchmark
Global Score > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 6447 |===================================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: Convolution Batch conv_googlenet_v3 - Data Type: u8s8f32s32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 1609.52 |================================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: Convolution Batch conv_googlenet_v3 - Data Type: u8s8u8s32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 1856.49 |================================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: Convolution Batch conv_alexnet - Data Type: u8s8f32s32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 2891.75 |================================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: Deconvolution Batch deconv_all - Data Type: u8s8u8s32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 112049 |=================================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: Deconvolution Batch deconv_3d - Data Type: u8s8f32s32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 63905.97 |===============================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: Deconvolution Batch deconv_1d - Data Type: u8s8f32s32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 38981.23 |===============================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: Convolution Batch conv_alexnet - Data Type: u8s8u8s32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 3151.59 |================================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: Deconvolution Batch deconv_3d - Data Type: u8s8u8s32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 63699.73 |===============================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: Deconvolution Batch deconv_1d - Data Type: u8s8u8s32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 39192.23 |===============================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: Convolution Batch conv_googlenet_v3 - Data Type: f32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 931.12 |=================================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: Convolution Batch conv_all - Data Type: u8s8f32s32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 91265.33 |===============================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: Convolution Batch conv_all - Data Type: u8s8u8s32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 93554.10 |===============================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: Convolution Batch conv_3d - Data Type: u8s8f32s32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 79532.53 |===============================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: Convolution Batch conv_3d - Data Type: u8s8u8s32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 77617.30 |===============================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: Deconvolution Batch deconv_all - Data Type: f32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 13427.87 |===============================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: Convolution Batch conv_alexnet - Data Type: f32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 2251.09 |================================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: Deconvolution Batch deconv_3d - Data Type: f32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 36.09 |==================================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: Deconvolution Batch deconv_1d - Data Type: f32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 34.68 |==================================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: Convolution Batch conv_all - Data Type: f32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 16768.23 |===============================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: Convolution Batch conv_3d - Data Type: f32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 95.42 |==================================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: IP Batch All - Data Type: u8s8f32s32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 279.23 |=================================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: IP Batch All - Data Type: u8s8u8s32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 280.78 |=================================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: IP Batch 1D - Data Type: u8s8f32s32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 22.19 |==================================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: IP Batch 1D - Data Type: u8s8u8s32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 23.05 |==================================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: IP Batch All - Data Type: f32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 437.58 |=================================================
MKL-DNN 2019-04-16
Harness: IP Batch 1D - Data Type: f32
ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 37.42 |==================================================
Mixbench 2016-06-06
Benchmark: Single Precision
GFLOPS > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 0.12 |==========================================================
Mixbench 2016-06-06
Benchmark: Double Precision
GFLOPS > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 5.82 |==========================================================
Mixbench 2016-06-06
Benchmark: Integer
GIOPS > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 5.30 |==========================================================
Minion 1.8
Benchmark: Quasigroup
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 174.51 |=================================================
Minion 1.8
Benchmark: Solitaire
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 102.82 |=================================================
Minion 1.8
Benchmark: Graceful
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 78.53 |==================================================
Mencoder 1.3.0
AVI To LAVC
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 25.56 |==================================================
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 |===============
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Add
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 51217.83 |===============
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 |================
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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 128 MiB
MiB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 11241.69 |===============
MandelGPU 1.3pts1
OpenCL Device: CPU+GPU
Samples/sec > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1650582.83 |=============
MandelGPU 1.3pts1
OpenCL Device: CPU
Samples/sec > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1650179.50 |=============
MandelbulbGPU 1.0pts1
OpenCL Device: CPU+GPU
Samples/sec > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 602012.27 |==============
MandelbulbGPU 1.0pts1
OpenCL Device: CPU
Samples/sec > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 602304.57 |==============
Timed MAFFT Alignment 7.392
Multiple Sequence Alignment
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 9.72 |===================================================
m-queens 1.2
Time To Solve
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 547.31 |=================================================
lzbench 2017-08-08
Test: Libdeflate 1 - Process: Decompression
MB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 735 |====================================================
lzbench 2017-08-08
Test: Libdeflate 1 - Process: Compression
MB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 145 |====================================================
lzbench 2017-08-08
Test: Brotli 0 - Process: Decompression
MB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 377 |====================================================
lzbench 2017-08-08
Test: Brotli 0 - Process: Compression
MB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 288 |====================================================
lzbench 2017-08-08
Test: Zstd 1 - Process: Decompression
MB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 749 |====================================================
lzbench 2017-08-08
Test: Zstd 1 - Process: Compression
MB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 279 |====================================================
lzbench 2017-08-08
Test: XZ 0 - Process: Decompression
MB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 69 |=====================================================
lzbench 2017-08-08
Test: XZ 0 - Process: Compression
MB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 25 |=====================================================
LuaJIT 2.1-git
Test: Jacobi Successive Over-Relaxation
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 1041.41 |================================================
LuaJIT 2.1-git
Test: Dense LU Matrix Factorization
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 2103.34 |================================================
LuaJIT 2.1-git
Test: Sparse Matrix Multiply
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 886.88 |=================================================
LuaJIT 2.1-git
Test: Fast Fourier Transform
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 213.57 |=================================================
LuaJIT 2.1-git
Test: Monte Carlo
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 347.12 |=================================================
LuaJIT 2.1-git
Test: Composite
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 918.47 |=================================================
LLVM Test Suite 6.0.0
Time To Run
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 293.54 |=================================================
LAMMPS Molecular Dynamics Simulator 1.0
Test: Rhodopsin Protein
Loop Time < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 44.46 |==================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Transformed Texture Paint - Size: 1024x1024
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 5441.06 |=======================================================
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: 512x512
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 9579.63 |=======================================================
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: 128x128
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 46929.59 |======================================================
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 Blit Bilinear - Size: 512x512
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 8860.07 |=======================================================
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: 128x128
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 42486.65 |======================================================
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 Linear - Size: 512x512
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 15423.63 |======================================================
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: 128x128
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 193198.67 |=====================================================
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: Radial Gradient Paint - Size: 1024x1024
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 2347.42 |=======================================================
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: Gradient+Temp Texture - Size: 1024x1024
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 2216.68 |=======================================================
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: Radial Gradient Paint - Size: 512x512
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 5169.43 |=======================================================
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: 128x128
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 16951.51 |======================================================
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: 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: 128x128
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 16740.94 |======================================================
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: 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: 128x128
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 14172.79 |======================================================
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: Rects Composition - Size: 1024x1024
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 5522.11 |=======================================================
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: Linear Gradient Blend - Size: 32x32
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 17945.19 |======================================================
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: 12pt Text Grayscale - Size: 512x512
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 53410.09 |======================================================
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: 128x128
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 110398.30 |=====================================================
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: Rects Composition - Size: 256x256
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 17805.89 |======================================================
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: Put Composition - Size: 1024x1024
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 3346.52 |=======================================================
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: Rects Composition - Size: 32x32
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 45354.17 |======================================================
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: Put Composition - Size: 256x256
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 8503.61 |=======================================================
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: 12pt Text LCD - Size: 1024x1024
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 32526.56 |======================================================
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: Put Composition - Size: 32x32
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 15173.87 |======================================================
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: 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: 128x128
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 111009.44 |=====================================================
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: Simple Blit - Size: 256x256
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 95895.51 |======================================================
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: 12pt Text LCD - Size: 32x32
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 155143.98 |=====================================================
JXRenderMark 1.0.1
Test: Simple Blit - Size: 32x32
Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 279587.55 |=====================================================
JuliaGPU 1.2pts1
OpenCL Device: CPU+GPU
Samples/sec > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 2210997.73 |=============
JuliaGPU 1.2pts1
OpenCL Device: CPU
Samples/sec > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 2211179.80 |=============
John The Ripper 1.8.0-jumbo-1
Test: MD5
Real C/S > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 80361 |==================================================
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: Blowfish
Real C/S > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 2501 |===================================================
Java SciMark 2.0
Computational Test: Jacobi Successive Over-Relaxation
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 1011.26 |================================================
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: Sparse Matrix Multiply
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 1587.21 |================================================
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: Monte Carlo
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 684.09 |=================================================
Java SciMark 2.0
Computational Test: Composite
Mflops > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 1708.37 |================================================
Java Gradle Build 1.0
Gradle Build: Reactor
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 30.76 |==================================================
Java 2D Microbenchmark 1.0
Rendering Test: Vector Graphics Rendering
Units Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 895154.66 |=====================================================
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: Image Rendering
Units Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 1555369.89 |====================================================
Java 2D Microbenchmark 1.0
Rendering Test: Text Rendering
Units Per Second > Higher Is Better
Intel HD 520 . 11706.17 |======================================================
IOzone 3.465
Record Size: 64Kb - File Size: 512MB - Disk Test: Write Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 205.94 |====================================================
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: 4Kb - File Size: 512MB - Disk Test: Write Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 230.88 |====================================================
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: 64Kb - File Size: 8GB - Disk Test: Write Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 285.38 |====================================================
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: 2GB - Disk Test: Write Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 261.09 |====================================================
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: 1MB - File Size: 512MB - Disk Test: Read Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 4076.12 |===================================================
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: 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: 2GB - Disk Test: Read Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 6208.18 |===================================================
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: 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: 2GB - Disk Test: Write Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 255.24 |====================================================
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: 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: 2GB - Disk Test: Write Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 254.98 |====================================================
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: 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: 2GB - Disk Test: Read Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 3393.89 |===================================================
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: 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: 2GB - Disk Test: Read Performance
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 6933.19 |===================================================
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 |===================
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Burn
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 100.08 |=================
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Write
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 86 |=====================
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: 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: 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: 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: X - Background Load: Burn
Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 246 |====================
High Performance Conjugate Gradient 3.0
GFLOP/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 1.09 |===================================================
HPC Challenge 1.5.0
Test / Class: Max Ping Pong Bandwidth
MB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 7551.60 |================================================
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: Random Ring Latency
usecs < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 0.66375 |================================================
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: EP-STREAM Triad
GB/s > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 4.72101 |================================================
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-DGEMM
GFLOPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 5.22681 |================================================
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: G-Ffte
GFLOPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 3.21539 |================================================
HPC Challenge 1.5.0
Test / Class: G-HPL
GFLOPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 20.15 |==================================================
Timed HMMer Search 2.3.2
Pfam Database Search
Seconds < Lower Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 19.24 |==================================================
Hierarchical INTegration 1.0
Test: DOUBLE
QUIPs > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 653886506.44 |===========
Hierarchical INTegration 1.0
Test: FLOAT
QUIPs > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 281417773.33 |===========
Himeno Benchmark 3.0
Poisson Pressure Solver
MFLOPS > Higher Is Better
Intel Core i5-6200U . 1840.50 |================================================
hdparm Timed Disk Reads
Disk To Read: /dev/sda
MB/s > Higher Is Better
SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 524.51 |====================================================