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 |============== MandelGPU 1.3pts1 OpenCL Device: CPU Samples/sec > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1650179.50 |============= MandelGPU 1.3pts1 OpenCL Device: CPU+GPU Samples/sec > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1650582.83 |============= MBW 2018-09-08 Test: Memory Copy - Array Size: 128 MiB MiB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 11241.69 |=============== MBW 2018-09-08 Test: Memory Copy - Array Size: 512 MiB MiB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 10718.61 |=============== MBW 2018-09-08 Test: Memory Copy - Array Size: 1024 MiB MiB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 10260.92 |=============== MBW 2018-09-08 Test: Memory Copy - Array Size: 4096 MiB MiB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 11004.83 |=============== MBW 2018-09-08 Test: Memory Copy, Fixed Block Size - Array Size: 128 MiB MiB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 6639.58 |================ MBW 2018-09-08 Test: Memory Copy, Fixed Block Size - Array Size: 512 MiB MiB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 6594.01 |================ MBW 2018-09-08 Test: Memory Copy, Fixed Block Size - Array Size: 1024 MiB MiB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 6504.00 |================ MBW 2018-09-08 Test: Memory Copy, Fixed Block Size - Array Size: 4096 MiB MiB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 6628.22 |================ Memcached mcperf 1.5.10 Method: Add Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 51217.83 |=============== Memcached mcperf 1.5.10 Method: Get Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 79289.33 |=============== Memcached mcperf 1.5.10 Method: Set Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 51305.17 |=============== Memcached mcperf 1.5.10 Method: Append Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 53966.17 |=============== Memcached mcperf 1.5.10 Method: Delete Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 79660.00 |=============== Memcached mcperf 1.5.10 Method: Prepend Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 54382.63 |=============== Memcached mcperf 1.5.10 Method: Replace Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 53288.20 |=============== Mencoder 1.3.0 AVI To LAVC Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 25.56 |================================================== Minion 1.8 Benchmark: Graceful Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 78.53 |================================================== Minion 1.8 Benchmark: Solitaire Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 102.82 |================================================= Minion 1.8 Benchmark: Quasigroup Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 174.51 |================================================= Mixbench 2016-06-06 Benchmark: Integer GIOPS > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 5.30 |========================================================== Mixbench 2016-06-06 Benchmark: Double Precision GFLOPS > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 5.82 |========================================================== Mixbench 2016-06-06 Benchmark: Single Precision GFLOPS > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 0.12 |========================================================== MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: IP Batch 1D - Data Type: f32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 37.42 |================================================== 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: u8s8u8s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 23.05 |================================================== 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 All - Data Type: u8s8u8s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 280.78 |================================================= 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: Convolution Batch conv_3d - Data Type: f32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 95.42 |================================================== 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: Deconvolution Batch deconv_1d - Data Type: f32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 34.68 |================================================== 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: 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_all - Data Type: f32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 13427.87 |=============================================== 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: 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_all - Data Type: u8s8u8s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 93554.10 |=============================================== 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_googlenet_v3 - Data Type: f32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 931.12 |================================================= 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: Deconvolution Batch deconv_3d - Data Type: u8s8u8s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 63699.73 |=============================================== 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_1d - Data Type: u8s8f32s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 38981.23 |=============================================== 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_all - Data Type: u8s8u8s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 112049 |================================================= 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: 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_googlenet_v3 - Data Type: u8s8f32s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 1609.52 |================================================ GNU MPC 1.1.0 Multi-Precision Benchmark Global Score > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 6447 |=================================================== Timed MrBayes Analysis 3.1.2 Primate Phylogeny Analysis Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 576.39 |================================================= Multichase Pointer Chaser Test: 4MB Array, 64 Byte Stride ns < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 9.53 |=================================================== Multichase Pointer Chaser Test: 1GB Array, 256 Byte Stride ns < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 90.39 |================================================== 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, 2 Threads ns < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 99.84 |================================================== Multichase Pointer Chaser Test: 1GB Array, 256 Byte Stride, 4 Threads ns < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 187.87 |================================================= N-Queens 1.0 Elapsed Time Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 96.74 |================================================== NAMD 2.13b1 ATPase Simulation - 327,506 Atoms days/ns < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 10.46 |================================================== Open FMM Nero2D 2.0.2 Total Time Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 241.16 |================================================= Loopback TCP Network Performance Time To Transfer 10GB Via Loopback Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Connection I219-V . 12.39 |============================================== 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 |=============== Node.js Octane Benchmark Score > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 27150 |================================================== NAS Parallel Benchmarks 3.3.1 Test / Class: BT.A Total Mop/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 2094.00 |================================================ 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: FT.A Total Mop/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 3800.46 |================================================ 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: LU.A Total Mop/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 6925.97 |================================================ 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: SP.A Total Mop/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 1855.80 |================================================ 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 |================= Numpy Benchmark Nanoseconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 7139022 |================================================ Nuttcp 8.1.4 Test: 10G+ UDP - Server Address: 5.20.0.41 Mbits/sec > Higher Is Better Intel Connection I219-V . 166.07 |============================================= 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 |============================================= OpenArena 0.8.8 Resolution: 800 x 600 Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 178.87 |======================================================== 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: 1024 x 768 Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 126.23 |======================================================== 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: 1920 x 1080 Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 49.07 |========================================================= 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: 2560 x 1440 Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 197.00 |======================================================== 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 OpenSSL 1.1.1 RSA 4096-bit Performance Signs Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 410.97 |================================================= Optcarrot Optimized Benchmark FPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 82.75 |================== OSBench Test: Create Files us Per Event < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 20.43 |================== OSBench Test: Create Threads us Per Event < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 19.31 |================== 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 Processes us Per Event < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 34.92 |================== OSBench Test: Memory Allocations Ns Per Event < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 106.60 |================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 800 x 600 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 5.03 |========================================================== 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: 1024 x 576 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 5.02 |========================================================== 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 768 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 5.00 |========================================================== 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: 1280 x 800 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4.99 |========================================================== 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 960 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4.95 |========================================================== 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: 1368 x 768 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 5.01 |========================================================== 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: 1400 x 900 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4.93 |========================================================== 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: 1440 x 810 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4.97 |========================================================== 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 900 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4.95 |========================================================== 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: 1600 x 900 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4.94 |========================================================== 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: 1280 x 1024 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: 1400 x 1050 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4.91 |========================================================== 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: 1600 x 1024 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4.89 |========================================================== 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: 1680 x 1050 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: 1920 x 1080 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4.88 |========================================================== 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: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 800 x 600 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 36.68 |========================================================= 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 Contour - Resolution: 800 x 600 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 30.77 |========================================================= 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 Volume - Resolution: 1024 x 576 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 37.96 |========================================================= 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 768 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 28.60 |========================================================= 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: 1280 x 800 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 27.10 |========================================================= 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 960 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 22.94 |========================================================= 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: 1368 x 768 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 28.27 |========================================================= 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: 1400 x 900 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 24.23 |========================================================= 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: 1440 x 810 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 26.76 |========================================================= 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 900 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 24.14 |========================================================= 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: 1600 x 900 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 24.03 |========================================================= 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 Contour - Resolution: 1024 x 576 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 32.16 |========================================================= 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 768 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 20.63 |========================================================= 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: 1280 x 800 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 19.50 |========================================================= 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 960 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 15.72 |========================================================= 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: 1368 x 768 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 20.55 |========================================================= 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: 1400 x 900 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 16.84 |========================================================= 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: 1440 x 810 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 19.12 |========================================================= 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 900 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 16.81 |========================================================= 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: 1600 x 900 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 16.80 |========================================================= 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 Volume - Resolution: 1280 x 1024 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 21.62 |========================================================= 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: 1400 x 1050 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 21.36 |========================================================= 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: 1600 x 1024 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 20.93 |========================================================= 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: 1680 x 1050 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 20.99 |========================================================= 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: 1920 x 1080 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 20.97 |========================================================= 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 Contour - Resolution: 1280 x 1024 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 14.64 |========================================================= 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: 1400 x 1050 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 14.58 |========================================================= 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: 1600 x 1024 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 14.45 |========================================================= 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: 1680 x 1050 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 14.44 |========================================================= 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: 1920 x 1080 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 14.43 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1920 x 1080 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 150.43 |======================================================== Parboil 2.5 Test: OpenMP LBM Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 181.55 |================================================= Parboil 2.5 Test: OpenMP CUTCP Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 23.08 |================================================== Parboil 2.5 Test: OpenMP Stencil Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 33.54 |================================================== Parboil 2.5 Test: OpenMP MRI Gridding Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 30.74 |================================================== Perl Benchmarks Test: Pod2html Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 0.17173742 |============================================= Perl Benchmarks Test: Interpreter Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 0.00138340 |============================================= 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 |=============== 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: 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: 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 Write TPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 91.69 |================== 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: 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 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: 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: 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: 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 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 Write TPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 148.94 |================= 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: 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 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 Write TPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1189.81 |================ PHP Micro Benchmarks Test: Zend bench Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.59 |=================== PHP Micro Benchmarks Test: Zend micro_bench Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 2.93 |=================== PHPBench 0.8.1 PHP Benchmark Suite Score > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 445196 |================= Pjdfstest Seconds < Lower Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 176 |======================================================= PolyBench-C 4.2 Test: Covariance Computation Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 8.31 |=================================================== PolyBench-C 4.2 Test: Correlation Computation Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 8.23 |=================================================== PolyBench-C 4.2 Test: 3 Matrix Multiplications Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 5.74 |=================================================== PostMark 1.51 Disk Transaction Performance TPS > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 4190 |====================================================== POV-Ray 3.7.0.7 Trace Time Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 299.17 |================================================= Primesieve 7.4 1e12 Prime Number Generation Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 152.26 |================================================= PyBench 2018-02-16 Total For Average Test Times Milliseconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1521 |=================== QGears2 Rendering: OpenGL - Test: Text Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 532.12 |======================================================== QGears2 Rendering: OpenGL - Test: Gears Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 607.31 |======================================================== QGears2 Rendering: OpenGL - Test: Image Scaling Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 2389.74 |======================================================= QGears2 Rendering: CPU-based Raster - Test: Text Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 293.73 |======================================================== QGears2 Rendering: CPU-based Raster - Test: Gears Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 179.38 |======================================================== QGears2 Rendering: XRender Extension - Test: Text Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 280.15 |======================================================== QGears2 Rendering: XRender Extension - Test: Gears Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 186.50 |======================================================== QGears2 Rendering: CPU-based Raster - Test: Image Scaling Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 1327.76 |======================================================= QGears2 Rendering: XRender Extension - Test: Image Scaling Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 1639.15 |======================================================= Qmlbench 2 Test: Fib10 Frames > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 263.20 |================= 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: Creation Delegates Flow Frames > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 285 |==================== Qmlbench 2 Test: Moving Images Animations Frames > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 383.20 |================= Radiance Benchmark 5.0 Test: Serial Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 1132.88 |================================================ Radiance Benchmark 5.0 Test: SMP Parallel Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 594.13 |================================================= RAMspeed SMP 3.5.0 Type: Add - Benchmark: Integer MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 19478.62 |=============== RAMspeed SMP 3.5.0 Type: Copy - Benchmark: Integer MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 17463.91 |=============== RAMspeed SMP 3.5.0 Type: Scale - Benchmark: Integer MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 17512.94 |=============== RAMspeed SMP 3.5.0 Type: Triad - Benchmark: Integer MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 19751.80 |=============== RAMspeed SMP 3.5.0 Type: Average - Benchmark: Integer MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 18553.09 |=============== RAMspeed SMP 3.5.0 Type: Add - Benchmark: Floating Point MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 19556.43 |=============== RAMspeed SMP 3.5.0 Type: Copy - Benchmark: Floating Point MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 17485.01 |=============== RAMspeed SMP 3.5.0 Type: Scale - Benchmark: Floating Point MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 17498.28 |=============== RAMspeed SMP 3.5.0 Type: Triad - Benchmark: Floating Point MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 19453.62 |=============== RAMspeed SMP 3.5.0 Type: Average - Benchmark: Floating Point MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 18497.15 |=============== R Benchmark Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 0.5950 |================================================= Redis 4.0.8 Test: LPOP Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1870222.83 |============= Redis 4.0.8 Test: SADD Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1543506.42 |============= Redis 4.0.8 Test: LPUSH Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1208131.59 |============= Redis 4.0.8 Test: GET Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1777741.40 |============= Redis 4.0.8 Test: SET Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1230756.13 |============= Renaissance 0.9.0 Test: Scala Dotty ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 13687.40 |=============================================== Renaissance 0.9.0 Test: Twitter Finagle ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 11027.95 |=============================================== Renaissance 0.9.0 Test: Apache Spark ALS ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 12630.26 |=============================================== Renaissance 0.9.0 Test: Apache Spark Bayes ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 19291.24 |=============================================== Renaissance 0.9.0 Test: Savina Reactors.IO ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 24754.98 |=============================================== Renaissance 0.9.0 Test: Apache Spark PageRank ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 55023.12 |=============================================== Renaissance 0.9.0 Test: In-Memory Database Shootout ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 11441.74 |=============================================== Renaissance 0.9.0 Test: Akka Unbalanced Cobwebbed Tree ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 25099.25 |=============================================== Render Bench Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel HD 520 . 17.17 |========================================================= Rodinia 2.4 Test: OpenMP LavaMD Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 471.34 |================================================= Rodinia 2.4 Test: OpenMP CFD Solver Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 114.02 |================================================= Rodinia 2.4 Test: OpenMP Streamcluster Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 55.31 |================================================== CP2K Molecular Dynamics 6.1 Fayalite-FIST Data Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 866.15 |================================================= GROMACS 2018.3 Water Benchmark Ns Per Day > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.24 |=================== Rust Mandelbrot Time To Complete Serial/Parallel Mandelbrot Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 147.15 |================================================= Rust Prime Benchmark Prime Number Test To 200,000,000 Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 72.19 |================================================== Schbench Message Threads: 2 - Workers Per Message Thread: 2 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 2503 |=================== Schbench Message Threads: 2 - Workers Per Message Thread: 4 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 14675 |================== Schbench Message Threads: 2 - Workers Per Message Thread: 6 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 38293 |================== Schbench Message Threads: 2 - Workers Per Message Thread: 8 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 45803 |================== Schbench Message Threads: 4 - Workers Per Message Thread: 2 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 16829 |================== Schbench Message Threads: 4 - Workers Per Message Thread: 4 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 41963 |================== Schbench Message Threads: 4 - Workers Per Message Thread: 6 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 56811 |================== Schbench Message Threads: 4 - Workers Per Message Thread: 8 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 91605 |================== Schbench Message Threads: 6 - Workers Per Message Thread: 2 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 34923 |================== Schbench Message Threads: 6 - Workers Per Message Thread: 4 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 54848 |================== Schbench Message Threads: 6 - Workers Per Message Thread: 6 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 103552 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 6 - Workers Per Message Thread: 8 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 134955 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 8 - Workers Per Message Thread: 2 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 39659 |================== Schbench Message Threads: 8 - Workers Per Message Thread: 4 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 82517 |================== Schbench Message Threads: 8 - Workers Per Message Thread: 6 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 129941 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 8 - Workers Per Message Thread: 8 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 168960 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 16 - Workers Per Message Thread: 2 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 55360 |================== Schbench Message Threads: 16 - Workers Per Message Thread: 4 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 171093 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 16 - Workers Per Message Thread: 6 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 243584 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 16 - Workers Per Message Thread: 8 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 316587 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 2 - Workers Per Message Thread: 16 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 93653 |================== Schbench Message Threads: 2 - Workers Per Message Thread: 24 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 128192 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 2 - Workers Per Message Thread: 32 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 169472 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 32 - Workers Per Message Thread: 2 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 150443 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 32 - Workers Per Message Thread: 4 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 328192 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 32 - Workers Per Message Thread: 6 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 552619 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 32 - Workers Per Message Thread: 8 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 703147 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 4 - Workers Per Message Thread: 16 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 170069 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 4 - Workers Per Message Thread: 24 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 243456 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 4 - Workers Per Message Thread: 32 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 361301 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 6 - Workers Per Message Thread: 16 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 243840 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 6 - Workers Per Message Thread: 24 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 404309 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 6 - Workers Per Message Thread: 32 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 568320 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 8 - Workers Per Message Thread: 16 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 354816 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 8 - Workers Per Message Thread: 24 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 541696 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 8 - Workers Per Message Thread: 32 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 701440 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 16 - Workers Per Message Thread: 16 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 715776 |================= Schbench Message Threads: 16 - Workers Per Message Thread: 24 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1040384 |================ Schbench Message Threads: 16 - Workers Per Message Thread: 32 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1374208 |================ Schbench Message Threads: 32 - Workers Per Message Thread: 16 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1313451 |================ Schbench Message Threads: 32 - Workers Per Message Thread: 24 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 2069163 |================ Schbench Message Threads: 32 - Workers Per Message Thread: 32 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 2688341 |================ Scikit-Learn 0.17.1 Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 42.36 |================== SciMark 2.0 Computational Test: Composite Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 420.35 |================================================= SciMark 2.0 Computational Test: Monte Carlo Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 95.40 |================================================== SciMark 2.0 Computational Test: Fast Fourier Transform Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 120.72 |================================================= SciMark 2.0 Computational Test: Sparse Matrix Multiply Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 498.72 |================================================= SciMark 2.0 Computational Test: Dense LU Matrix Factorization Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 604.12 |================================================= SciMark 2.0 Computational Test: Jacobi Successive Over-Relaxation Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 782.81 |================================================= SHOC Scalable HeterOgeneous Computing 2015-11-10 Target: OpenCL - Benchmark: Triad GB/s > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 7.15 |========================================================== SHOC Scalable HeterOgeneous Computing 2015-11-10 Target: OpenCL - Benchmark: FFT SP GFLOPS > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 0.99 |========================================================== SHOC Scalable HeterOgeneous Computing 2015-11-10 Target: OpenCL - Benchmark: MD5 Hash GHash/s > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 0.02 |========================================================== SHOC Scalable HeterOgeneous Computing 2015-11-10 Target: OpenCL - Benchmark: Max SP Flops GFLOPS > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 74.00 |========================================================= SHOC Scalable HeterOgeneous Computing 2015-11-10 Target: OpenCL - Benchmark: Bus Speed Download GB/s > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 14.76 |========================================================= SHOC Scalable HeterOgeneous Computing 2015-11-10 Target: OpenCL - Benchmark: Bus Speed Readback GB/s > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 14.15 |========================================================= SHOC Scalable HeterOgeneous Computing 2015-11-10 Target: OpenCL - Benchmark: Texture Read Bandwidth GB/s > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 2.14 |========================================================== Smallpt 1.0 Global Illumination Renderer; 128 Samples Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 73.70 |================================================== Sockperf 3.4 Test: Throughput Messages Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Connection I219-V . 338069 |============================================= Sockperf 3.4 Test: Latency Ping Pong usec < Lower Is Better Intel Connection I219-V . 5.03 |=============================================== Sockperf 3.4 Test: Latency Under Load usec < Lower Is Better Intel Connection I219-V . 13.66 |============================================== SQLite 3.22 Timed SQLite Insertions Seconds < Lower Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 122.56 |==================================================== Application Start-up Time 3.4.0 Background I/O Mix: Only Sequential Reads - Application To Start: xterm - Disk Target: Default Test Directory sec < Lower Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 1.86 |====================================================== Application Start-up Time 3.4.0 Background I/O Mix: Only Sequential Reads - Application To Start: GNOME Terminal - Disk Target: Default Test Directory sec < Lower Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 7.85 |====================================================== Application Start-up Time 3.4.0 Background I/O Mix: Only Sequential Reads - Application To Start: LibreOffice Writer - Disk Target: Default Test Directory sec < Lower Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 6.00 |====================================================== Stockfish 9 Total Time Nodes Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 4006845 |================================================ Stream 2013-01-17 Type: Copy MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 24905.32 |=============== Stream 2013-01-17 Type: Scale MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 17089.80 |=============== Stream 2013-01-17 Type: Triad MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 18598.14 |=============== Stream 2013-01-17 Type: Add MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 18622.96 |=============== Stress-NG 0.07.26 Test: Crypto Bogo Ops/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 308.84 |================= Stress-NG 0.07.26 Test: Bsearch Bogo Ops/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 864.20 |================= Stress-NG 0.07.26 Test: Forking Bogo Ops/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 16327.74 |=============== Stress-NG 0.07.26 Test: Hsearch Bogo Ops/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 8737.44 |================ Stress-NG 0.07.26 Test: Lsearch Bogo Ops/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 20.01 |================== Stress-NG 0.07.26 Test: Tsearch Bogo Ops/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 26.03 |================== Stress-NG 0.07.26 Test: CPU Stress Bogo Ops/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 667.57 |================= Stress-NG 0.07.26 Test: Semaphores Bogo Ops/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 3491645.24 |============= Stress-NG 0.07.26 Test: Matrix Math Bogo Ops/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 10584.63 |=============== Stress-NG 0.07.26 Test: Vector Math Bogo Ops/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 3568.65 |================ Stress-NG 0.07.26 Test: Memory Copying Bogo Ops/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 977.62 |================= Stress-NG 0.07.26 Test: Socket Activity Bogo Ops/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1076.78 |================ Stress-NG 0.07.26 Test: Context Switching Bogo Ops/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 654248.94 |============== Stress-NG 0.07.26 Test: Glibc C String Functions Bogo Ops/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 118156.97 |============== Stress-NG 0.07.26 Test: Glibc Qsort Data Sorting Bogo Ops/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 24.97 |================== Stress-NG 0.07.26 Test: System V Message Passing Bogo Ops/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1314503.67 |============= Sudokut 0.4 Total Time Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 15.25 |================================================== Sunflow Rendering System 0.07.2 Global Illumination + Image Synthesis Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 6.24 |=================== SVT-AV1 0.5 1080p 8-bit YUV To AV1 Video Encode Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 6.27 |=================================================== SVT-HEVC 2019-02-03 1080p 8-bit YUV To HEVC Video Encode Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 33.97 |================================================== SVT-VP9 2019-02-17 1080p 8-bit YUV To VP9 Video Encode Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 8.93 |=================================================== Swet 1.5.16 Average Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 498425702 |============================================== Sysbench 2018-07-28 Test: Memory Events Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 10257156.97 |============ Sysbench 2018-07-28 Test: CPU Events Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 3101.17 |================ System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 1 MB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 635 |==================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 2 MB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 1995 |=================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 3 MB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 2971 |=================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 5 KB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 9 |====================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 50 KB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 36 |===================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 100 KB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 114 |==================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 112 MB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 88878 |================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 150 KB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 96 |===================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 200 KB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 132 |==================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 250 KB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 153 |==================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 300 KB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 195 |==================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 350 KB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 216 |==================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 400 KB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 397 |==================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 450 KB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 281 |==================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 500 KB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 496 |==================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 550 KB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 336 |==================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 600 KB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 582 |==================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 650 KB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 400 |==================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 700 KB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 422 |==================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 750 KB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 464 |==================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 800 KB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 490 |==================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 850 KB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 820 |==================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 900 KB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 562 |==================================================== System Libxml2 Parsing Filesize: 950 KB ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 579 |==================================================== Systemd Total Boot Time Test: Total ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 27579 |================== Systemd Total Boot Time Test: Kernel ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 17119 |================== Systemd Total Boot Time Test: Loader ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 3845 |=================== Systemd Total Boot Time Test: Firmware ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 23035 |================== Systemd Total Boot Time Test: Userspace ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 10460 |==================