Celeron is obviously not the best choice for final rendering tasks. Even slightly more expensive Pentium CPUs can cope with this task much faster. But nevertheless, we can’t help mentioning that dual-core Celeron processors from the E3000 series are far ahead the good old Celeron E1600.
However the results in the distributed computing application called Folding@Home are not so good for the new Celeron CPUs. Although they have made a truly tremendous jump forward compared with the Celeron E1000, they prove almost as efficient as Pentium E5000 series processors working at the same clock frequencies.
As you can see on the diagram, the performance during arithmetic Excel calculations hardly depends on the amount of onboard cache-memory. At the same time, even the cheapest Intel processors can offer much higher performance than AMD Athlon X2.
We can notice a slight performance improvement by the new 45 nm Celeron processors in Adobe Photoshop, too.
Archiving utility appears more sensitive to the change in the amount of L2 cache memory than the computing applications. However, the performance improvement is not even close to what we have just seen in games. Moreover, WinRAR appears nearly the only application where Athlon X2 can boast a significant advantage over the new low-cost Intel CPUs.