Evdo Comparison

7/30/2019 Evdo Comparison

1/23

October [email protected]

Integrated EV-DO Comparison forDell, Lenovo and HP

Test report prepared under contract from Dell Inc.

Executive Summary

Dell Inc. commissioned VeriTest, thetesting service of Lionbridge TechnologiesInc., to conduct a competitive analysiscomparing the performance of integratedEV-DO (Rev 0) wireless cards. VeriTestconducted a series of tests to find whichnotebook had the best performance interms of overall data throughput speed.

The following notebooks were tested:

Dell Latitude D620

HP Compaq NC6400

Lenovo ThinkPad T60

The Dell notebooks EV-DO rev 0 card ismanufactured by Novatel. The HP andLenovo EV-DO rev 0 cards are made bySierra Wireless. Each of the notebookshad an Intel Core Duo 1.83GHz processorand 1 GB (2 x 512) of RAM. Further specscan be found in Appendix A.

Tests were conducted in the following UScities. Two test locations were used ineach city. Each location was tested on two

separate days to account for networkvariability.

Key Findings

Average Download Speed

839

465 463

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Kilo

bitsperSecond

DELL

HP

LENOVO

Chart 1. Average Kbps for FTP, Web Downloading and Email.

On average, the Dell D620 download speeds were82% faster than the HP NC6400 and 84% fasterthan the Lenovo ThinkPad T60.

There was little difference between notebooks interms of upload speeds which averaged around 130Kbps.

Los Angeles, California

Chicago, Illinois

New York, New York

Integrated EV-DO Comparison for Dell, Lenovo and HP 1


2/23


The result for each test was calculated by averaging the numbers from multiple test iterationsafter dropping the high and low data points. From seven to twenty-two iterations were conductedfor each test.

The following tests were conducted:

A. Ping Test to measure latency and packet lossB. Speed Test to measure throughput using web speed tools at

www.dslreports.com/stestC. Web Downloading Test to measure throughput when downloading 1MB and 2MB

web filesD. FTP Test to measure throughput when transferring 1MB and 2MB files to and from

web serversE. Email Send/Receive Test to measure throughput when sending and receiving via

MS Outlook files of sizes 500KB, 1MB and 2MB

After all testing was conducted, the findings show that on average the Dell D620 provided 82%more throughput than the HP NC6400 and 84% more throughput than the Lenovo Thinkpad T60.

The Dell system had an average throughput speed averaged across the FTP, Web Downloading

and Email tests of 839 Kbps. The HP had an average throughput of 465 Kbps and the Lenovohad an average throughput of 463 Kbps.

Please refer to the Test Methodology section of this report for complete details of how testing wasconducted. All units were tested using default factory settings. VeriTest confirmed that allnotebook computers were new and unopened. VeriTest made sure tests were completed withimpartiality.

Test Results

The following section details the results from testing.

Ping TestGoal: Determine if packet loss or latency varies by platform.

Summary of Results: All platforms were comparable in this category.

Comments: There was little difference in notebook ping times. Little to no packet loss occurred onall tested platforms.

Speed TestGoal: Measure throughput with some commonly used web speed tools.

Summary of Results: The Dell notebook had the highest average throughput, but the variability inthe test results was significant. Due to this variability the results from this test were excluded from

the overall averages.

Comments: For this speed test, http://www.dslreports.com/stest was used as the reference. Thisservice provides many servers to test against, each using their own proprietary java applet but allproducing the same measurement. We used the following servers for testing: speakeasy.net,BroadStar.com and linkline.net. Results from the speed test varied widely compared to the Web,


3/23

FTP and Email tests. In some cases the speed test results were less than half of what wasachieved with other throughput tests with significantly more variability.

The variability of results when compared to the other tests was significant enough to exclude thistest from the overall throughput averages. Below are the results from the speed test.

Notebook Kilobits per SecondDELL 674.74

HP 494.87

LENOVO 475.60

Table A. Average Download Speed

Notebook Kilobits per Second

DELL 121.01

HP 119.26

LENOVO 118.42Table B. Average Upload Speed

Web Download ThroughputGoal: Benchmark throughput when performing web downloads

Summary of Results: The Dell Latitude D620 was 70% faster than the HP and 70% faster thanthe Lenovo when downloading a 1MB zip file from the web. The Dell was 77% faster than the HPand 76% faster than the Lenovo when downloading a 2MB zip file.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

kilobitsp

ersecond

1MB 2MB

Web Downloading Throughput

DELL

HP

LENOVO

Chart 2: Average Kbps for all test run averages for the Web Downloading Test.(Higher is better)

Notebook 1MB(Kbps) 2MB(Kbps)

DELL 920 950



4/23

HP 539 536

LENOVO 543 539Table C. Average Throughput of Web Downloading Test

FTP TestGoal: Benchmark throughput when using FTP to transfer files.

Summary of Results: The Dell D620 was 78 83% faster than the HP and 74 79% faster thanthe Lenovo when downloading 1 and 2 MB zip files via FTP . Upload results displayed noconclusive performance differences.

Comments: Downloads are the main performance measure. There were little uplink differences.The Verizon network commonly capped uplinks at about 130 Kbps.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

kilobitsp

ersecond

1MB up 2MB up 1MB down 2MB down

FTP Throughput

DELL

HP

LENOVO

Chart 3: Average throughput for all test run averages for the FTP Test.


DELL 916 953

HP 507 514

LENOVO 518 523Table D. Average Download Speed of FTP Test


DELL 136 131

HP 135 129

LENOVO 134 129Table E. Average Upload Speed of FTP Test

Email TestGoal: Benchmark throughput when sending and receiving email files.



5/23

Summary of Results: The Dell D620 was 92 - 94% fasterthan the HP and 95 107% fasterthanthe Lenovo when downloading emails with 1 and 2 MB zip file attachments using Outlook. TheDell D620 was 78% faster than the HP and 86% faster than the Lenovo when downloadingemails with 500 KB zip file attachments.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Seconds

500K 1MB 2MB

Email Download Time

DELL

HP

LENOVO

Chart 4: Average time to download for all test run averages for the Email Test.

Notebook 500KB(Kbps) 1MB(Kbps) 2MB(Kbps)

DELL 6 12 24

HP 11 23 45

LENOVO 11 23 48Table F. Average Download Time of Emails Test in seconds

Test Methodology

Dell Inc. commissioned VeriTest to conduct a competitive analysis comparing performance ofintegrated EV-DO wireless cards. VeriTest conducted a series of throughput tests to find whichnotebook had the greatest performance.

Notebook ConfigurationsThe notebooks were to be as close to an out-of-the-box configuration as possible, but some thirdparty software, such as firewalls and virus protection, had to be disabled. This ensured that someof this software, such as email scanning software, did not affect download times. The Lenovo hadSymantec Firewall and Virus protection which had to be disabled. The following is a list of thesoftware that was required for testing which needed to be installed:

o Microsoft Office 2003 with Outlook logging enabled for the Email Test.o Wget for DOS (an application distributed under the GNU license) for the Web

Downloading Test.



6/23


Test LocationsThe test locations included areas with both strong and weak signals. Locations used weredeemed typical for users of integrated EV-DO and included hotels and coffee shops. Somelocations provided unreliable connections resulting in data with such large standard deviations asto be statistically useless. Data from these locations was not used in this report. Outdoorlocations were not used. Several test runs would take 8 hours or more requiring the availability of

AC power to keep the notebooks charged.

Test Run Condit ionsTo keep the testing notebooks from possessing any advantages over each other based onlocation, orientation or configuration, it was required that the following conditions were met beforetesting could begin:

o Each computer must be placed in the same spot and facing the same directiono Each LCD must be tilted back at approximately 110 degrees.o Each computer must be running on battery only as typical users would do.o Power settings must be set to Always On.o All brightness settings must be maximized.

There are many factors affecting actual throughput analysis such as structures, latency, networktraffic, etc. Because these factors were out of our control and testing was not done in a controlledlab the results may not be reproducible. The tests were designed to be objective by ensuring thateach notebook was affected by the same or similar environmental factors.

Test Run DetailsAfter test setup was complete and all test run conditions were met, all notebook tests wererepeated from seven to twenty-two iterations except for the ping test. The ping test performed fiftypings per iteration requiring only two iterations for this test. A completed iteration is defined as asingle test run once on all three notebooks. Interleaving the tests from notebook to notebookhelped ensure that any network traffic or signal fluctuations would affect all notebooks equally.Only one computer was connected to the Broadband service at a time. The test run was completewhen all iterations were complete for all tests.

Calculating AverageOnce a test run was complete the highest and lowest data points from each test for eachnotebook was removed and the remaining data points were averaged. Those results can befound in the Detailed Results section.

Test DetailsThe following describes each test in detail and includes information on test development,description of execution and data gathering.

A. Ping Test

Test Description

A ping sends a data packet out to a location on a network and is generally used to testnetwork connectivity.

Test DevelopmentA batch file was written which would execute a ping command and send ten (10) 32 bytesto the following five sites and write the results to a file on the desktop:


7/23


www.espn.com

www.dell.com

www.nasa.gov

www.google.com

www.yahoo.com

Test Execution and Data GatheringThe Ping Test always ran for two iterations and usually at the beginning of every test run.Double clicking the batch file would run the test. A log file was created on the desktopupon completion.

B. Speed Test

Test Descriptionwww.dslreports.com/stest is a commonly used tool for measuring throughput. Theservers we connected for this study were BroadStar.com, linkline.net and speakeasy.net.

Test DevelopmentNo development was necessary for this test.

Test Execution and Data GatheringA server was chosen to test with on the page from the above link. The instructions werefollowed to complete the test from that server using a java applet located on the page.Results were copied into a text file on the desktop and the speed data into an Excelspreadsheet to be averaged.

C. Web Downloading Test

Test DescriptionWget for DOS was used to download a 1 megabyte and 2 megabyte zip file from a website. Zip files were used to eliminate the possibility of file transfer compression affectingtest results.

Test DevelopmentThe Wget application was installed on each notebook. A batch file executed the wgetcommand with the logging option to download the two zip files and log the results. Thezip files were located on a low traffic web server from a local ISP, CableOne.

Test Execution and Data GatheringDouble clicking the batch file would run the test. A log file was created on the desktopupon completion. The start and stop time data as well as the KB/s from each downloadwere copied into an Excel spreadsheet to be averaged.

D. FTP Test

Test Description

FTP is one of the most common methods for transferring large files over the internet. Totest throughput speeds via FTP Microsoft XPs integrated FTP client was used todownload and upload a 1 megabyte zip file and a 2 megabyte zip file. Zip files were usedto eliminate the possibility of file transfer compression affecting test results.

Test Development


8/23


A batch file was written to log onto an FTP server and run put/get commands whichwould send and receive the files via FTP then log the results to a file on the Desktop. TheFTP server used for this test was provided by a low traffic local ISP, CableOne.


9/23


Test Execution and Data GatheringDouble clicking the batch file would run the test. Upon completion a log file was createdon the desktop. The time in seconds it took for each download and upload to complete aswell as the KB/s were copied into an Excel file to be averaged.

E. Email Test

Test DescriptionThree emails were downloaded using Microsoft Outlook 2003 to test download speed viaSMTP. The three emails each had a zip file attachment of a predetermined size. Thesizes were 500 kilobytes, 1 megabyte and 2 megabytes. Zip files were used to eliminatethe possibility of file transfer compression affecting test results.

Test DevelopmentA PHP script was written to automate the process of sending the emails of differentsizes. This script resided on a company Linux server. Each of the notebooks wasconfigured with a different email address so that the three emails could be sent andtested by all three notebooks by running the script once. The email accounts wereoriginally set up with Gmail.com but were moved due to traffic congestion to a local ISP,CableOne.

Test Execution and Data GatheringThe PHP script was executed via a web browser. This placed the test emails in theappropriate email accounts. We then opened Outlook and clicked Send/Receive toexecute the mail download. The download times were placed in a log file andsubsequently moved to an Excel file to be averaged.


10/23


Appendix A: System Configurations

System Information Dell Latitude D620

Processor/speed Intel Core Duo 1.83GHz

System Ram/type/number of slots 1 GB (2x512)

Mother board manufacturer Dell Latitude D620Integrated EV-DO Manufacturer Novatel

OEM OS Win XP

System Information HP Compaq NC6400

Processor/speed Intel Core Duo 1.83GHz

System Ram/type/number of slots 1 GB (2x512)

Mother board manufacturer HP Compaq NC6400

Integrated EV-DO Manufacturer Sierra Wireless

OEM OS Win XP

System Information Lenovo ThinkPad T60

Processor/speed Intel Core Duo 1.83GHzSystem Ram/type/number of slots 1 GB (2x512)

Mother board manufacturer Lenovo ThinkPad T60

Integrated EV-DO Manufacturer Sierra Wireless

OEM OS Win XP

Appendix B: Testing Sof tware Information

Software Version Associated Test Description

Microsoft OfficeOutlook 2003

11.0.6353.0 Email TestOutlook is an email program which

was used to test throughput viaSMTP.

Microsoft FileTransfer Program

5.1.2600.2180 FTP TestThis is an application integrated into

Windows XP and was used to testthroughput via FTP.

Wget 1.8.2Web

DownloadingTest

This is an application which isdistributed under the GNU General

Public license and was used toretrieve files via HTTP.

dslreports.com/stest No version info Speed TestA popular website for testing upload

and downloading throughput.


11/23


Appendix C: Detailed Results

The following section details the results from each test run. All numbers in the spreadsheet areaverages from all the test iterations executed during that run as described in the TestMethodology section. Please refer to that section for more details.

TEST RUN: 1Testing Location: August 23, 2006 Westfield Mall Los Angeles, CARSSI (signal strength): -70 DBMDetails: Testing took place on the 3

rdfloor close to the railing and near the Food court. It was a

large open space with tall ceilings. The server we connected to for the speed test wasspeakeasy.net.

Web-based Speed Test HTTP Download

DownlinkStdDev Uplink

StdDev

1MBFile

StdDev

2MBFile

StdDev

Kilobits 1,078 154 130 3 1,482 67 1,515 93

Dell Seconds N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 1 12 1

Kilobits 991 53 128 3 755 22 718 28HP

Seconds N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 1 24 1

Kilobits 950 45 128 3 696 28 697 40Lenovo


FTP

Put 1MBStdDev

Put2MB

StdDev

Get1MB

StdDev

Get2MB

StdDev

Kilobits 141 1 134 0 1,580 21 1,633 53Dell

Seconds 63 0 130 0 6 0 11 0

Kilobits 139 1 133 1 712 19 719 21HP

Seconds 64 0 131 1 12 0 24 1

Kilobits 139 0 133 0 689 3 721 3Lenovo

Seconds 64 0 131 0 13 0 24 1

Email Download (Kbps is an estimate)

500KFile

StdDev

1MBFile

StdDev

2MBFile

StdDev

Kilobits 1,052 0 1,274 182 1,158 77Dell

Seconds 4 0 7 1 15 1

Kilobits 468 52 524 31 511 30

HP Seconds 9 1 17 1 34 2

Kilobits 468 52 524 31 457 24Lenovo

Seconds 9 1 17 1 38 2


12/23


TEST RUN: 2Testing Location: August 24, 2006 Westfield Mall Los Angeles, CARSSI (signal strength): -70 DBMDetails: Testing took place, again, on the 3

rdfloor close to the railing and near the Food court. It

was a large open space with tall ceilings. The server we connected to for the speed test wasspeakeasy.net.



StdDev

1MBFile

StdDev

2MBFile

StdDev

Kilobits 1,458 98 127 5 1,381 66 1,437 142Dell


Kilobits 964 48 126 3 756 13 754 8HP


Kilobits 968 50 127 5 731 20 743 11Lenovo


FTP

Put 1MBStdDev

Put2MB

StdDev

Get1MB

StdDev

Get2MB

StdDev

Kilobits 139 1 133 0 1,503 52 1,578 98Dell

Seconds 64 0 131 0 6 0 11 1

Kilobits 139 0 133 0 709 20 703 12HP

Seconds 64 0 131 0 13 0 25 0

Kilobits 140 0 132 0 677 3 702 3Lenovo

Seconds 63 0 132 1 13 0 25 1


500K

File

Std

Dev

1MB

File

Std

Dev

2MB

File

Std

Dev

Kilobits 1,052 263 1,115 139 1,158 77Dell

Seconds 4 1 8 1 15 1

Kilobits 526 66 524 0 543 17HP

Seconds 8 1 17 0 32 1


Seconds 10 1 18 1 40 2


13/23


TEST RUN: 3Testing Location: August 24, 2006 Starbucks Los Angeles, CARSSI (signal strength): -55 DBMDetails: Testing took place near a window; it was next to a large parking lot on both sides withrelatively no large buildings. We were unable to get any speed test results in this test run due totime constraints.



StdDev

1MBFile

StdDev

2MBFile

StdDev

Kilobits 827 129 927 85Dell


Kilobits 649 62 649 18HP


Kilobits 714 43 653 64Lenovo


FTP

Put 1MBStdDev

Put2MB

StdDev

Get1MB

StdDev

Get2MB

StdDev

Kilobits 138 1 134 0 994 145 1,122 317Dell

Seconds 64 1 130 0 9 1 17 4

Kilobits 139 0 133 1 616 74 652 57HP

Seconds 64 0 132 1 15 2 27 2

Kilobits 129 1 132 0 622 7 624 4Lenovo

Seconds 69 5 132 1 14 1 28 2


500KFile StdDev 1MBFile StdDev 2MBFile StdDev

Kilobits 526 66 743 0 827 158Dell

Seconds 8 1 12 0 21 4

Kilobits 526 0 495 28 482 27HP

Seconds 8 0 18 1 36 2


Seconds 10 1 19 1 41 2


14/23


TEST RUN: 4Testing Location: August 25, 2006 Starbucks Los Angeles, CARSSI (signal strength): -55 DBMDetails: Testing took place near a window; it was next to a large parking lot on both sides withrelatively no large buildings. The server we connected to for the speed test was linkline.net.



StdDev

1MBFile

StdDev

2MBFile

StdDev

Kilobits 979 165 128 3 966 159 945 114Dell


Kilobits 944 86 128 3 666 66 669 52HP


Kilobits 702 69 123 6 693 60 659 47Lenovo


FTP

Put 1MBStdDev

Put2MB

StdDev

Get1MB

StdDev

Get2MB

StdDev

Kilobits 140 1 134 0 808 171 825 120Dell

Seconds 64 0 130 0 11 2 22 3

Kilobits 139 1 133 1 613 84 620 87HP

Seconds 64 0 131 1 15 2 29 5

Kilobits 139 0 132 0 611 6 600 4Lenovo

Seconds 64 1 132 1 15 1 29 2


500KFile StdDev 1MBFile StdDev 2MBFile StdDev

Kilobits 1,052 263 892 267 827 118Dell

Seconds 4 1 10 3 21 3

Kilobits 526 66 524 31 543 17HP

Seconds 8 1 17 1 32 1


Seconds 9 1 21 1 49 7


15/23


TEST RUN: 5Testing Location: September 6, 2006Springhill Suites Marriott Chicago, ILRSSI (signal strength): -68 DBMDetails: Testing took place near a window on the 6

thfloor, near the freeway with no other

surrounding large buildings. The server we connected to for the speed test was BroadStar.com.



StdDev

1MBFile

StdDev

2MBFile

StdDev

Kilobits 415 129 125 3 676 63 708 77Dell


Kilobits 263 26 125 4 451 14 462 14HP


Kilobits 262 43 123 4 403 24 404 30Lenovo


FTP

Put 1MBStdDev

Put2MB

StdDev

Get1MB

StdDev

Get2MB

StdDev

Kilobits 138 2 132 3 625 124 691 88Dell

Seconds 64 1 133 3 15 3 26 3

Kilobits 137 2 132 2 418 23 431 21HP

Seconds 65 1 133 2 21 1 41 2

Kilobits 137 0 132 0 413 1 407 3Lenovo

Seconds 65 1 132 2 22 1 43 2


500K

File

Std

Dev

1MB

File

Std

Dev

2MB

File

Std

DevKilobits 526 66 524 93 511 75

DellSeconds 8 1 17 3 34 5

Kilobits 324 25 343 13 347 14HP

Seconds 13 1 26 1 50 2


Seconds 17 2 33 3 68 6


16/23


TEST RUN: 6Testing Location: September 7, 2006McDonalds Downtown Chicago, ILRSSI (signal strength): -52 DBMDetails: Testing took place upstairs on the 2

ndfloor, centrally located downtown and surrounded

by large buildings. The server we connected to for the speed test was BroadStar.com.



StdDev

1MBFile

StdDev

2MBFile

StdDev

Kilobits 420 141 86 16 795 73 838 84Dell


Kilobits 259 26 80 9 458 12 444 17HP


Kilobits 279 30 87 10 463 13 461 16Lenovo


FTP

Put 1MBStdDev

Put2MB

StdDev

Get1MB

StdDev

Get2MB

StdDev

Kilobits 107 20 106 13 704 155 721 186Dell

Seconds 86 17 168 21 13 3 26 9

Kilobits 96 11 89 9 406 37 409 28HP

Seconds 94 11 198 19 22 2 43 3

Kilobits 100 1 96 1 413 3 418 5Lenovo

Seconds 90 10 184 25 22 1 42 4


500K

File

Std

Dev

1MB

File

Std

Dev

2MB

File

Std

DevKilobits 601 86 637 136 695 83


Kilobits 351 0 343 13 347 14HP

Seconds 12 0 26 1 50 2


Seconds 13 1 27 2 55 3


17/23


TEST RUN: 7Testing Location: September 8, 2006Springhill Suites Marriott Chicago, ILRSSI (signal strength): -68 DBMDetails: Testing took place near a window on the 6

thfloor, near the freeway with no other

surrounding large buildings. The server we connected to for the speed test was BroadStar.com.



StdDev

1MBFile

StdDev

2MBFile

StdDev

Kilobits 353 96 121 4 515 90 518 112Dell


Kilobits 238 27 121 3 339 48 347 51HP


Kilobits 251 30 120 6 356 43 360 49Lenovo


FTP

Put 1MBStdDev

Put2MB

StdDev

Get1MB

StdDev

Get2MB

StdDev

Kilobits 136 3 132 2 468 91 495 82Dell

Seconds 65 1 133 2 20 3 36 6

Kilobits 136 4 131 2 365 18 376 13HP

Seconds 65 2 134 2 24 1 47 2

Kilobits 136 0 131 0 432 2 433 2Lenovo

Seconds 65 1 134 4 21 1 40 2


500K

File

Std

Dev

1MB

File

Std

Dev

2MB

File

Std

DevKilobits 526 0 557 35 579 19


Kilobits 281 19 279 9 280 14HP

Seconds 15 1 32 1 62 3


Seconds 12 1 26 0 53 2


18/23


TEST RUN: 8Testing Location: September 7, 2006McDonalds Downtown Chicago, ILRSSI (signal strength): -52 DBMDetails: Testing took place upstairs on the 2

ndfloor, centrally located downtown and surrounded

by large buildings. The server we connected to for the speed test was BroadStar.com.



StdDev

1MBFile

StdDev

2MBFile

StdDev

Kilobits 337 75 115 12 780 63 802 84Dell


Kilobits 275 36 108 14 452 15 448 18HP


Kilobits 271 46 111 8 452 23 455 13Lenovo


FTP

Put 1MBStdDev

Put2MB

StdDev

Get1MB

StdDev

Get2MB

StdDev

Kilobits 139 3 133 4 827 145 907 131Dell

Seconds 64 1 131 4 11 2 20 3

Kilobits 139 1 132 1 402 94 412 97HP

Seconds 64 0 132 1 25 15 48 29

Kilobits 139 0 133 0 445 2 451 2Lenovo

Seconds 64 1 131 1 20 1 39 1


500K

File

Std

Dev

1MB

File

Std

Dev

2MB

File

Std

DevKilobits 601 86 686 53 695 56


Kilobits 383 35 357 14 354 14HP

Seconds 11 1 25 1 49 2


Seconds 13 1 26 1 53 2


19/23


TEST RUN: 9Testing Location: September 10, 2006Days Inn New York, NYRSSI (signal strength): -55 DBMDetails: Testing took place on the 7

thfloor not near a window. Location was surrounded by large

buildings. The server we connected to for the speed test was BroadStar.com.



StdDev

1MBFile

StdDev

2MBFile

StdDev

Kilobits 376 124 124 3 861 108 871 121Dell


Kilobits 212 42 122 4 480 39 474 33HP


Kilobits 214 50 118 9 491 72 517 20Lenovo


FTP

Put 1MBStdDev

Put2MB

StdDev

Get1MB

StdDev

Get2MB

StdDev

Kilobits 140 2 134 1 783 167 772 184Dell

Seconds 63 1 130 1 12 3 24 6

Kilobits 139 2 133 1 474 38 471 10HP

Seconds 64 1 131 1 19 2 37 1

Kilobits 139 0 133 0 459 6 447 7Lenovo

Seconds 64 1 131 1 20 2 40 6


500K

File

Std

Dev

1MB

File

Std

Dev

2MB

File

Std

DevKilobits 701 117 743 0 620 421


Kilobits 383 35 388 17 395 9HP

Seconds 11 1 23 1 44 1


Seconds 11 1 23 1 46 1


20/23


TEST RUN: 10Testing Location: September 11, 2006Days Inn New York, NYRSSI (signal strength): -55 DBMDetails: Testing took place on the 7

thfloor not near a window. Location was surrounded by large

buildings. The server we connected to for the speed test was BroadStar.com.



StdDev

1MBFile

StdDev

2MBFile

StdDev

Kilobits 326 40 126 3 960 50 982 58Dell


Kilobits 329 50 125 5 492 43 513 13HP


Kilobits 343 48 118 23 481 128 479 117Lenovo


FTP

Put 1MBStdDev

Put2MB

StdDev

Get1MB

StdDev

Get2MB

StdDev

Kilobits 139 1 133 2 993 30 996 62Dell

Seconds 64 1 132 2 9 0 18 1

Kilobits 134 7 129 3 487 10 488 14HP

Seconds 67 4 135 3 18 0 36 1

Kilobits 136 1 129 1 486 8 509 3Lenovo

Seconds 65 2 135 5 19 3 34 2


500K

File

Std

Dev

1MB

File

Std

Dev

2MB

File

Std

DevKilobits 701 234 743 62 724 60


Kilobits 383 70 343 66 328 105HP

Seconds 11 2 26 5 53 17


Seconds 10 1 22 1 44 3


21/23


TEST RUN: 11Testing Location: September 12, 2006Starbucks New York, NYRSSI (signal strength): -38 DBMDetails: Testing took place on the main level and not near a window. Location was just above thesubway and surrounded by taller buildings. The server we connected to for the speed test waslinkline.net.



StdDev

1MBFile

StdDev

2MBFile

StdDev

Kilobits 775 88 124 2 853 57 870 81Dell


Kilobits 486 22 124 3 475 38 472 29HP


Kilobits 486 59 123 2 510 25 515 22Lenovo


FTP

Put 1MBStdDev

Put2MB

StdDev

Get1MB

StdDev

Get2MB

StdDev

Kilobits 141 1 135 1 820 123 855 72Dell

Seconds 63 0 129 1 11 2 21 2

Kilobits 139 2 134 1 433 33 422 31HP

Seconds 64 1 131 1 21 2 42 3

Kilobits 139 0 133 0 484 1 481 4Lenovo

Seconds 64 0 131 1 18 0 36 2


500KFile

StdDev

1MBFile

StdDev

2MBFile

StdDev

Kilobits 601 86 686 53 668 51Dell

Seconds 7 1 13 1 26 2

Kilobits 324 25 330 24 334 32HP

Seconds 13 1 27 2 52 5


Seconds 11 1 24 1 47 3


22/23


TEST RUN: 12Testing Location: September 12, 2006Starbucks New York, NYRSSI (signal strength): -38 DBMDetails: Testing took place on the main level and not near a window. Location was just above thesubway and surrounded by taller buildings. The server we connected to for the speed test waslinkline.net.



StdDev

1MBFile

StdDev

2MBFile

StdDev

Kilobits 905 140 125 2 943 31 990 58Dell


Kilobits 483 4 124 1 498 19 484 31HP


Kilobits 507 16 123 2 526 6 520 5Lenovo


FTP

Put 1MBStdDev

Put2MB

StdDev

Get1MB

StdDev

Get2MB

StdDev

Kilobits 140 3 135 1 889 48 846 42Dell

Seconds 64 2 129 1 10 1 21 1

Kilobits 139 1 134 1 450 20 468 15HP

Seconds 64 1 131 1 20 1 37 1

Kilobits 139 0 134 0 484 1 486 1Lenovo

Seconds 64 0 131 1 18 0 36 1


500KFile

StdDev

1MBFile

StdDev

2MBFile

StdDev

Kilobits 701 117 743 62 789 36Dell

Seconds 6 1 12 1 22 1

Kilobits 383 35 357 29 370 16HP

Seconds 11 1 25 2 47 2


Seconds 10 1 23 1 44 0


23/23

All references, in part or in full, to test results presented in this report must directly reference orlink to this complete report. All references should be made to this report which will be posted inthe competitive analysis test section of the Lionbridge web site.

Disclaimer of Warranties; Limitation of Liability:

VERITEST HAS MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO ENSURE THE ACCURACY AND VALIDITY OF ITSTESTING, HOWEVER, VERITEST SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESSED ORIMPLIED, RELATING TO THE TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS, THEIR ACCURACY, COMPLETENESSOR QUALITY, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE.ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES RELYING ON THE RESULTS OF ANY TESTING DO SO AT THEIR OWNRISK, AND AGREE THAT VERITEST, ITS EMPLOYEES AND ITS SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL HAVE NOLIABILITY WHATSOEVER FROM ANY CLAIM OF LOSS OR DAMAGE ON ACCOUNT OF ANY ALLEGEDERROR OR DEFECT IN ANY TESTING PROCEDURE OR RESULT.IN NO EVENT SHALL VERITEST BE LIABLE FOR INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, ORCONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES IN CONNECTION WITH ITS TESTING, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THEPOSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. IN NO EVENT SHALL VERITEST'S LIABILITY, INCLUDING FORDIRECT DAMAGES, EXCEED THE AMOUNTS PAID IN CONNECTION WITH VERITEST'S TESTING.VERITEST AND THE VERITEST LOGO ARE REGISTERED TRADEMARKS OF LIONBRIDGE

TECHNOLOGIES. DELL, THE DELL LOGO, AND LATITUDE ARE REGISTERED TRADEMARKS OF DELLINC. OTHER COMPANIES NAMES ARE USED HEREIN FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES ONLY ANDBELONG TO THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS.

Integrated EV-DO Comparison for Dell Lenovo and HP 23

Documents

Evdo Comparison