Articles: CPU

Bookmark and Share

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

Computational Performance

We already have an idea about the performance we could expect from Core i5-2400S. Its practical performance depends directly on the workload type. Therefore, it is very interesting to see how this processor is going to perform in different real-life applications.

As usual, we use SYSmark 2007 suite to estimate the processor performance in general-purpose tasks. It emulates the usage models in popular office and digital content creation and processing applications. The idea behind this test is fairly simple: it produces a single score characterizing the average computer performance.

Although SYSmark 2007 load is not always multi-threaded, energy-efficient Core i5-2400S turns out slower than even Core i5-2300. There is only one strange thing about it and this is not the numbers on the diagram, but the numbers in the CPU model name: we really wonder why Intel decided to mark these processors with such high model names, which will most likely mislead quite a few users. However, it is important to keep in mind that the model numbers of S-series processors, not to mention T-series ones, have very different meaning than that model numbers of the regular Sandy bridge CPUs. Of course, Core i5-2400S didn’t fall behind the previous-generation platform, but it is a completely different CPU, nothing like the Sandy Bridge processors that have already impressed the users in numerous reviews all over the web.

We would like to add a table with detailed results in SYSmark 2007 to the diagram above. All scores are sorted according to the application type:

Now let’s proceed to tests in individual 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 560 MB in total size.

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.

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.

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.

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

The results of all tests in individual resource-hungry applications unanimously show that Core i5-2400S is not as fast as 95 W Core i5 processors from the new Sandy Bridge generation. And the higher is the operational load on the cores, the greater is the performance difference between them. And we are talking not about a slight difference but about pretty significant one: 65 W Core i5-2400S may be up to 10-20% slower than the 95 W Core i5-2400 CPU.

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


Comments currently: 20
Discussion started: 01/22/11 10:41:32 PM
Latest comment: 12/21/15 11:53:34 AM

View comments

Add your Comment