Intel Core i5-6200U testing with a HP 8079 (N75 Ver. 01.18 BIOS) and Intel HD 520 3072MB on Ubuntu 18.04 via the Phoronix Test Suite.

Compare your own system(s) to this result file with the Phoronix Test Suite by running the command: phoronix-test-suite benchmark 1906204-FO-INTELCORE27

Jump To Table - Results

Statistics

Show Overall Harmonic Mean(s)
Show Overall Geometric Mean
Show Geometric Means Per-Suite/Category
Show Wins / Losses Counts (Pie Chart)
Normalize Results
Remove Outliers Before Calculating Averages

Graph Settings

Force Line Graphs Where Applicable
Convert To Scalar Where Applicable
Disable Color Branding
Prefer Vertical Bar Graphs
No Box Plots
On Line Graphs With Missing Data, Connect The Line Gaps

Multi-Way Comparison

Condense Multi-Option Tests Into Single Result Graphs
Condense Test Profiles With Multiple Version Results Into Single Result Graphs

Table

Show Detailed System Result Table

Run Management

Only show results where is faster than

Only show results matching title/arguments (delimit multiple options with a comma):

Do not show results matching title/arguments (delimit multiple options with a comma):

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 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-AV1 0.5 1080p 8-bit YUV To AV1 Video Encode Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 6.27 |=================================================== 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 |=================== Sudokut 0.4 Total Time Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 15.25 |================================================== 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 |============= 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Crypto Bogo Ops/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 308.84 |================= Stream 2013-01-17 Type: Add MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 18622.96 |=============== 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: Scale MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 17089.80 |=============== Stream 2013-01-17 Type: Copy MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 24905.32 |=============== Stockfish 9 Total Time Nodes Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 4006845 |================================================ 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 |====================================================== 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: xterm - Disk Target: Default Test Directory sec < Lower Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 1.86 |====================================================== SQLite 3.22 Timed SQLite Insertions Seconds < Lower Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 122.56 |==================================================== Sockperf 3.4 Test: Latency Under Load usec < Lower Is Better Intel Connection I219-V . 13.66 |============================================== Sockperf 3.4 Test: Latency Ping Pong usec < Lower Is Better Intel Connection I219-V . 5.03 |=============================================== Sockperf 3.4 Test: Throughput Messages Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Connection I219-V . 338069 |============================================= Smallpt 1.0 Global Illumination Renderer; 128 Samples Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 73.70 |================================================== SHOC Scalable HeterOgeneous Computing 2015-11-10 Target: OpenCL - Benchmark: Texture Read Bandwidth GB/s > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 2.14 |========================================================== 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: Bus Speed Download GB/s > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 14.76 |========================================================= 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: MD5 Hash GHash/s > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 0.02 |========================================================== 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: Triad GB/s > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 7.15 |========================================================== SciMark 2.0 Computational Test: Jacobi Successive Over-Relaxation Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 782.81 |================================================= SciMark 2.0 Computational Test: Dense LU Matrix Factorization Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 604.12 |================================================= SciMark 2.0 Computational Test: Sparse Matrix Multiply Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 498.72 |================================================= SciMark 2.0 Computational Test: Fast Fourier Transform Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 120.72 |================================================= SciMark 2.0 Computational Test: Monte Carlo Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 95.40 |================================================== SciMark 2.0 Computational Test: Composite Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 420.35 |================================================= Scikit-Learn 0.17.1 Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 42.36 |================== 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 |================ 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: 16 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1313451 |================ 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: 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: 16 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 715776 |================= 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: 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: 16 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 354816 |================= 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: 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: 16 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 243840 |================= 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: 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: 16 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 170069 |================= 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: 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: 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: 2 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 150443 |================= 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: 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: 16 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 93653 |================== 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: 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: 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: 2 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 55360 |================== 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: 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: 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: 2 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 39659 |================== 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: 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: 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: 2 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 34923 |================== 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: 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: 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: 2 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 16829 |================== 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: 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: 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: 2 usec, 99.9th Latency Percentile < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 2503 |=================== Rust Prime Benchmark Prime Number Test To 200,000,000 Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 72.19 |================================================== Rust Mandelbrot Time To Complete Serial/Parallel Mandelbrot Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 147.15 |================================================= GROMACS 2018.3 Water Benchmark Ns Per Day > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.24 |=================== CP2K Molecular Dynamics 6.1 Fayalite-FIST Data Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 866.15 |================================================= Rodinia 2.4 Test: OpenMP Streamcluster Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 55.31 |================================================== Rodinia 2.4 Test: OpenMP CFD Solver Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 114.02 |================================================= Rodinia 2.4 Test: OpenMP LavaMD Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 471.34 |================================================= Render Bench Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel HD 520 . 17.17 |========================================================= Renaissance 0.9.0 Test: Akka Unbalanced Cobwebbed Tree ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 25099.25 |=============================================== Renaissance 0.9.0 Test: In-Memory Database Shootout ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 11441.74 |=============================================== Renaissance 0.9.0 Test: Apache Spark PageRank ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 55023.12 |=============================================== 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 Bayes ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 19291.24 |=============================================== Renaissance 0.9.0 Test: Apache Spark ALS ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 12630.26 |=============================================== Renaissance 0.9.0 Test: Twitter Finagle ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 11027.95 |=============================================== Renaissance 0.9.0 Test: Scala Dotty ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 13687.40 |=============================================== Redis 4.0.8 Test: SET Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1230756.13 |============= 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: LPUSH Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1208131.59 |============= 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: LPOP Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1870222.83 |============= R Benchmark Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 0.5950 |================================================= 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 |=============== 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Add - Benchmark: Integer MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 19478.62 |=============== Radiance Benchmark 5.0 Test: SMP Parallel Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 594.13 |================================================= Radiance Benchmark 5.0 Test: Serial Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 1132.88 |================================================ Qmlbench 2 Test: Moving Images Animations Frames > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 383.20 |================= Qmlbench 2 Test: Creation Delegates Flow Frames > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 285 |==================== Qmlbench 2 Test: Canvas Text Simple Frames > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 241.20 |================= Qmlbench 2 Test: Fib10 Frames > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 263.20 |================= QGears2 Rendering: XRender Extension - Test: Image Scaling Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 1639.15 |======================================================= QGears2 Rendering: CPU-based Raster - Test: Image Scaling Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 1327.76 |======================================================= QGears2 Rendering: XRender Extension - Test: Gears Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 186.50 |======================================================== QGears2 Rendering: XRender Extension - Test: Text Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 280.15 |======================================================== QGears2 Rendering: CPU-based Raster - Test: Gears Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 179.38 |======================================================== QGears2 Rendering: CPU-based Raster - Test: Text Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 293.73 |======================================================== QGears2 Rendering: OpenGL - Test: Image Scaling Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 2389.74 |======================================================= QGears2 Rendering: OpenGL - Test: Gears Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 607.31 |======================================================== QGears2 Rendering: OpenGL - Test: Text Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 532.12 |======================================================== PyBench 2018-02-16 Total For Average Test Times Milliseconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1521 |=================== Primesieve 7.4 1e12 Prime Number Generation Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 152.26 |================================================= POV-Ray 3.7.0.7 Trace Time Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 299.17 |================================================= PostMark 1.51 Disk Transaction Performance TPS > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 4190 |====================================================== PolyBench-C 4.2 Test: 3 Matrix Multiplications Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 5.74 |=================================================== PolyBench-C 4.2 Test: Correlation Computation Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 8.23 |=================================================== PolyBench-C 4.2 Test: Covariance Computation Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 8.31 |=================================================== Pjdfstest Seconds < Lower Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 176 |======================================================= PHPBench 0.8.1 PHP Benchmark Suite Score > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 445196 |================= PHP Micro Benchmarks Test: Zend micro_bench Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 2.93 |=================== PHP Micro Benchmarks Test: Zend bench Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.59 |=================== PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3 Scaling: Buffer Test - Test: Heavy Contention - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1189.81 |================ PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3 Scaling: Mostly RAM - Test: Heavy Contention - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.04 |=================== PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3 Scaling: Buffer Test - Test: Heavy Contention - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 35013.44 |=============== PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3 Scaling: Mostly RAM - Test: Heavy Contention - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.07 |=================== PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3 Scaling: Buffer Test - Test: Single Thread - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 148.94 |================= PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3 Scaling: On-Disk - Test: Heavy Contention - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 309.28 |================= PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3 Scaling: Buffer Test - Test: Single Thread - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 14427.70 |=============== PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3 Scaling: On-Disk - Test: Heavy Contention - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 51056.70 |=============== PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3 Scaling: Mostly RAM - Test: Single Thread - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.01 |=================== PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3 Scaling: Buffer Test - Test: Normal Load - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 870.09 |================= PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3 Scaling: Mostly RAM - Test: Normal Load - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.04 |=================== PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3 Scaling: Buffer Test - Test: Normal Load - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 38060.55 |=============== PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3 Scaling: On-Disk - Test: Single Thread - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 91.69 |================== PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3 Scaling: Mostly RAM - Test: Normal Load - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.07 |=================== PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3 Scaling: On-Disk - Test: Single Thread - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 20890.87 |=============== PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3 Scaling: On-Disk - Test: Normal Load - Mode: Read Write TPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 312.78 |================= PostgreSQL pgbench 10.3 Scaling: On-Disk - Test: Normal Load - Mode: Read Only TPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 55342.67 |=============== Perl Benchmarks Test: Interpreter Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 0.00138340 |============================================= Perl Benchmarks Test: Pod2html Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 0.17173742 |============================================= Parboil 2.5 Test: OpenMP MRI Gridding Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 30.74 |================================================== Parboil 2.5 Test: OpenMP Stencil Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 33.54 |================================================== Parboil 2.5 Test: OpenMP CUTCP Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 23.08 |================================================== Parboil 2.5 Test: OpenMP LBM Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 181.55 |================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1920 x 1080 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 150.43 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1920 x 1080 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 14.43 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1680 x 1050 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 150.44 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1680 x 1050 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 14.44 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1600 x 1024 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 150.58 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1600 x 1024 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 14.45 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1400 x 1050 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 151.91 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1400 x 1050 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 14.58 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1280 x 1024 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 152.53 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1280 x 1024 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 14.64 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1920 x 1080 MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 335.61 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1920 x 1080 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 20.97 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1680 x 1050 MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 335.81 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1680 x 1050 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 20.99 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1600 x 1024 MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 334.93 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1600 x 1024 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 20.93 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1400 x 1050 MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 341.83 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1400 x 1050 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 21.36 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1280 x 1024 MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 345.95 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1280 x 1024 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 21.62 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1600 x 900 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 175.01 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1600 x 900 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 16.80 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1440 x 900 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 175.16 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1440 x 900 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 16.81 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1440 x 810 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 199.22 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1440 x 810 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 19.12 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1400 x 900 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 175.53 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1400 x 900 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 16.84 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1368 x 768 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 214.18 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1368 x 768 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 20.55 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1280 x 960 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 163.83 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1280 x 960 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 15.72 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1280 x 800 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 203.27 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1280 x 800 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 19.50 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1024 x 768 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 215.04 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1024 x 768 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 20.63 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1024 x 576 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 335.16 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 1024 x 576 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 32.16 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1600 x 900 MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 384.45 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1600 x 900 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 24.03 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1440 x 900 MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 386.32 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1440 x 900 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 24.14 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1440 x 810 MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 428.15 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1440 x 810 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 26.76 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1400 x 900 MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 387.66 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1400 x 900 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 24.23 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1368 x 768 MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 452.36 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1368 x 768 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 28.27 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1280 x 960 MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 367.08 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1280 x 960 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 22.94 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1280 x 800 MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 433.66 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1280 x 800 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 27.10 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1024 x 768 MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 457.66 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1024 x 768 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 28.60 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1024 x 576 MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 607.32 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 1024 x 576 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 37.96 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 800 x 600 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 320.66 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Contour - Resolution: 800 x 600 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 30.77 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 800 x 600 MiVoxels / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 586.84 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Wavelet Volume - Resolution: 800 x 600 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 36.68 |========================================================= ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1920 x 1080 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 489.54 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1920 x 1080 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4.88 |========================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1680 x 1050 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 489.43 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1680 x 1050 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4.88 |========================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1600 x 1024 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 490.80 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1600 x 1024 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4.89 |========================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1400 x 1050 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 491.74 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1400 x 1050 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4.91 |========================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1280 x 1024 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 492.47 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1280 x 1024 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4.91 |========================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1600 x 900 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 495.22 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1600 x 900 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4.94 |========================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1440 x 900 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 496.10 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1440 x 900 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4.95 |========================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1440 x 810 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 498.74 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1440 x 810 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4.97 |========================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1400 x 900 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 494.32 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1400 x 900 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4.93 |========================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1368 x 768 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 501.96 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1368 x 768 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 5.01 |========================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1280 x 960 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 495.97 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1280 x 960 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4.95 |========================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1280 x 800 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 499.93 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1280 x 800 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4.99 |========================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1024 x 768 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 501.01 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1024 x 768 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 5.00 |========================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1024 x 576 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 503.21 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 1024 x 576 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 5.02 |========================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 800 x 600 MiPolys / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 504.59 |======================================================== ParaView 5.4.1 Test: Many Spheres - Resolution: 800 x 600 Frames / Sec > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 5.03 |========================================================== OSBench Test: Memory Allocations Ns Per Event < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 106.60 |================= OSBench Test: Create Processes us Per Event < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 34.92 |================== OSBench Test: Launch Programs us Per Event < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 118.63 |================= OSBench Test: Create Threads us Per Event < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 19.31 |================== OSBench Test: Create Files us Per Event < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 20.43 |================== Optcarrot Optimized Benchmark FPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 82.75 |================== OpenSSL 1.1.1 RSA 4096-bit Performance Signs Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 410.97 |================================================= OpenArena 0.8.8 Resolution: 2560 x 1440 - Total Frame Time Milliseconds < Lower Is Better Intel HD 520 . MIN: 1.0 AVG: 5.0 MAX: 13.0 OpenArena 0.8.8 Resolution: 2560 x 1440 Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 197.00 |======================================================== OpenArena 0.8.8 Resolution: 1920 x 1080 - Total Frame Time Milliseconds < Lower Is Better Intel HD 520 . MIN: 3.0 AVG: 20.3 MAX: 46.0 OpenArena 0.8.8 Resolution: 1920 x 1080 Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 49.07 |========================================================= OpenArena 0.8.8 Resolution: 1024 x 768 - Total Frame Time Milliseconds < Lower Is Better Intel HD 520 . MIN: 1.0 AVG: 7.8 MAX: 16.0 OpenArena 0.8.8 Resolution: 1024 x 768 Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 126.23 |======================================================== OpenArena 0.8.8 Resolution: 800 x 600 - Total Frame Time Milliseconds < Lower Is Better Intel HD 520 . MIN: 1.0 AVG: 5.5 MAX: 14.0 OpenArena 0.8.8 Resolution: 800 x 600 Frames Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 178.87 |======================================================== Nuttcp 8.1.4 Test: TCP Transfer - Default - Server Address: 5.20.0.41 Mbits/sec > Higher Is Better Intel Connection I219-V . 127.38 |============================================= Nuttcp 8.1.4 Test: 10G+ UDP - Server Address: 5.20.0.41 Mbits/sec > Higher Is Better Intel Connection I219-V . 166.07 |============================================= Numpy Benchmark Nanoseconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 7139022 |================================================ Numenta Anomaly Benchmark 2018-11-09 Time To Completion Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 961.02 |================= NAS Parallel Benchmarks 3.3.1 Test / Class: SP.A Total Mop/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 1855.80 |================================================ NAS Parallel Benchmarks 3.3.1 Test / Class: LU.C Total Mop/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 5892.73 |================================================ NAS Parallel Benchmarks 3.3.1 Test / Class: LU.A Total Mop/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 6925.97 |================================================ NAS Parallel Benchmarks 3.3.1 Test / Class: FT.B Total Mop/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 3836.75 |================================================ NAS Parallel Benchmarks 3.3.1 Test / Class: FT.A Total Mop/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 3800.46 |================================================ NAS Parallel Benchmarks 3.3.1 Test / Class: EP.C Total Mop/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 127.79 |================================================= NAS Parallel Benchmarks 3.3.1 Test / Class: BT.A Total Mop/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 2094.00 |================================================ Node.js Octane Benchmark Score > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 27150 |================================================== NGINX Benchmark 1.9.9 Static Web Page Serving Requests Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 22358.24 |=============== Loopback TCP Network Performance Time To Transfer 10GB Via Loopback Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Connection I219-V . 12.39 |============================================== Open FMM Nero2D 2.0.2 Total Time Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 241.16 |================================================= NAMD 2.13b1 ATPase Simulation - 327,506 Atoms days/ns < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 10.46 |================================================== N-Queens 1.0 Elapsed Time Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 96.74 |================================================== Multichase Pointer Chaser Test: 1GB Array, 256 Byte Stride, 4 Threads ns < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 187.87 |================================================= Multichase Pointer Chaser Test: 1GB Array, 256 Byte Stride, 2 Threads ns < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 99.84 |================================================== Multichase Pointer Chaser Test: 256MB Array, 256 Byte Stride ns < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 91.63 |================================================== Multichase Pointer Chaser Test: 1GB Array, 256 Byte Stride ns < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 90.39 |================================================== Multichase Pointer Chaser Test: 4MB Array, 64 Byte Stride ns < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 9.53 |=================================================== Timed MrBayes Analysis 3.1.2 Primate Phylogeny Analysis Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 576.39 |================================================= GNU MPC 1.1.0 Multi-Precision Benchmark Global Score > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 6447 |=================================================== MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: Convolution Batch conv_googlenet_v3 - Data Type: u8s8f32s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 1609.52 |================================================ MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: Convolution Batch conv_googlenet_v3 - Data Type: u8s8u8s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 1856.49 |================================================ MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: Convolution Batch conv_alexnet - Data Type: u8s8f32s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 2891.75 |================================================ MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: Deconvolution Batch deconv_all - Data Type: u8s8u8s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 112049 |================================================= MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: Deconvolution Batch deconv_3d - Data Type: u8s8f32s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 63905.97 |=============================================== MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: Deconvolution Batch deconv_1d - Data Type: u8s8f32s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 38981.23 |=============================================== MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: Convolution Batch conv_alexnet - Data Type: u8s8u8s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 3151.59 |================================================ MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: Deconvolution Batch deconv_3d - Data Type: u8s8u8s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 63699.73 |=============================================== MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: Deconvolution Batch deconv_1d - Data Type: u8s8u8s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 39192.23 |=============================================== MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: Convolution Batch conv_googlenet_v3 - Data Type: f32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 931.12 |================================================= MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: Convolution Batch conv_all - Data Type: u8s8f32s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 91265.33 |=============================================== MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: Convolution Batch conv_all - Data Type: u8s8u8s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 93554.10 |=============================================== MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: Convolution Batch conv_3d - Data Type: u8s8f32s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 79532.53 |=============================================== MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: Convolution Batch conv_3d - Data Type: u8s8u8s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 77617.30 |=============================================== MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: Deconvolution Batch deconv_all - Data Type: f32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 13427.87 |=============================================== MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: Convolution Batch conv_alexnet - Data Type: f32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 2251.09 |================================================ MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: Deconvolution Batch deconv_3d - Data Type: f32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 36.09 |================================================== MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: Deconvolution Batch deconv_1d - Data Type: f32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 34.68 |================================================== MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: Convolution Batch conv_all - Data Type: f32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 16768.23 |=============================================== MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: Convolution Batch conv_3d - Data Type: f32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 95.42 |================================================== MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: IP Batch All - Data Type: u8s8f32s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 279.23 |================================================= MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: IP Batch All - Data Type: u8s8u8s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 280.78 |================================================= MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: IP Batch 1D - Data Type: u8s8f32s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 22.19 |================================================== MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: IP Batch 1D - Data Type: u8s8u8s32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 23.05 |================================================== MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: IP Batch All - Data Type: f32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 437.58 |================================================= MKL-DNN 2019-04-16 Harness: IP Batch 1D - Data Type: f32 ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 37.42 |================================================== Mixbench 2016-06-06 Benchmark: Single Precision GFLOPS > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 0.12 |========================================================== Mixbench 2016-06-06 Benchmark: Double Precision GFLOPS > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 5.82 |========================================================== Mixbench 2016-06-06 Benchmark: Integer GIOPS > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 5.30 |========================================================== Minion 1.8 Benchmark: Quasigroup Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 174.51 |================================================= Minion 1.8 Benchmark: Solitaire Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 102.82 |================================================= Minion 1.8 Benchmark: Graceful Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 78.53 |================================================== Mencoder 1.3.0 AVI To LAVC Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 25.56 |================================================== Memcached mcperf 1.5.10 Method: Replace Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 53288.20 |=============== Memcached mcperf 1.5.10 Method: Prepend Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 54382.63 |=============== Memcached mcperf 1.5.10 Method: Delete Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 79660.00 |=============== Memcached mcperf 1.5.10 Method: Append Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 53966.17 |=============== Memcached mcperf 1.5.10 Method: Set Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 51305.17 |=============== Memcached mcperf 1.5.10 Method: Get Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 79289.33 |=============== Memcached mcperf 1.5.10 Method: Add Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 51217.83 |=============== MBW 2018-09-08 Test: Memory Copy, Fixed Block Size - Array Size: 4096 MiB MiB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 6628.22 |================ MBW 2018-09-08 Test: Memory Copy, Fixed Block Size - Array Size: 1024 MiB MiB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 6504.00 |================ MBW 2018-09-08 Test: Memory Copy, Fixed Block Size - Array Size: 512 MiB MiB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 6594.01 |================ MBW 2018-09-08 Test: Memory Copy, Fixed Block Size - Array Size: 128 MiB MiB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 6639.58 |================ MBW 2018-09-08 Test: Memory Copy - Array Size: 4096 MiB MiB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 11004.83 |=============== MBW 2018-09-08 Test: Memory Copy - Array Size: 1024 MiB MiB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 10260.92 |=============== MBW 2018-09-08 Test: Memory Copy - Array Size: 512 MiB MiB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 10718.61 |=============== MBW 2018-09-08 Test: Memory Copy - Array Size: 128 MiB MiB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 11241.69 |=============== MandelGPU 1.3pts1 OpenCL Device: CPU+GPU Samples/sec > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1650582.83 |============= MandelGPU 1.3pts1 OpenCL Device: CPU Samples/sec > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 1650179.50 |============= MandelbulbGPU 1.0pts1 OpenCL Device: CPU+GPU Samples/sec > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 602012.27 |============== MandelbulbGPU 1.0pts1 OpenCL Device: CPU Samples/sec > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 602304.57 |============== Timed MAFFT Alignment 7.392 Multiple Sequence Alignment Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 9.72 |=================================================== m-queens 1.2 Time To Solve Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 547.31 |================================================= lzbench 2017-08-08 Test: Libdeflate 1 - Process: Decompression MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 735 |==================================================== lzbench 2017-08-08 Test: Libdeflate 1 - Process: Compression MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 145 |==================================================== lzbench 2017-08-08 Test: Brotli 0 - Process: Decompression MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 377 |==================================================== lzbench 2017-08-08 Test: Brotli 0 - Process: Compression MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 288 |==================================================== lzbench 2017-08-08 Test: Zstd 1 - Process: Decompression MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 749 |==================================================== lzbench 2017-08-08 Test: Zstd 1 - Process: Compression MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 279 |==================================================== lzbench 2017-08-08 Test: XZ 0 - Process: Decompression MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 69 |===================================================== lzbench 2017-08-08 Test: XZ 0 - Process: Compression MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 25 |===================================================== LuaJIT 2.1-git Test: Jacobi Successive Over-Relaxation Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 1041.41 |================================================ LuaJIT 2.1-git Test: Dense LU Matrix Factorization Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 2103.34 |================================================ LuaJIT 2.1-git Test: Sparse Matrix Multiply Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 886.88 |================================================= LuaJIT 2.1-git Test: Fast Fourier Transform Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 213.57 |================================================= LuaJIT 2.1-git Test: Monte Carlo Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 347.12 |================================================= LuaJIT 2.1-git Test: Composite Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 918.47 |================================================= LLVM Test Suite 6.0.0 Time To Run Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 293.54 |================================================= LAMMPS Molecular Dynamics Simulator 1.0 Test: Rhodopsin Protein Loop Time < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 44.46 |================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Transformed Texture Paint - Size: 1024x1024 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 5441.06 |======================================================= JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Transformed Blit Bilinear - Size: 1024x1024 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4985.11 |======================================================= JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Transformed Texture Paint - Size: 512x512 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 9579.63 |======================================================= JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Transformed Texture Paint - Size: 256x256 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 18621.36 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Transformed Texture Paint - Size: 128x128 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 46929.59 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Transformed Blit Linear - Size: 1024x1024 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 69108.10 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Transformed Blit Bilinear - Size: 512x512 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 8860.07 |======================================================= JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Transformed Blit Bilinear - Size: 256x256 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 25935.29 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Transformed Blit Bilinear - Size: 128x128 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 42486.65 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Transformed Texture Paint - Size: 32x32 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 49441.50 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Transformed Blit Linear - Size: 512x512 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 15423.63 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Transformed Blit Linear - Size: 256x256 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 55114.49 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Transformed Blit Linear - Size: 128x128 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 193198.67 |===================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Transformed Blit Bilinear - Size: 32x32 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 46869.12 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Radial Gradient Paint - Size: 1024x1024 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 2347.42 |======================================================= JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Linear Gradient Blend - Size: 1024x1024 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 1828.74 |======================================================= JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Gradient+Temp Texture - Size: 1024x1024 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 2216.68 |======================================================= JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Transformed Blit Linear - Size: 32x32 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 205110.25 |===================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Radial Gradient Paint - Size: 512x512 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 5169.43 |======================================================= JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Radial Gradient Paint - Size: 256x256 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 12015.59 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Radial Gradient Paint - Size: 128x128 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 16951.51 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Linear Gradient Blend - Size: 512x512 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 4036.64 |======================================================= JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Linear Gradient Blend - Size: 256x256 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 10637.60 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Linear Gradient Blend - Size: 128x128 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 16740.94 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Gradient+Temp Texture - Size: 512x512 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 3209.43 |======================================================= JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Gradient+Temp Texture - Size: 256x256 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 8897.58 |======================================================= JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Gradient+Temp Texture - Size: 128x128 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 14172.79 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: 12pt Text Grayscale - Size: 1024x1024 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 31971.61 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Rects Composition - Size: 1024x1024 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 5522.11 |======================================================= JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Radial Gradient Paint - Size: 32x32 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 17662.90 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Linear Gradient Blend - Size: 32x32 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 17945.19 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Gradient+Temp Texture - Size: 32x32 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 15246.71 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: 12pt Text Grayscale - Size: 512x512 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 53410.09 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: 12pt Text Grayscale - Size: 256x256 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 82554.46 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: 12pt Text Grayscale - Size: 128x128 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 110398.30 |===================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Rects Composition - Size: 512x512 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 9935.02 |======================================================= JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Rects Composition - Size: 256x256 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 17805.89 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Rects Composition - Size: 128x128 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 35241.23 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Put Composition - Size: 1024x1024 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 3346.52 |======================================================= JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: 12pt Text Grayscale - Size: 32x32 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 154396.17 |===================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Rects Composition - Size: 32x32 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 45354.17 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Put Composition - Size: 512x512 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 5392.88 |======================================================= JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Put Composition - Size: 256x256 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 8503.61 |======================================================= JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Put Composition - Size: 128x128 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 11500.01 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: 12pt Text LCD - Size: 1024x1024 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 32526.56 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Simple Blit - Size: 1024x1024 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 8912.70 |======================================================= JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Put Composition - Size: 32x32 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 15173.87 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: 12pt Text LCD - Size: 512x512 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 54373.89 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: 12pt Text LCD - Size: 256x256 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 83352.80 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: 12pt Text LCD - Size: 128x128 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 111009.44 |===================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Simple Blit - Size: 512x512 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 19533.35 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Simple Blit - Size: 256x256 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 95895.51 |====================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Simple Blit - Size: 128x128 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 256952.41 |===================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: 12pt Text LCD - Size: 32x32 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 155143.98 |===================================================== JXRenderMark 1.0.1 Test: Simple Blit - Size: 32x32 Operations Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 279587.55 |===================================================== JuliaGPU 1.2pts1 OpenCL Device: CPU+GPU Samples/sec > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 2210997.73 |============= JuliaGPU 1.2pts1 OpenCL Device: CPU Samples/sec > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 2211179.80 |============= John The Ripper 1.8.0-jumbo-1 Test: MD5 Real C/S > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 80361 |================================================== John The Ripper 1.8.0-jumbo-1 Test: Traditional DES Real C/S > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 9620333 |================================================ John The Ripper 1.8.0-jumbo-1 Test: Blowfish Real C/S > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 2501 |=================================================== Java SciMark 2.0 Computational Test: Jacobi Successive Over-Relaxation Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 1011.26 |================================================ Java SciMark 2.0 Computational Test: Dense LU Matrix Factorization Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 4189.24 |================================================ Java SciMark 2.0 Computational Test: Sparse Matrix Multiply Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 1587.21 |================================================ Java SciMark 2.0 Computational Test: Fast Fourier Transform Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 1070.06 |================================================ Java SciMark 2.0 Computational Test: Monte Carlo Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 684.09 |================================================= Java SciMark 2.0 Computational Test: Composite Mflops > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 1708.37 |================================================ Java Gradle Build 1.0 Gradle Build: Reactor Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 30.76 |================================================== Java 2D Microbenchmark 1.0 Rendering Test: Vector Graphics Rendering Units Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 895154.66 |===================================================== Java 2D Microbenchmark 1.0 Rendering Test: All Rendering Tests Units Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 1042552.33 |==================================================== Java 2D Microbenchmark 1.0 Rendering Test: Image Rendering Units Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 1555369.89 |==================================================== Java 2D Microbenchmark 1.0 Rendering Test: Text Rendering Units Per Second > Higher Is Better Intel HD 520 . 11706.17 |====================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 64Kb - File Size: 512MB - Disk Test: Write Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 205.94 |==================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 64Kb - File Size: 512MB - Disk Test: Read Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 4390.42 |=================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 4Kb - File Size: 512MB - Disk Test: Write Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 230.88 |==================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 1MB - File Size: 512MB - Disk Test: Write Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 233.79 |==================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 64Kb - File Size: 8GB - Disk Test: Write Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 285.38 |==================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 64Kb - File Size: 4GB - Disk Test: Write Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 278.01 |==================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 64Kb - File Size: 2GB - Disk Test: Write Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 261.09 |==================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 4Kb - File Size: 512MB - Disk Test: Read Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 2801.75 |=================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 1MB - File Size: 512MB - Disk Test: Read Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 4076.12 |=================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 64Kb - File Size: 8GB - Disk Test: Read Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 7201.02 |=================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 64Kb - File Size: 4GB - Disk Test: Read Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 6527.39 |=================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 64Kb - File Size: 2GB - Disk Test: Read Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 6208.18 |=================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 4Kb - File Size: 8GB - Disk Test: Write Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 279.97 |==================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 4Kb - File Size: 4GB - Disk Test: Write Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 271.24 |==================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 4Kb - File Size: 2GB - Disk Test: Write Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 255.24 |==================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 1MB - File Size: 8GB - Disk Test: Write Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 285.24 |==================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 1MB - File Size: 4GB - Disk Test: Write Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 264.61 |==================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 1MB - File Size: 2GB - Disk Test: Write Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 254.98 |==================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 4Kb - File Size: 8GB - Disk Test: Read Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 3726.18 |=================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 4Kb - File Size: 4GB - Disk Test: Read Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 3677.40 |=================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 4Kb - File Size: 2GB - Disk Test: Read Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 3393.89 |=================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 1MB - File Size: 8GB - Disk Test: Read Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 6987.80 |=================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 1MB - File Size: 4GB - Disk Test: Read Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 6254.56 |=================================================== IOzone 3.465 Record Size: 1MB - File Size: 2GB - Disk Test: Read Performance MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 6933.19 |=================================================== Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: Gaming - Background Load: Memload Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 2.80 |=================== Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: Gaming - Background Load: Compile Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 267.97 |================= Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: Video - Background Load: Memload Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.38 |=================== Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: Video - Background Load: Compile Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 142.68 |================= Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: Audio - Background Load: Memload Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.68 |=================== Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: Audio - Background Load: Compile Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 127.43 |================= Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: Gaming - Background Load: Write Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 51.20 |================== Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: Video - Background Load: Write Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 122.48 |================= Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: Gaming - Background Load: Burn Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 100.08 |================= Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: Audio - Background Load: Write Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 124.02 |================= Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: Audio - Background Load: Video Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.20 |=================== Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: Video - Background Load: Read Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 5.98 |=================== Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: Video - Background Load: Burn Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 48.20 |================== Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: Audio - Background Load: Read Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.60 |=================== Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: Audio - Background Load: Burn Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 4.53 |=================== Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: X - Background Load: Memload Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 15 |===================== Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: X - Background Load: Compile Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 446 |==================== Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: Gaming - Background Load: X Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 2.10 |=================== Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: X - Background Load: Write Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 86 |===================== Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: X - Background Load: Video Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 34 |===================== Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: Video - Background Load: X Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 16.83 |================== Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: Audio - Background Load: X Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 0.25 |=================== Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: X - Background Load: Read Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 48 |===================== Interbench 0.31 Benchmark: X - Background Load: Burn Max Latency ms < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 246 |==================== High Performance Conjugate Gradient 3.0 GFLOP/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 1.09 |=================================================== HPC Challenge 1.5.0 Test / Class: Max Ping Pong Bandwidth MB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 7551.60 |================================================ HPC Challenge 1.5.0 Test / Class: Random Ring Bandwidth GB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 2.70117 |================================================ HPC Challenge 1.5.0 Test / Class: Random Ring Latency usecs < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 0.66375 |================================================ HPC Challenge 1.5.0 Test / Class: G-Random Access GUP/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 0.00204 |================================================ HPC Challenge 1.5.0 Test / Class: EP-STREAM Triad GB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 4.72101 |================================================ HPC Challenge 1.5.0 Test / Class: G-Ptrans GB/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 0.31648 |================================================ HPC Challenge 1.5.0 Test / Class: EP-DGEMM GFLOPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 5.22681 |================================================ HPC Challenge 1.5.0 Test / Class: G-Ffte GFLOP/s > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 3.21539 |================================================ HPC Challenge 1.5.0 Test / Class: G-Ffte GFLOPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 3.21539 |================================================ HPC Challenge 1.5.0 Test / Class: G-HPL GFLOPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 20.15 |================================================== Timed HMMer Search 2.3.2 Pfam Database Search Seconds < Lower Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 19.24 |================================================== Hierarchical INTegration 1.0 Test: DOUBLE QUIPs > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 653886506.44 |=========== Hierarchical INTegration 1.0 Test: FLOAT QUIPs > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U - Intel HD 520 3072MB - HP 8079 . 281417773.33 |=========== Himeno Benchmark 3.0 Poisson Pressure Solver MFLOPS > Higher Is Better Intel Core i5-6200U . 1840.50 |================================================ hdparm Timed Disk Reads Disk To Read: /dev/sda MB/s > Higher Is Better SAMSUNG MZNLN256 . 524.51 |====================================================

intel-core-i5-6200u-280ghz

View

Limit displaying results to tests within:

Statistics

Graph Settings

Multi-Way Comparison

Table

Run Management