Articles: CPU

Bookmark and Share

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 ]

Application Tests

Maxon has recently updated its benchmark, so Cinebench R15 can estimate the speed of 3D rendering in the latest versions of the Cinema 4D animation suite.

The Kabini doesn’t look so bad in Cinebench. The senior desktop model of this series, Athlon 5350, is even ahead of its main opponents Celeron J1900 and Celeron 1037U. Well, the Jaguar microarchitecture is actually optimized for parallel integer algorithms like final rendering. The Sempron 3850 doesn’t follow suit, though. Its clock rate is too low to deliver acceptable performance.

Using dBpoweramp Music Converter R14.4, we benchmark the speed of converting FLAC files into MP3 format with maximum compression quality. The score is the ratio of conversion speed to playback speed.

The results are close to what we’ve seen in the previous test. The Lame codec, used in multithreaded version here, runs smoothly on the Kabini processors. The Athlon 5350 is even a little faster than the full-featured dual-core Haswell, Celeron G1820. The Jaguar’s good performance is due to the same reasons: it runs an algorithm without branching and with integer data.

We check out the speed of HD video transcoding with the popular free tool Freemake Video Converter 4.1.1. It uses the FFmpeg library and is based on the x264 coder, but features certain optimizations. We enable DXVA technology for hardware acceleration.

Video transcoding is a more sophisticated task, yet the Athlon 5350 delivers good performance here, too. It is 13% ahead of the Celeron J1900 (Bay Trail) and 27% ahead of the Celeron 1037U (Ivy Bridge). It looks like only senior desktop Kabini models are fast at such tasks, though. The Socket AM1 Sempron processors are slower and downright uncompetitive.

Inexpensive PCs with energy-efficient processors are often used as web terminals so we are going to check out their speed in Internet Explorer 11. We use Google Octane 2.0 Benchmark which implements real-life JavaScript-based algorithms.

The desktop Kabini processors are far from impressive when it comes to web browsing. The Athlon 5350 is slightly faster than the midrange Bay Trail-D model, Celeron J1900, but falls behind the Celeron 1037U. Alas, the Socket AM1 platform is much slower than regular platforms in such scenarios: the dual-core Richland, A6-6400K, is twice as fast as the Athlon 5350.

We benchmark performance in Adobe Photoshop CC using our custom test that is based on the Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed Test and consists of typical processing of four 24-megapixel images captured with a digital camera.

We might have anticipated that the Jaguar microarchitecture wouldn’t shine in complex tasks like image processing. On the other hand, Intel's Silvermont microarchitecture employed in the Bay Trail series is far from fast, too. Processors with regular cores are called for here, like the Celeron 1037U which is comparable to the Kabini in power consumption and pricing.

The processors’ performance in cryptographic tasks is measured with the built-in benchmark of the popular TrueCrypt utility that uses triple AES-Twofish-Serpent encryption. Besides optimizations for multi-core CPUs, it supports the AES instructions.

Unlike the rest of the tested processors, the Kabini and Richland ones have support for the AES instruction set, which helps them a lot in cryptographic applications. That's why the Sempron 3850, which used to take last place in every other test, is faster than the Celeron 1037U here.

To test the processors’ performance at data archiving we use WinRAR 5.0. Using maximum compression rate, we archive a 1.7GB folder with multiple files.

A big problem about the Socket AM1 platform is that the Kabini processors only have a single-channel DDR3 SDRAM controller. That’s why they are not good in WinRAR whose speed depends on the memory subsystem: the Athlon 5350 is about 20% slower than the Celeron 1037U. On the other hand, the senior Kabini model is ahead of the Celeron J1900 which features a dual-channel memory controller.

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 ]


Comments currently: 177
Discussion started: 05/23/14 04:28:08 PM
Latest comment: 01/07/17 08:38:18 AM

View comments

Add your Comment