When you first purchased your laptop, it responded
quickly, easily ran the latest games, and had a long battery life. Now, a few
years later, it’s time to replace that laptop with one that can handle your
current demands. With so many options on the market, how do you choose?
New Ultrabooks inspired by Intel® fit deliver
excellent performance and new Intel technologies in a smaller package so that
you can complete all your tasks in a lighter, more comfortably portable system.
In the Principled Technologies labs, we compared the
performance of a pre-production, 3rd generation Intel Core™ Ultrabook prototype
to a 2010 laptop system in a number of areas,
including system responsiveness, battery life, encryption time, and graphics
and gaming performance.
The Ultrabook prototype provided a better experience
than the 2010 laptop in every area: it opened common applications up to twice
as quickly, improved battery life by 52.6 percent, sped up hard drive
encryption by 60.2 percent, and improved graphics performance by up to 174.0
percent.
Get more out of less
The prototype we tested, like all Ultrabooks, is designed
for maximum portability with a sleek design—it’s less than an inch thick and
weighs just over 3 pounds. Using a thinner Intel Core processor with Intel
Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 and solid-state storage, the Ultrabook has the power
to handle your everyday tasks, from Web browsing to media creation and
manipulation to gaming. Some Ultrabooks also have touch-screen technology to
further enhance the user experience.
We tested an Ultrabook prototype in a variety of test
areas: system performance, system responsiveness, graphics and gaming
performance, general benchmark performance, battery life, Web browsing
performance, and encryption performance.
If your laptop is more than a couple of years old,
updating your system will give you a significantly better experience today. We
compared the performance of an Ultrabook
prototype with an Intel Core i7-3667U processor and Intel HD Graphics 4000
running Microsoft Windows® 8, to that of a commercially available 2010 laptop with an Intel Core i7-620M processor,
NVIDIA® NVS 3100 graphics, 4 GB of memory, and a 7,200-RPM SATA hard drive
running Windows 7.
In every test, the Ultrabook prototype outperformed the 2010 laptop
system. Figure 1 summarizes the most dramatic performance increases the
Ultrabook achieved. Continue reading for an in-depth look at our complete set
of test results.
| |
Ultrabook
prototype |
2010
laptop |
Percentage
difference |
| Boot time (secs) |
11.90 |
47.09 |
74.7% |
| Hibernate time (sec) |
3.60 |
18.05 |
80.1% |
| Launching Microsoft PowerPoint® (secs) |
1.28 |
3.02 |
57.6% |
|
Graphics - 3DMark® Score |
3,280 |
1,197 |
174.0% |
| Performance – PCMark® Score
|
4,295 |
1,994 |
115.4% |
| Battery Life score (hh:mm) |
4:50 |
3:10 |
52.6% |
| Dromaeo JavaScript (runs/sec) |
485.13 |
292.16
|
66.0% |
| Time to encrypt the HDD (mm:ss) |
20:18 |
51:03 |
60.2% |
Figure 1: Selected test results for the Ultrabook
prototype and 2010 laptop.
system performance
No one likes waiting for a laptop to boot, resume from
sleep, or shut down. Older systems use older technologies, and may not provide
the system performance that a new laptop can provide.
We hand-timed both the Ultrabook prototype and the 2010 laptop booting,
shutting down, sleeping, hibernating, and resuming from hibernate or sleep. In
every instance, the Ultrabook prototype was dramatically faster. It took only
11.9 seconds to boot while the older laptop took 47 seconds. Figure 2 compares
the times, in seconds, the systems needed to complete these basic, everyday
tasks.
Figure 2: System performance time comparison for the
Ultrabook prototype and the 2010 laptop we tested.
Figure 3 details the median results of our system performance tests. The
Ultrabook prototype was quicker than the 2010 laptop in every area we tested,
including hibernating 80.1 percent faster.
| |
Ultrabook
prototype(seconds) |
2010 laptop(seconds) |
Percentage
difference |
| Boot time |
11.90 |
47.09 |
74.7% |
| Shutdown time |
3.92 |
9.89 |
60.4% |
|
Hibernate time |
3.60 |
18.05 |
80.1% |
| Resume from hibernate time
|
9.82 |
26.98 |
63.6% |
| Sleep time |
3.34 |
4.47 |
25.3% |
| Resume from sleep time
|
1.46 |
3.32 |
56.0% |
Figure 3: Median times, in seconds, for the system
performance tests. Lower times are better.
System responsiveness
It isn’t only booting and shutting down your laptop
that can keep you waiting. When you open applications multiple times a day,
lagging performance can leave you frustrated.
We tested the responsiveness of both systems launching common
applications including Microsoft Office applications (Word®, Excel®, and
PowerPoint®). As in our system performance tests, the Ultrabook prototype left
the 2010 laptop in the dust, reducing the time to launch applications by as
much as 57.6 percent. Figure 4 compares the application launch times for the
two systems.
Figure 4: Application launch times for the Ultrabook
prototype and the 2010 laptop we tested.
As our tests show, moving from your older laptop to a new Ultrabook can
also speed up even more specialized tasks such as photo and video editing. We
tested the responsiveness of the systems when launching photo and video
projects and converting those projects to a different file type in Adobe®
Photoshop® Elements and Adobe Premiere® Elements, and found that the Ultrabook
prototype outperformed the 2010 laptop, reducing the time for common tasks by
as much as 55.5 percent. Figure 5 compares the time it took the systems to
complete common photo and video editing tasks.
Figure 5: Photo and video editing application task times
for the Ultrabook prototype and the 2010 laptop we tested.
Figure 6 details the median results of our system responsiveness tests.
The Ultrabook prototype was quicker than the 2010 laptop in every area we
tested, including being up to 57.6 percent faster when launching Microsoft
PowerPoint.
| |
Ultrabook
prototype(mm:ss) |
2010 laptop(mm:ss) |
Percentage
difference |
| Application launch times |
| Microsoft Word
|
00:01.09 |
00:02.21 |
50.7% |
| Microsoft Excel
|
00:01.10 |
00:02.34 |
53.0% |
| Microsoft PowerPoint
|
00:01.28 |
00:03.02 |
57.6% |
|
Adobe Photoshop Elements tasks |
| Project launch time |
00:09.65 |
00:21.68 |
55.5% |
| Convert project to JPEG |
01:34.42 |
01:48.51 |
13.0% |
| Adobe Premiere Elements tasks |
| Project launch time |
00:09.20 |
00:13.03 |
29.4% |
| Convert project to MPEG-2 |
02:33.62 |
03:15.40 |
21.4% |
Figure 6: Median times, in minutes:seconds, for the
system responsiveness tests. Lower times are better.
Graphics performance
You might not play games with complex graphics
yourself, but knowing that a system can handle the most demanding graphics with
ease lets you know it will likely meet your overall performance needs as well. Despite
its sleek profile, the new Ultrabook with its integrated graphics card can
deliver outstanding graphics and gaming experiences. In our tests, it
outperformed the 2010 system, which contained an NVIDIA NVS 3100 discrete
graphics card solution.
First, we examined the graphics performance of the two systems using two
benchmarks, UNIGINE Heaven DX 11 and the industry-standard 3DMark Vantage
1.1.0. On these benchmarks, the Ultrabook prototype outperformed the 2010 laptop
by up to 174.0 percent, delivering 2.75 times the graphics performance. Figures
7 through 9 present the graphics performance scores that the systems achieved
on the two benchmarks.
Figure 7: 3DMark graphics performance benchmark results
for the Ultrabook prototype and the 2010 laptop we tested.
Figure 8: UNIGINE Heaven DX 11 graphics performance
benchmark results for the Ultrabook prototype and the 2010 laptop we tested.
|
Graphics performance benchmarks |
| |
Ultrabook
prototype |
2010
laptop |
Percentage
difference |
| 3DMark Vantage 1.1.0 |
| 3DMark Score |
3,280 |
1,197 |
174.0% |
| Graphics Score |
2,681 |
933 |
187.4% |
|
CPU Score |
9,933 |
7,951 |
24.9% |
| UNIGINE Heaven DX 11 |
| Score
|
309 |
165 |
87.3% |
| Average FPS |
12.3 |
6.6 |
86.4% |
|
Min FPS |
8.2 |
3.9 |
110.3% |
| Max FPS |
23.4 |
12.5 |
87.2% |
Figure 9: Median graphics performance benchmark results
for the two systems. Higher numbers are better.
To better compare the graphical experience the systems provided, we then
ran a number of common games on the system and used counters (either internal
to the game or external) to determine the average frames per second (FPS) the
systems delivered during gameplay. The more frames per second that a system
processes, the smoother the gaming experience. The Ultrabook improved average
FPS over the 2010 laptop on all the games we tested - ranging from 33.0 percent
improvement on Diablo III performance to a whopping 71.1 percent improvement on
Total War Shogun 2. Figure 10 compares the average FPS for common video games
on the two systems.
Figure 10: Graphics performance for common games, in
average FPS, for the Ultrabook prototype and the 2010 laptop we tested.
Figure 11 details the average FPS results of the systems running the
games we tested.
| Graphics performance – Average FPS of common video games |
| |
Ultrabook
prototype |
2010
laptop |
Percentage
difference |
| Diablo III (Diablo III Old Tristram using FRAPS - 60
seconds) |
43.9 |
33.0 |
33.0% |
| Total War Shogun 2 (Games Settings benchmark) |
34.4 |
20.1 |
71.1% |
| Civilization V (Leader Benchmark) |
23.35 |
17.09 |
36.6% |
Figure 11: Average frames per second (FPS) while running
each game. Higher numbers are better.
Benchmark performance
It’s important that your laptop be up to the task of
handling today’s media, so that you can organize your music, produce videos,
and create photos. To see how the Ultrabook fared against the 2010 laptop in
general performance including media creation, we ran two industry-standard
benchmarks: HDXPRT 2012, which evaluates the capabilities of PCs in common consumer
digital media uses, and PCMark 7, which evaluates the full range of system
performance.
Figure 12 compares the overall HDXPRT Create HD Score
for the two systems. The Ultrabook prototype achieved a 92.6 percent higher
score than the 2010 laptop, indicating it was better able to meet a number of
media creation and manipulation demands.
Figure 12: HDXPRT 2012 Create HD Scores for the Ultrabook
prototype and the 2010 laptop we tested.
Figure 13 details the performance results for the two
systems on the HDXPRT 2012 benchmark.
| HDXPRT 2012 performance |
| |
Ultrabook
prototype |
2010
laptop |
Percentage difference |
| Create HD Score (higher is better) |
208 |
108 |
92.6% |
| Media Organizer - minutes (lower is better) |
4.19 |
6.73 |
37.7% |
|
Media Creator - minutes (lower is better) |
11.60 |
17.76 |
34.7% |
| Photo Blogger - minutes (lower is better) |
7.17 |
10.15 |
29.4% |
| Video Producer – minutes (lower is better) |
2.10 |
12.58 |
83.3% |
| Music Maker - minutes (lower is better) |
2.58 |
3.24 |
20.4% |
Figure 13: HDXPRT 2012 performance scores for the two
systems. A higher overall Create HD Score is better, but lower category
scores are better.
Figure 14 compares the PCMark 7 performance scores of the two systems.
The Ultrabook prototype achieved higher PCMark7 scores than the 2010 laptop in
every category, for a combined 115.4 percent PCMark 7 score improvement - over twice
the performance.
Figure 14: PCMark 7 scores for the Ultrabook prototype
and the 2010 laptop we tested.
Figure 15 details the performance results for the two systems on the
PCMark 7 benchmark.
|
PCMark 7 performance |
| |
Ultrabook
prototype |
2010
laptop |
Percentage
difference |
| PCMark Score
|
4,295 |
1,994 |
115.4% |
| Lightweight Score |
3,548 |
1,911 |
85.7% |
| Productivity Score |
2,589 |
1,504 |
72.1% |
| Creativity Score |
6,935 |
2,381 |
191.3% |
|
Entertainment Score |
2,951 |
1,722 |
71.4% |
| Computation Score |
6,415 |
2,618 |
145.0% |
| System Storage Score |
5,294 |
1,640 |
222.8% |
Figure 15: PCMark 7 benchmark scores for the two systems.
Higher numbers are better.
Battery life
Two of the major attractions of a laptop are maximum
portability and flexibility, so why hold on to a system that tethers you to an
electrical outlet? The Ultrabook can provide long battery life to keep you
moving while handling your demanding workloads.
We used the BAPCo® MobileMark® 2012 benchmark to evaluate battery life
during normal use and a 1080p custom video playback test, where the systems ran
a video on loop until the battery expired, to test battery life when watching
HD movies. Figure 16 compares the battery life scores of the systems. The Ultrabook
prototype lasted up to 1 hour 40 minutes longer than the 2010 laptop during the
MobileMark 2012 test.
Figure 16: Battery life times for the Ultrabook prototype
and the 2010 laptop we tested.
Figure 17 presents the battery life performance results for the systems
in detail.
|
Battery life performance |
| |
Ultrabook
prototype |
2010
laptop |
Percentage
difference |
| MobileMark 2012 |
|
Performance Qualification score
|
136 |
118 |
15.3% |
| Battery Life score (mm)
|
290 |
190 |
52.6% |
| Battery Life score (hh:mm) |
4:50 |
3:10 |
52.6% |
| 1080p Video Playback test |
| Battery Life score (mm)
|
243 |
186 |
30.6% |
| Battery Life score (hh:mm) |
4:03 |
3:06 |
30.6% |
| Screen brightness (nits) |
156 |
152 |
NA |
Figure 17: Detailed battery life results for the two
systems.
Web browsing performance
Today’s Web is an astoundingly interactive
environment. Thus, systems with more power to handle JavaScript and HTML5 make
for a better Web browsing experience.
Figure 18 details the Web browsing performance results for the two
systems. The Ultrabook prototype delivered 66.0 percent more runs per second
than the 2010 laptop on the Dromaeo JavaScript benchmark and reduced latency by
up to 45.4 percent on SunSpider JavaScript tests.
| Web browsing performance |
| |
Ultrabook
prototype |
2010
laptop |
Percentage
difference |
| Dromaeo JavaScript (higher is better) |
485.13 runs/s |
292.16 runs/s |
66.0% |
| SunSpider JavaScript (lower is better) |
111.0 ms |
203.4 ms |
45.4% |
| GUIMark 2 HTML5 (higher is better) |
| Vector Charting Test - FPS |
26 |
21 |
23.8% |
| Bitmap Gaming Test - FPS |
60 |
59 |
1.7% |
Figure 18: Web browsing performance results for the two
systems.
Encryption time
While the portability of laptops is an enormous plus,
it also opens up the possibility of loss or theft. Encrypting your hard drive
is an effective way to keep your personal data safe. New technologies have made
encryption on the Ultrabook faster than ever.
We encrypted the hard drives of both systems using BitLocker®, and found
that encrypting the disk on the Ultrabook prototype was 2.5 times faster, or
took 60.2 percent less time than encrypting the 2010 laptop. Figure 19 compares
the full disk encryption times on the systems. Note: For this test, we resized
the 2010 laptop’s hard drive to 180GB in order to match the Ultrabook
prototype’s 180GB HDD size.
Figure 19: Full disk encryption times for the Ultrabook
prototype and the 2010 laptop we tested.
Once a hard disk is encrypted, new files that are stored on the hard
drive must also be encrypted to continue protecting all data. We ran another
set of responsiveness tests, this time with encrypted disks, to compare the
encryption performance of the systems as the user experiences it day to day.
Again, the Ultrabook prototype outperformed the 2010 laptop, this time by 54.1
percent when launching a project in Adobe Photoshop Elements with an encrypted
disk. Figure 20 compares the times it took the systems to complete system
responsiveness tasks with encrypted disks.
Figure 20: System responsiveness times for tasks with an
encrypted disk for the Ultrabook prototype and the 2010 laptop we tested.
Figure 21 presents the results of our full disk encryption and system
responsiveness with encrypted disks tests.
|
Encryption times
|
| |
Ultrabook
prototype |
2010
laptop |
Percentage
difference |
| Time to encrypt the HDD
(mm:ss) |
20:18.00 |
51:03.00 |
60.2% |
| Adobe Photoshop Elements tasks |
| Project launch time (mm:ss) |
00:10.60 |
00:23.09 |
54.1% |
| Convert project to JPEG (mm:ss) |
01:34.65 |
01:47.30 |
11.8% |
| Adobe Premiere Elements tasks |
| Project launch time (mm:ss) |
00:10.09 |
00:12.67 |
20.4% |
| Convert project to
MPEG-2 (mm:ss) |
02:33.77 |
03:18.03 |
22.4% |
Figure 21: Detailed encryption test results for the two
systems.
the benchmarks we used
In this section, we present a brief overview of the
benchmarks we used in our testing.
BAPCo MobileMark 2012
MobileMark 2012 is an industry-standard benchmark that provides a battery life rating and a
performance rating based on common office scenarios. In our tests, we focus
solely on the battery life rating. MobileMark 2012 uses applications and
workloads specific to mobile systems. These include office activities like file
and document management, data processing, and rich content creation. This module provides a score for battery life of the
tested applications.
MobileMark 2012 includes the following applications
with their corresponding tasks:
- ABBYY® FineReader Pro 11
- Adobe Acrobat® Pro X
- Adobe Flash® Player 11
- Adobe Photoshop CS5 Extended 12.04
-
Adobe Photoshop Elements 10
- Adobe Premiere Pro CS 5.5
- CyberLink PowerDVD Ultra 11
- Microsoft Excel 2010 SP1
- Microsoft Internet Explorer® 9
- Microsoft Outlook® 2010 SP1
- Microsoft PowerPoint 2010 SP1
-
Microsoft Windows Media Player
- Microsoft Word 2010 SP1
- Mozilla® Firefox® 10.0.2
- WinZip® Pro 16
MobileMark 2012 measures system battery life in
minutes. It records system battery life at the start of the benchmark and
repeats the workload until the system battery life is depleted, or until the
system powers down due to low battery life.
MobileMark 2012 records a timestamp once per minute.
At the end of the benchmark, it compares the beginning timestamp to the final
(last recorded) timestamp. MobileMark 2012 derives its system battery life
rating as the number of minutes between the start and end timestamps.
For more information on this benchmark, see http://www.bapco.com/products/mobilemark2012/index.php.
Futuremark® 3DMark Vantage
Futuremark 3DMark Vantage is a benchmark designed to
rate the performance of DirectX® 10 gaming PCs. It includes two graphics tests,
two CPU tests, and six feature tests. The benchmark reports both graphics and
CPU scores, as well as an overall 3DMark score to rate overall gaming
performance.
For more information on 3DMark Vantage, see http://www.3dmark.com/3dmarkvantage/.
Futuremark PCMark 7
Futuremark PCMark 7 is an industry-standard benchmark
designed to test the performance of Windows 7 PCs. It uses over 25 workloads to
test storage, computation, image and video manipulation, Web browsing, and
gaming. PCMark 7 reports the following scores: Lightweight, Productivity,
Creativity, Entertainment, Computation, and System Storage, and uses these
scores to create an overall PCMark Score.
For more information on PCMark 7, see http://www.pcmark.com/benchmarks/index.html.
HDXPRT 2012
The High Definition eXperience & Performance
Ratings Test (HDXPRT) 2012, is a benchmark that evaluates the capabilities of
PCs in consumer digital media uses, including
- Media Organizer
- Media Creator
- Photo Blogger
- Video Producer
- Music Maker
For more information on HDXPRT 2012, see www.hdxprt.com.
UNIGINE Heaven DX 11
Heaven Benchmark is a DirectX 11 GPU benchmark based
on advanced UNIGINE™ engine. According to the UNIGINE Web site, it “reveals the
enchanting magic of floating islands with a tiny village hidden in the cloudy
skies. Interactive mode provides emerging experience of exploring the intricate
world of steampunk.”
For more information on UNIGINE Heaven DX 11, see http://unigine.com/products/heaven/.
In conclusion
In our tests, an Ultrabook prototype improved performance
dramatically over a 2010 laptop system in every area we tested. The Ultrabook
prototype reduced boot time by 74.7 percent, launched common applications up to
57.6 percent faster, provided up to 2.75 times the graphics performance,
increased battery life by up to 52.6 percent, and encrypted a hard disk 2.5
times faster than the 2010 laptop we tested. It also provided a responsive
touch-screen interface.
The benefits of replacing your older laptop with a new
Ultrabook are clear: you can get more performance and a better experience out of
a sleeker, more easily portable Ultrabook system.
