TEST REPORT September 2007 Performance and energy consumption of three notebook PCs with Intel processors Executive summary Intel Corporation (Intel) commissioned Principled KEY FINDINGS Technologies (PT) to run a set of performance and energy consumption tests on the following notebook systems in z The HP Compaq 6910p Intel Core 2 Duo their out-of-the-box (OOB) configurations: processor T7300-based notebook PC performed as much as 138 percent faster • an HP 510 Intel Pentium M notebook processor than the HP Compaq nc6320 Intel Core Duo 770-based system T2500 2.00 GHz notebook PC, which in turn • an HP Compaq nc6320 Intel Core Duo notebook performed as much as 117 percent faster processor T2500-based system than the HP 510 Intel Pentium M 770 • an HP Compaq 6910p Intel Core 2 Duo notebook processor-based notebook PC. (See Figure processor T7300-based system 1.) The goal of the testing was to gauge the performance and z Running those tests, the HP Compaq 6910p energy consumption of each system. Intel specified the Intel Core 2 Duo processor T7300-based test systems and provided the test, test procedures, and notebook PC consumed as much as 119 test settings. PT purchased and set up the HP 510 Intel percent less energy than the HP Compaq Pentium M notebook processor 770-based system and the nc6320 Intel Core Duo T2500 2.00 GHz HP Compaq nc6320 Intel Core Duo notebook processor notebook PC, which in turn consumed as T2500-based system. Intel provided the HP Compaq much as 63 percent less energy than the HP 6910p Intel Core 2 Duo notebook processor T7300-based 510 Intel Pentium M 770 processor-based system and PT set it up. PT executed the tests. notebook PC. (See Figure 2.) We measured system performance and energy consumption using the following five custom business application tests designed to simulate tasks that users commonly perform on notebook PCs: • Two spreadsheet recalculation tests using Microsoft Office Excel 2007 to recalculate a spreadsheet • Multitasking test using Microsoft Office Outlook 2007, Word 2007, and Internet Explorer 7 while running a McAfee virus scan • Multitasking test using Microsoft Office Word 2007 to convert to PDF while running a Windows Defender scan • Multitasking test using Microsoft Office Word 2007 to combine two documents while printing a PowerPoint XPS document We used an Extech Power Analyzer to measure energy consumption while running the custom tests. The Test results section shows these results in more detail, while the Test methodology section explains how we ran the test. Appendix A provides the price of the test systems and Appendix B details their configurations. Test results Figure 1 presents both raw performance results (the median of five runs for each test) and comparative results. Because performance scores represent the time, in seconds, that the system required to complete the workload, lower is better. Because comparative ratings indicate how much faster one system is than another, higher is better. Performance Results Comparative Ratings HP Compaq HP Compaq HP Compaq HP Compaq HP 510 HP 510 nc6320 6910p nc6320 6910p Test Intel Pentium Intel Pentium Intel Core Intel Core 2 Intel Core Intel Core 2 M 770 M 770 Duo T2500 Duo T7300 Duo T2500 Duo T7300 2.13 GHz 2.13 GHz 2.00 GHz 2.00 GHz 2.00 GHz 2.00 GHz Custom business Performance in seconds – lower is Comparative rating – higher is better application better tests Microsoft Office Excel 2007 Monte Carlo 167 94 61 1.00 1.78 2.74 Black-Scholes Microsoft Office Excel 2007 Big 75 38 16 1.00 1.97 4.69 Number Crunch Open Microsoft Office Outlook 2007, Internet Explorer 7, and Word 2007 694 467 375 1.00 1.49 1.85 while running a McAfee virus scan Microsoft Office 13 6 7 1.00 2.17 1.86 Word 2007 (foreground (foreground (foreground (foreground (foreground (foreground creating a PDF task) task) task) task) task) task) while running a Windows 30 23 17 1.00 1.30 1.76 Defender (Defender scan) (Defender scan) (Defender scan) (Defender scan) (Defender scan) (Defender scan) custom scan Microsoft Office Word 2007 and PowerPoint 2007 Word 159 105 91 1.00 1.51 1.75 combine + PowerPoint Print Figure 1: Performance results and comparative performance ratings for the test systems. In the performance results, lower numbers are better. In the comparative ratings, higher numbers are better. We have rounded performance scores to the nearest second but comparative ratings reflect actual scores. As Figure 1 shows, the HP Compaq 6910p Intel Core 2 Duo processor T7300-based notebook PC performed the custom business application tests faster than did the HP Compaq nc6320 Intel Core Duo T2500 2.00 GHz notebook PC, which in turn performed faster than the HP 510 Intel Pentium M 770 processor-based notebook PC. Figure 2 presents both raw energy consumption measurements (the median of five runs for each test) and comparative results. (In the event of a tie, we chose the run with the higher energy consumption. If the energy consumption score was also tied, we then chose the first run we executed with those scores.) Because energy consumption results represent the energy the system used when completing the workload, lower is better. Because comparative ratings indicate how much less energy one system used than another, higher is better. We used the Extech Instruments 380803 Power Analyzer to gauge energy consumption. The Extech Power Analyzer is an external unit that connects to a host computer through a RS-232 communications cable. The device also has a DC power cable that powers the system under test. We used the Extech Power Analyzer to Principled Technologies, Inc.: Performance and energy consumption 2 of three notebook PCs with Intel processors monitor the average DC energy consumption of each system while running the five custom business application tests. We then multiplied Extech’s average DC power score by the time the workload took to complete to calculate the Workload Energy Consumption (WEC) in watt-seconds. We divided the WEC watt-seconds score by 3,600 (the number of seconds in an hour) to calculate the WEC Watt-hours we report below. Energy Consumption Results Comparative Ratings HP Compaq HP Compaq HP Compaq HP Compaq HP 510 HP 510 nc6320 6910p nc6320 6910p Test Intel Pentium Intel Pentium Intel Core Intel Core 2 Intel Core Intel Core 2 M 770 M 770 Duo T2500 Duo T7300 Duo T2500 Duo T7300 2.13 GHz 2.13 GHz 2.00 GHz 2.00 GHz 2.00 GHz 2.00 GHz Custom business Energy consumption in watt-hours – Comparative rating – higher is better application lower is better tests Microsoft Office Excel 2007 Monte Carlo 1.96 1.29 0.82 1.00 1.52 2.39 Black-Scholes Microsoft Office Excel 2007 Big 0.75 0.46 0.21 1.00 1.63 3.57 Number Crunch Microsoft Office Outlook 2007, Word 2007, and Internet Explorer 7 while 4.16 3.47 3.20 1.00 1.20 1.30 running a McAfee virus scan Microsoft Office Word 2007 creating a PDF while running a 0.29 0.25 0.18 1.00 1.16 1.61 Windows Defender Custom Scan Microsoft Office Word 2007 and PowerPoint 2007 Word 1.71 1.34 1.11 1.00 1.28 1.54 combine + PowerPoint Print Figure 2: Energy consumption results and comparative energy consumption ratings for the test systems. In the energy consumption results, lower numbers are better. In the comparative ratings, higher numbers are better. As Figure 2 shows, the HP Compaq 6910p Intel Core 2 Duo processor T7300-based notebook PC consumed less energy during the custom business application tests than did the HP Compaq nc6320 Intel Core Duo T2500 2.00 GHz notebook PC, which in turn consumed less energy than the HP 510 Intel Pentium M 770 processor-based notebook PC. Test methodology This section discusses some differences in the configurations of the test systems and details the methodologies we followed in testing them. We ran the tests five times and report the median of those runs. Configuration differences We purchased the built-to-order systems from the vendor’s Web site. We could not avoid the following differences: Principled Technologies, Inc.: Performance and energy consumption 3 of three notebook PCs with Intel processors • The operating systems differ. The Intel Pentium M processor system came configured with Microsoft Windows XP Professional, while the Intel Core Duo and Intel Core 2 Duo systems came configured with Microsoft Windows Vista Business. • The hard drive controllers in the systems differ. The Intel Pentium M processor 770-based system uses the Intel 82801FBM (ICH6-M) controller, while the Intel Core Duo processor T2500-based system uses the Intel 82801GHM (ICH7-M) controller and the Intel Core 2 Duo processor T7300-based system uses the Intel 82801HBM (ICH8-M) controller. • The graphics controllers in the systems differ. The Intel Pentium M processor 770-based system uses the Intel GMA 900 controller, while the Intel Core Duo processor T2500-based system uses the Intel GMA 950 controller and the Intel Core 2 Duo processor T7300-based system uses the Intel GMA X3100 controller. • The prices differ. At the time of purchase, the retail prices for the Intel Pentium M processor 770-based system and the Intel Core Duo processor T2500-based system were $699.99 and $1,665.00 respectively, not including sales tax or shipping. (For complete information on the prices PT paid, see Appendix A). Intel provided the Intel Core 2 Duo processor T7300-based system. For detailed system configurations, see Appendix B.