As usual, we use the Bapco SYSmark suite to estimate performance in everyday computing tasks. It emulates a user working in popular office and digital content creation and processing applications. The test produces a single score indicative of the computer’s average performance across different applications. SYSmark has been updated recently, so we use the latest version, SYSmark 2014, for our tests.
The desktop Kabini processors, running on the Socket AM1 platform, perform exactly as expected. Their performance is much lower compared to Intel's alternatives in everyday applications. It may be due to downsides of the Jaguar microarchitecture or a lack of software optimizations for AMD solutions, but it is a fact anyway. Even the fastest Socket AM1 processor, Athlon 5350, falls behind the midrange Bay Trail-D model, Celeron J1900, by about 10% and is also about 25% inferior to the energy-efficient dual-core Celeron 1037U. So, the release of inexpensive desktop Kabini processors can hardly change the market situation, especially as AMD’s quad-core products of this kind are much slower than Intel's Haswell-based entry-level solutions.
Now let’s take a closer look at the performance scores SYSmark 2014 generates in different usage scenarios. The Office Productivity scenario emulates typical office tasks, such as text editing, spreadsheets, email and web-surfing. This scenario uses the following applications: Adobe Acrobat XI Pro, Google Chrome, Microsoft Excel 2013, Microsoft OneNote 2013, Microsoft Outlook 2013, Microsoft PowerPoint 2013, Microsoft Word 2013, and WinZip Pro 17.5.
The Media Creation scenario emulates the creation of a video clip out of prepared materials (digital images and videos) using Adobe Photoshop CS6 Extended, Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 и Trimble SketchUp Pro 2013.
The Data/Financial Analysis scenario is devoted to statistical and market analysis. It processes a lot of numerical data in two applications: Microsoft Excel 2013 and WinZip Pro 17.5.
As we can see, the Socket AM1 platform isn’t fast in any of the scenarios. Its performance is lower than that of Intel's energy-efficient and affordable platforms. Interestingly, the quad-core Jaguar-based processors are inferior to any kind of dual-core processor: those with Ivy Bridge, Haswell or Piledriver design. The Jaguar’s performance-per-core seems to be very low and this cannot be made up for by simply increasing the number of cores per processor.