Prev: Micro Combat Vehicles | Main | Next: Palm's New Basic Applications - PalmCorner Weekly Features (Updated)

October 13, 2003

Palm Tungsten C and T3 Discrepancy

candtspeed comparison.jpg
According to palmOne, my Tungsten T3 and Tungsten C should have the same Intel processor running at 400 MHz. However, my recent experience shows that my Tungsten C is a tad bit faster. So, today I ran the upgraded version of Speedy to check. Guess what? My Tunsten C is about 33% faster than the Tungsten T3. Did palmOne intentionally slowed down the processor in order to give more battery life in the T3 (since the T3 comes with a slimmer battery)? What gives?

Posted by Ken | Permalink
Comments

I have the same problem here with the T3. the benchmark says that its 300mhz+/-, i tried to put on the cradle and benchmark it while charging and it gives me 360+mhz, not even close to the 400mhz palm claims...

maybe this is xscale's speedstep technology?? which is similar to notebooks.

Posted by tj at October 15, 2003 07:08 AM

I've tried to run the benchmark while in cradle. I only get 303 instead of 300. Not much of an improvement.

Posted by Ken at October 15, 2003 08:28 AM

With the T3 we have about 306Mhz in Portrait mode and 167MHz in Landscape.
The result of Speedy is not only the power of the processor.
Speedy measure the Calc Test, the Mem test and the Graph test.
In Graph test, the T3 has 0.32 sec and the C 0.19sec.
Why ?
Because the T3 has a huge screen 320x480 and the C 320x320.
The answer is here.
Read Menu->Help->Help and Menu->Help->Tips to understand how the results are done by Speedy

Posted by Jerome at October 15, 2003 11:07 AM

I understand about how Speedy uses 3 different components to measure the realistic performance of the device. However, I don't know about your explanation of 320x480 vs 320x320 accounting for all the differences. If that's the case, Sony devices which has 320x480 should show slower speed, but they do not (200Mhz devices comes around 208). Also T3 is slower than T/C on all three components, not just graph test. I think Palm simply slowed down the chip in order to save the battery life.

Posted by Ken at October 15, 2003 12:51 PM

Hi,

stumbled about the same problem today and found an explanation as well as a solution:

http://discussion.brighthand.com/palmhandhelds/showthread.php?s=4e9df69c23dad8f2c56fb86f1f23e662&threadid=45483

Oliver

Posted by Oliver at October 20, 2003 09:40 AM
Post a comment
YOU ARE VIEWING AN OLD ARCHIVE

To leave a comment or read updated entries, please visit GearBits' current site. Thanks.