Computing performance
We use the latest version of Futuremark PCMark 7 to test overall performance in everyday
applications using two test traces: for regular and low-performance systems.
Celeron
847 looks very good when compared with AMD E-350 and Intel Atom D2700
Celeron 847 looks very good when compared
with AMD E-350 and Intel Atom D2700. Despite its relatively low clock rate of
1.1 GHz, it can provide good performance thanks to its Core microarchitecture
However, it is slower when compared against the original desktop Celeron G1610,
which can be expected considering the differences in their clock rate.
Internet Performance is tested with
Futuremark Peacekeeper launched on the latest, Google Chrome version 25.
This
test is indicative of the speed of each particular CPU core.
Although Google Chrome creates separate
process for each tab, these processes are single-threaded loads. That’s why
this test is indicative of the speed of each particular CPU core. We can see
that the Celeron 847 is two times faster than the Atom D2700 and outperforms
the AMD E-350 by almost 40%. It seems Celeron 847 is a good solution for
nettops serving for internet access. Celeron G1610 is much faster, of course,
but it runs on a higher level platform.
For data compression test, we use 7-zip's
LZMA2 algorithm to archive a 715MB folder with files.
We
use 7-zip's LZMA2 algorithm to archive a 715MB folder with files.
We have an unusual perspective here. 7-zip
can run in parallel on multi-core CPUs, so that Atom D2700, which can execute
up to four instruction threads concurrently thanks to Hyper-Threading, cope
with this task better than AMD E-350 and Celeron 847.
We benchmarked CPUs in Adobe Photoshop CS6
with custom test based on the Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed Test, and
consisting of typical processing of four 24-megapixel images captured with a
digital camera.
Benchmark
the performance in Adobe Photoshop CS6
Celeron 847 is excellent once again,
providing much higher performance when compared with the other inexpensive and
economical processors. It can be expected by processing high resolution images
based on memory bandwidth and Celeron, unlike AMD E-series and Intel Atom,
features a dual-channel controller with support for DDR3-1333. It should be
noted that Celeron 847, which is positioned as a rival to the Brazos platform,
is almost half as fast as the desktop CPU LGA 1155 of the Ivy Bridge line.
In the audio encoding test, we measured the
speed of converting a music album from FLAC to MP3 format with Xilisoft Audio
Converter 6.4.
Testing
audio coding
Although Xilisoft Audio Converter is
optimized for multi-core CPUs, Celeron 847 is ahead of Atom D2700 which can
perform four instruction threads concurrently. But the gap is not large, only
6%. AMD E-350 is slower than one third of the Intel CPU at the same level.
Transcoding video is not the typical
applications for Atom-based systems and similar systems, but nonetheless we
want to check that. In this experiment, we used 0.8 MediaCoder to convert an
H.264 1080p video clip into a format supported by the Apple iPad2. Speed is
measured in frames per second.
MediaCoder
0.8
Celeron 847 has an overwhelming advantage
in this transcoding test. It goes beyond Bobcat and Atom CPUs in terms of
computing efficient, but it's still a junior solution when compared to the
inexpensive platforms based on the Intel's Socket LGA1155 processor.
Before testing the processor's integrated
graphics core, 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.
Physics
Score Results
Unfortunately, the Atom D2700 can not pass
this test because it does not support DirectX 10. On the other hand, the
position is as predicted Celeron 847 is faster than AMD E-350 about 40% but
only half as fast as its full-featured cousin.
