Articles: CPU
 

Bookmark and Share

(61) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 ]

Performance in Applications

We use WinRAR to measure the performance of processors when compressing data. We take a folder with a lot of files for a total amount of 560 megabytes and compress it into an archive with the highest compression settings.

Besides low computational power, AMD E-350 has a single-channel memory controller. All this affects archiving speed and we clearly see that Brazos platform falls behind any of the compact Intel systems participating in our today’s test session.

We use our custom-made test to benchmark computers with Adobe Photoshop. It is a redesigned Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed Test involving some ordinary processing of four 10-megapixel images captured with a digital camera.

Frankly speaking, when we saw how far behind Brazos was in resource-hungry applications, we got the feeling that maybe comparing AMD E-350 against anything other than Atom wasn’t such a good idea after all. However, AMD is certain that their platform is fit for higher-end systems than ordinary nettops and it is all about application optimization. According to the company officials, there are more than 50 applications available today that use Brazos platform ‘the right way” and run very fast on it. Unfortunately, popular resource-hungry applications are not on this list yet.

We use the Apple iTunes utility for our audio transcoding test. We convert an audio CD into AAC format. Take note that Apple iTunes can only use two CPU cores.

Even the trivial music transcoding takes way too long on AMD E-350. The cheap dual-core Celeron processor from 2009 completes this task three times faster. The funny thing is that the today’s Core i3 based on progressive Sandy Bridge microarchitecture performs in iTunes practically as fast as Celeron E3500.

To measure the speed of video encoding into the H.264 format we use x264 HD test that includes processing original MPEG-2 video recorded at 720p resolution with a bit rate of 4 Mbps. By the way, the results of this test have huge practical value because the x264 codec is employed in a variety of transcoding utilities such as HandBrake, MeGUI, VirtualDub and others.

During video transcoding performed exclusively by x86 cores, AMD E-350 loses even to Intel Atom. And as for Core i3-2100T, it is a mile ahead. Intel CPU with twice as high TDP performs four times faster, which means that AMD E-350 yield to it not only in pure performance, but also in performance-per-watt.

The speed of final rendering in Maxon Cinema 4D is benchmarked with the Cinebench test.

There is nothing new on this diagram. Despite AMD’s wishes, the computational performance of their E-350 processor doesn’t allow us to compare it against anything other than Atom. So, you shouldn’t really trust those marketing slides where Brazos platform is pictured as a serious rival to Celeron and Pentium CPUs.

Next, we will use the integrated CPU test from the chess program Fritz to benchmark the systems.

Unfortunately, this test doesn’t change our impression of AMD E-350 based on the results of the previous tests. The second CPU we are focusing on today, Core i3-2100T looks great, on the contrary. Although its clock frequency is only 2.5 GHz, it turns out much faster than Pentium and Celeron CPUs working at higher clock speeds.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 61
Discussion started: 04/16/11 04:36:39 PM
Latest comment: 05/20/12 08:30:58 PM

View comments

Add your Comment