arstechnica.com: Mini-review: Intel’s powered-up Core i7 Broadwell mini PC

arstechnica.com: Mini-review: Intel’s powered-up Core i7 Broadwell mini PC

by Andrew Cunningham

ACTIVITY

BROADWELL I5 NUC

HASWELL NUC

BROADWELL I7 NUC

Off/Hibernated

0.5W

0.5W

0.5W

Sleep mode

1.0W

1.1W

1.0W

Idle at desktop (display off)

6.7W

6.4W

9.0W

Watching YouTube in Chrome

9.1W

9.0W

11.8W

Running GFXBench Manhattan benchmark (peak)

37.2W

38.0W

51.1W

Running Prime95 CPU torture test

31.8W

29.7W

50.9W (peak), 42.4W (sustained)

zsuraski.blogspot.de: Zeev’s blog: Benchmarking PHPNG!

zsuraski.blogspot.de: Zeev’s blog: Benchmarking PHPNG!
On SugarCRM, PHPNG is 14% faster than hhvm 3.1 and 28% faster than hhvm 3.2. Yes, PHPNG’s actually faster than hhvm here! Also see a special note about SugarCRM below. On WordPress, hhvm is WAAAY faster than PHP 5.6 – but only 27% faster than PHPNG. In Drupal – hhvm is almost twice as fast as PHP 5.6, but only 10% faster than PHPNG.

dreamhost.com: Web Server Performance Comparison – DreamHost

dreamhost.com: Web Server Performance Comparison – DreamHost
Remember, Apache supports a larger toolbox of things it can do immediately and is probably the most compatible across all web software out there today… and most websites really don’t get so many concurrent hits as to gain large performance/memory benefits from Lighttpd or nginx. But hey, it never hurts (too much) to swap your web servers around and see what works best for you!

http://bruscy.republika.pl: The Java (not really) Faster than C++ Benchmark

http://bruscy.republika.pl: The Java (not really) Faster than C++ Benchmark
The most important conclusion is obvious. (For this set of benchmarks,) C++ is clearly the winner. Second conclusion – don’t use Client VM in older Java versions. Going from 3x slower to 1.7x slower is quite an impressive feat on Java side. And keep in mind that C++ also was getting faster with every compiler release.

Dice News: Speed Test: Comparing Intel C++, GNU C++, and LLVM Clang Compilers

Dice News: Speed Test: Comparing Intel C++, GNU C++, and LLVM Clang Compilers
Conclusion: It’s interesting that the code built with the g++ compiler performed the best in most cases, although the clang compiler proved to be the fastest in terms of compilation time. But I wasn’t able to test much regarding the parallel processing with clang, since its Cilk Plus extension aren’t quite ready, and the Threading Building Blocks team hasn’t ported it yet.

CoreMark an EEMBC Benchmark

CoreMark an EEMBC Benchmark
What is CoreMark?Processors and associated systems are getting increasingly complex requiring increasingly complex benchmarks to analyze. The current and future EEMBC benchmarks are aimed at specific embedded market segments and are very successful at approximating real-world performance of embedded devices. However, there is also a need for a widely-available, generic benchmark specifically targeted at the processor core. Introducing CoreMark — Developed by EEMBC, this is a simple, yet sophisticated, benchmark that is designed specifically to test the functionality of a processor core. Running CoreMark produces a single-number score allowing users to make quick comparisons between processors.