Articles: CPU
 

Bookmark and Share

(13) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 ]

Computing Performance

We use the newest 1.4.0 version of Futuremark PCMark 7 to check out overall performance in everyday applications using two test traces: for regular and low-performance systems.

The Celeron 847 looks very good against the AMD E-350 and Intel Atom D2700. Notwithstanding its rather low clock rate of 1.1 GHz, it can deliver good performance thanks to its Core microarchitecture. However, it is slower in comparison with the ordinary desktop Celeron G1610, which might be expected considering the difference in their clock rates.

The internet performance is tested with Futuremark Peacekeeper launched on the latest, 25th version of Google Chrome.

Although Google Chrome creates a separate process for each tab, these processes are single-threaded. That’s why this test is indicative of the speed of each particular CPU core. We can see that the Celeron 847 is more than twice as fast as the Atom D2700 and outperforms the AMD E-350 by almost 40%. It looks like the Celeron 847 is a good solution for nettops serving for internet access. The Celeron G1610 is much faster, of course, but it runs on a higher-class platform.

For our data compression test we use 7-zip’s LZMA2 algorithm to archive a 715MB folder with files.

We’ve got an unusual picture here. 7-zip can run in parallel on multiple CPU cores, so the Atom D2700, which can execute up to four instruction threads concurrently thanks to Hyper-Threading, copes with this task better than both the AMD E-350 and the Celeron 847.

We benchmark performance in Adobe Photoshop CS6 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.

The Celeron 847 is brilliant again, delivering much higher performance in comparison with the other inexpensive and economical processors. It might be expected since processing high-resolution images depends on memory bandwidth and the Celeron, unlike the AMD E series and the Intel Atom, features a dual-channel controller with support for DDR3-1333. It must also be noted that the Celeron 847, positioned as an opponent to the Brazos platform, is barely half as fast as the junior desktop LGA1155 CPU of the Ivy Bridge family.

In the audio encoding test we measure the speed of converting a music album from FLAC into MP3 format using Xilisoft Audio Converter 6.4.

Although Xilisoft Audio Converter is optimized for multi-core CPUs, the Celeron 847 is ahead of the Atom D2700 which can perform four instruction threads concurrently. The gap isn’t large, though, at only 6%. The AMD E-350 is slower by a third in comparison with same-class Intel CPUs.

Video transcoding isn’t a typical application for Atom-based and similar systems, but we want to check it out anyway. In this test we use MediaCoder 0.8 to convert an H.264 1080p video clip into a format supported by the Apple iPad2. The speed is measured in frames per second.

The Celeron 847 has an overwhelming advantage in this transcoding test. It is far superior to the Bobcat and Atom CPUs in terms of computing performance, yet remains a lower-class solution compared to inexpensive platforms based on Intel’s Socket LGA1155 processors.

Before testing the processors’ integrated graphics cores, we want to show you the Physics Score results of Futuremark 3DMark Cloud Gate. It is the speed of a special gaming physics test which models the behavior of a complex system consisting of numerous objects.

Unfortunately, the Atom D2700 can’t pass this test as it doesn’t support DirectX 10. Otherwise, the standings are just as expected: the Celeron 847 is about 40% faster than the AMD E-350 but only half as fast as its full-featured cousin.

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

Discussion

Comments currently: 13
Discussion started: 04/28/13 06:27:20 PM
Latest comment: 09/21/14 07:36:10 AM

View comments

Add your Comment