Page 1:If The Gloves Weren't Off Before, They Are Now...
Page 2:The Atom Z3000 SoC Architecture
Page 3:Bay Trail's Performance On The Desktop: Benchmarking Celeron J1750
Page 4:Results: Power And Efficiency
Page 5:Results: Synthetics And 3D
Page 6:Results: Productivity
Page 7:Results: Compression
Page 9:Results: Media Encoding
Page 10:Celeron J1750: Bay Trail Is Faster And Much More Efficient
Results: Synthetics And 3D
As mentioned, we're scaling back on the number of tests for today's preview. Much of our typical benchmark suite is workstation-oriented. Compiling lots of code, editing professional video, and rendering big 3D projects probably won't happen very often on a system with a Celeron inside. When it does, you're going to wish you had picked up something else.
Let's start with the basic synthetics, though. Sandra's Arithmetic module recognizes each processor's ISA extensions and capitalizes. Still though, the Ivy Bridge-based Celeron and Richland-based A4 are both quite a bit quicker.
The Atom D2700-based setup wouldn't complete the Multi-Media sub-test. Instead, we get a look at the advantage Ivy Bridge and Richland enjoy over the Bay Trail SoC.
The Silvermont processor architecture includes AES-NI support. Intel deliberately cuts that feature from the Celeron G1610 though, explaining why Bay Trail posts better numbers. Cedarview clearly lacks AES-NI, while Richland leverages it. Curiously, Bay Trail is outperformed in hashing by the Hyper-Threaded Atom D2700.
These platforms support different memory configurations. The Celeron G1610 supports two channels of DDR3-1333. AMD doesn't make clear what the A4 supports, but we ran it with DDR3-1600 modules that defaulted down to 1333 MT/s. Our Atom D2700 system took two 2 GB DDR3-1066 modules (albeit using one 64-bit channel). Meanwhile, our Celeron J1750 is rated for DDR3L-1333 at 1.35 V.
Bay Trail might appear to falter, but remember that it's going up against two CPUs derived from more powerful desktop architectures (even if they're both $50 chips), and an Atom D2700 backed by Nvidia's GeForce GT 520.
Most important, perhaps, is that our dual-core Celeron J1750 manages to outscore the dual-core, Hyper-Threaded Atom D2700 in 3DMark's Physics test, which measures host processor performance.
As a point of comparison, you can see how badly the Atom Z2760 in Intel's tablet-oriented Cloverview process fares.
The situation similarly doesn't look much different for Bay Trail in the older 3DMark 11. What drags it down is the graphics score, though. You can clearly see that two Silvermont cores outperform a pair of Hyper-Threaded Saltwell cores. This test doesn't run on the ATIV Smart PC 500T, so we can't include that platform's numbers, which would have undoubtedly been ugly.
- If The Gloves Weren't Off Before, They Are Now...
- The Atom Z3000 SoC Architecture
- Bay Trail's Performance On The Desktop: Benchmarking Celeron J1750
- Results: Power And Efficiency
- Results: Synthetics And 3D
- Results: Productivity
- Results: Compression
- Results: Media Encoding
- Celeron J1750: Bay Trail Is Faster And Much More Efficient