Articles: CPU
 

Bookmark and Share

(30) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 ]

Performance in Applications

To test the processors performance during data archiving we resort to WinRAR archiving utility. Using maximum compression rate we archive a folder with multiple files with 1.4 GB total size.

Once Celeron processor migrated from the LGA775 to the LGA1155 platform, its data compression speed has practically doubled. The secret of Sandy Bridge’s success is in support of faster memory. While the old Celeron processors using 200 MHz front side bus can’t clock the memory above 800 MHz, the new Celeron CPUs installed into Intel P67/Z68 based mainboards gain access to a wide range of high-speed memory, including DDR3-1600 or even faster modes, even though there is no mention of that in the official specifications. Therefore, Celeron G540 is so fast in tasks working intensely with large data volumes. As for the size of the L3 cache, its effect on the final results is minimal, as we can see. The difference between Celeron G540 and Pentium G620 processors is only 7%.

We measured the performance in Adobe Photoshop using our own benchmark made from Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed Test that has been creatively modified. It includes typical editing of four 10-megapixel images from a digital photo camera.

Photoshop tests show that new-generation Celeron processors outperform not only their competitors, but also deliver better performance than Athlon II X2 from AMD. Obviously, as the dual-core Sandy Bridge processors sink into lower-end price segments, the dual-core Socket AM3 CPUs from AMD based on the outdated Stars microarchitecture lose their currency.

We use Apple iTunes utility to test audio transcoding speed. It transcodes the contents of a CD disk into AAC format. Note that the typical peculiarity of this utility is its ability to utilize only a pair of processor cores.

It is interesting that despite a huge difference in specifications between Celeron and Core i3, the performance difference between the two is not so dramatic. Depending on the application, Celeron is 30-50% behind, but in some cases, like iTunes, the entry-level Celeron G540 manages to get as close as 25% behind Core i3-2100.

In order to measure how fast our testing participants can transcode a video into H.264 format we used x264 HD benchmark. It works with an original MPEG-2 video recorded in 720p resolution with 4 Mbps bitrate. I have to say that the results of this test are of great practical value, because the x264 codec is also part of numerous popular transcoding utilities, such as HandBrake, MeGUI, VirtualDub, etc.

Celeron is a poor candidate for intensive multi-threaded loads, such as video transcoding, for example. Even a dual-core CPU with Hyper-Threading support can deliver much higher speed. However, the new Celeron G540 still looks awesome compared with the older processors from the same price range, such as Athlon II X2 250 and Celeron E3500.

We use special Cinebench test to measure the final rendering speed in Maxon Cinema 4D.

We see the same during rendering: Celeron G540 keeps it up and doesn’t give in to the similarly priced processors for other platforms. However, Celeron G440 doesn’t do so well. It looks very bad even among low-cost desktop processors from older generations, and obviously shouldn’t attempt to compete against Athlon II and Celeron as well as AMD Zacate and Intel Atom.

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

Discussion

Comments currently: 30
Discussion started: 09/07/11 03:52:24 PM
Latest comment: 09/20/14 06:43:01 AM

View comments

Add your Comment