HandBrake is optimized for multiple threads. But despite the fact that our Celeron J1750 sample is only a dual-core CPU, it has little trouble trouncing the Hyper-Threading-enabled Atom D2700. Then again, both upgradeable desktop-oriented processors are notably quicker and quite affordable. If it's performance you're looking for, they're smarter buys. The 10 W Celeron is going to be best suited to applications sensitive to power and thermals.
Our iTunes workload, on the other hand, is decidedly single-threaded. We get another look at how effective the Silvermont architecture is compared to Saltwell. Though it's certainly true that the Celeron J1750 spins up to higher clock rates than the Atom D2700, even at the same frequency, the Bay Trail-based SoC would enjoy a commanding lead.
LAME tells us the same basic story. In short, the Celeron J1750 is quite a bit quicker than the fastest desktop-oriented Atom from last generation. The Ivy Bridge and Richland architectures have no trouble posting notably better numbers, but remember that they're 55 and 65 W CPUs, respectively. Celeron J1750 is rated for just 10 W, and it's cruising along.
Going back the other way, TotalCode Studio is well-threaded, and the addition of Hyper-Threading does good things for Atom D2700. Intel's Bay Trail-based SoC is still quite a bit quicker, despite addressing fewer threads. We'd want to see what four physical cores could do in these applications; good scaling could land a Celeron J1850 or Pentium J2850 within striking distance of the A4-4000.
- 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