AstroSkipper

Yep, that's right. The main reason for it was that your computer is nearly 10 years younger than mine. My computer (and by that I mean its motherboard) is from 2000. And your DDR2-RAM is actually much faster than my very slow SD-RAM. However, the test results are a bit strange as a computer many years younger actually should be faster.

Oops! That was me? Ok. I can live with that. The good is I've found several problems which are now all fixed. BTW, this was my very first benchmark test. In general, I am not particularly interested in such tests.

A PCMark Score of 2089 vs 1412. The values are not particularly far apart which means my PC is only a bit faster than yours. Right?

Yep! I did the same but then I read the software requirements. As I am not interested in downgrading my Windows Media Player, I have uninstalled PCMark04 after one unsuccessful run.

Keep in mind that PCMark04 requires Windows Media Player 9 (and not higher) whereas PCMark05 requires Windows Media Player 10 or higher.

PCMark05 is a very sensitive software and also seems to have problems on certain computers if all tests are to be performed. Here are my test results so far: After various tests, changes and corrections in my system, I was able to run all the tests from System Test Suite successfully. Here is my missing PCMark Score: Although all tests from all categories can be run now successfully on my system, the software does not manage to run them all at once. This indicates a bug in the programme, which is probably only noticeable on certain systems.

A quite legitimate question, which I have also asked myself time and again, is why you should still use MU/WU under Windows XP at all. There are no longer any new updates anyway. The answer is very simple. If you make any changes or retrofit components from Microsoft, it can happen that updates are available for these, which logically could not be installed before. I installed the Windows Media Encoder 9 a few days ago. After a search via MU, an update was actually found. In addition, MU also found a further missing update that was previously installed but is no longer available for whatever reason. It is therefore worth running a search via MU/WU from time to time.

It was the security update KB2447961 for Windows Media Encoder 9 from December 2010. My Windows Media Player 11 is of the version 11.0.5721.5293. So, a bit more recent than yours. Check for updates via MU/WU!

No. Install it and check via MU/WU if there are updates available! On my Windows XP system, an update for the Windows Media Encoder 9 was offered.

I'm glad you think rebasing the xul.dll file makes sense. Mozilla doesn't care about less RAM usage. Like many other manufacturers, they assume that the users of their newer versions have enough RAM available in their computers. Otherwise they would not produce such rubbish.

Does anyone know why only this test failed? PCMark05 otherwise ran smoothly and had nothing to complain about.

The GeForce 6200 AGP is indeed a good one. It is absolutely silent as my version is passively cooled. Unfortunately, my motherboard supports only AGP 4x although the GeForce 6200 is an AGP 8x one. https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-6200-agp.c2419

Thanks again! What is a little strange is the unfortunate circumstance that the Multithreaded Test 1 failed completely on my Windows XP computer even though I had installed the Windows Media Encoder 9.

The animal rights activists won't like that.

Just for clarification. Only the scores are completely arbitrarily defined values. You have to read more carefully what I write. And please don't mix everything up!

@NotHereToPlayGames BTW, here is the corrected link in the way uCyborg posted it: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Pentium-4-280GHz-vs-Intel-Atom-N450/m3163vsm3190

Thanks for the link! However, I never used 3DMark before as I am not a gamer. The graphics on my Windows XP computer is very weak anyways.

You are grabbing values from the System Test Suite. These values are not CPU-specific. That's what the CPU Test Suite is for.

A small note. You probably meant rather "Auf Wiedersehen!". I’ll say then:

No. What am I to win here? I already lost. As I already stated, your CPU is definitely weaker than mine. But how much weaker can only investigated if there are meaningful values. It can only be solved statistically and thus mathematically.

You are somehow talking your head off here. You and only you were trying, statistically completely absurdly, to make a statement about how much faster my CPU is than yours from artificial, completely arbitrarily defined values. And by that I mean the CPU score, since you didn't offer detailed values. That is statistically and mathematically pure nonsense. If you really want to know more about our CPUs in a more meaningful way, you have to compare the values in the section CPU Test Suite to get information how many times faster my CPU is than yours. So please be more serious when making statements!

Unfortunately, nonsense. You didn't provide your values. Only the values from the System Test Suite via screenshot. Where is the list of all values? You only get them via exporting from PCMark05. Look at my post: https://msfn.org/board/topic/186451-overall-performance-comparison-between-different-computers-under-windows-xp/?do=findComment&comment=1272362 I mean the detailed values I posted in the code area. And the values in the section CPU Test Suite have to be compared to get information how many times faster my CPU is than yours.

That seems exaggerated to me. I have disclosed all my values in detail, even from the CPU Test Suite. Where are yours? Without these values, your statement is just conjecture and not statistically proven. You just wanted to set a value for calculating a geometric mean to zero, and now you want to be able to read from an artificially, completely arbitrarily obtained value how many times faster my CPU is than yours. That's very funny.

Test completed. Unfortunately, as reported, no PCMark Score was calculated due to two tests in the System Test Suite that failed: Here are my results: My self-calculated PCMark Score gained by reducing the discrete characteristic values is 1290. Of course without any guarantee, as it is not quite clear which units PCMark05 uses in its algorithm. But I think I did it right. Here are my detailed values: <<< System Information >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ System Model MICRO-STAR INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD MS-6391 Processor Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz Physical Memory 1.5 GB Graphic NVIDIA GeForce 6200 Video Memory 256 MB Operating System Microsoft Windows XP (5.1.2600) 32-bit Application PCMark05 <<< Result >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ < Main Test Results > PCMark 0,0 PCMarks CPU 3.049,0 Memory 2.034,0 Graphics 1.335,0 HDD 5.107,0 < System Test Suite > HDD - XP Startup 11.035.388,0 B/s Physics and 3D 76,2 FPS Transparent Windows 391,1 windows/s 3D - Pixel Shader 33,5 FPS Web Page Rendering 1,6 pages/s File Decryption 54.567.500,0 B/s Graphics Memory - 64 lines 354,6 FPS HDD - General Usage 7.412.013,0 B/s Audio Compression 0,0 Video Encoding 0,0 Text edit 42,1 pages/s Image Decompression 8.869.950,3 pixels/s File Compression 2.236.637,5 B/s File Encryption 14.321.510,0 B/s HDD - Virus Scan 17.429.826,0 B/s Memory Latency - Random 16 MB 4.948.194,5 accesses/s < CPU Test Suite > File Compression 8.475.572,0 B/s File Decompression 92.539.640,0 B/s File Encryption 61.333.580,0 B/s File Decryption 51.141.084,0 B/s Image Decompression 19.719.909,7 pixels/s Audio Compression 2.027.561,7 B/s File Compression 4.393.688,0 B/s File Encryption 29.755.038,0 B/s File Decompression 23.497.330,0 B/s File Decryption 13.191.807,0 B/s Audio Decompression 532.577,2 B/s Image Decompression 5.039.531,7 pixels/s < Memory Test Suite > Memory Read - 16 MB 926.653.120,0 B/s Memory Read - 8 MB 928.947.840,0 B/s Memory Read - 192 KB 21.672.546.304,0 B/s Memory Read - 4 KB 39.685.492.736,0 B/s Memory Write - 16 MB 901.376.320,0 B/s Memory Write - 8 MB 900.723.200,0 B/s Memory Write - 192 KB 12.219.063.296,0 B/s Memory Write - 4 KB 12.250.072.064,0 B/s Memory Copy - 16 MB 867.653.760,0 B/s Memory Copy - 8 MB 862.753.856,0 B/s Memory Copy - 192 KB 7.173.510.656,0 B/s Memory Copy - 4 KB 12.217.476.096,0 B/s Memory Latency - Random 16 MB 4.948.194,5 accesses/s Memory Latency - Random 8 MB 5.298.853,9 accesses/s Memory Latency - Random 192 KB 143.647.140,5 accesses/s Memory Latency - Random 4 KB 1.404.406.372,1 accesses/s < Graphics Test Suite > Transparent Windows 392,7 windows/s Graphics Memory - 64 lines 354,1 FPS Graphics Memory - 128 lines 248,9 FPS WMV Video Playback 19,7 FPS 3D - Fill Rate Multi-Texturing 1.334.127.441,4 texels/s 3D - Polygon Throughput Multiple 8.536.705,0 triangles/s 3D - Pixel Shader 33,6 FPS 3D - Vertex Shader 5.565.621,9 vertices/s < HDD Test Suite > HDD - XP Startup 10.599.348,0 B/s HDD - Application Loading 8.399.760,0 B/s HDD - General Usage 7.344.671,5 B/s HDD - Virus Scan 63.417.920,0 B/s HDD - File Write 43.694.524,0 B/s For my PCMark Score calculation I took MB/s instead of B/s as shown in the details here: Comparing my values with @NotHereToPlayGames's ones, his Intel Atom CPU seems indeed to be weaker than mine.

So are you going to fill in a "zero" for the failed tests? Or just geomean a smaller subset? A geometric mean is the nth root of a product with n factors. If you set one value to zero, the whole product will be zero and the nth root of zero is zero. My answer to your first question is therefore no. You can't set a value from your data to zero. And yes, you have to reduce the set of values, i.e. you have to build a smaller subset by removing characteristics.