Skip to main content

Bay Trail On The Desktop: Celeron J1750 Gets Benchmarked

Bay Trail's Performance On The Desktop: Benchmarking Celeron J1750

Again, Intel is most intently focused on the six tablet-oriented implementations of Bay Trail, and we share the company’s enthusiasm for portable devices with all-around better performance, longer battery life, and more advanced I/O capabilities. But because design wins are still forthcoming, there aren’t any tablets to test yet.

We did manage to get our hands on a Celeron J1750-based platform, though. Back on the first page, we mentioned that Bay Trail-based SoCs will also drive notebooks and desktops, albeit at different power targets. Intel is planning quad-core Pentium-branded processors with HD Graphics for both segments, along with quad- and dual-core Celeron SoCs with HD Graphics. For notebooks, expect N3000-series Pentiums and N2000-series Celerons. The desktop will initially see a Pentium J2850, a Celeron J1850, and a Celeron J1750. The latter model is a dual-core (single-module) chip; the other two are quad-core SKUs.

The Celeron-based mini-ITX platform in our possession gets away with passive cooling, since the dual-core Celeron only dissipates 10 W. The Silvermont cores run at 2.4 GHz, dropping as low as 500 MHz when the system is idle. Two SO-DIMM slots take 1.35 V DDR3L-1333 memory. Though storage connectivity is limited to SATA 3Gb/s, don’t think that your SSD is going to be bottlenecking this low-power SoC. Instead, we’re just happy that USB 3.0 is supported natively. Four lanes of second-gen PCI Express are also available.

Clock RateL2 CacheC/TMem. Data RateMax. Turbo BoostGraphicsDynamic Freq.
BGA 65 W SKUs
Core i7-4770R3.2 GHz6 MB4/81600 MT/s3.9 GHzIris Pro 52001300 MHz
Core i5-4670R3 GHz4 MB4/41600 MT/s3.7 GHzIris Pro 52001300 MHz
Core i5-4570R2.7 GHz4 MB4/41600 MT/s3.2 GHzIris Pro 52001150 MHz
BGA 10 W SKUs
Pentium J28502.4 GHz2 MB4/41333 MT/sN/AHD Graphics688 MHz Base792 MHz Max.
Celeron J18502 GHz2 MB4/41333 MT/sN/AHD Graphics688 MHz Base792 MHz Max.
Celeron J17502.4 GHz1 MB2/21333 MT/sN/AHD Graphics688 MHz Base750 MHz Max.

Curious as to how Bay Trail-D fares against some of the most entry-level platforms, we rounded up Zotac’s D2700-ITX  WiFi Supreme (sporting a 10 W Atom D2700 and GeForce GT 520 graphics), AMD’s 65 W A4-4000 based on the Richland architecture, and a 55 W Celeron G1610 based on Ivy Bridge. Naturally, the A4 and 55 W Celeron are in a completely different class. But they also represent two of the least-expensive drop-in upgrades you can buy, both under $50. Some of our charts also include Samsung's ATIV Smart PC 500T with Atom Z2760 as a point of reference.

If anything, we’re most interested to see how Celeron J1750 stacks up to Atom D2700 at 2.13 GHz. Sporting a technically inferior graphics engine, lower core clock rate, lower peak graphics frequency, and notably less memory bandwidth, it shouldn’t even be a contest. But the Cedarview-based processor, built using Saltwell cores, does enjoy the benefit of Hyper-Threading.

Test Hardware
ProcessorsIntel Celeron J1750 (Bay Trail-D) 2.4 GHz (29 * 83.3 MHz), BGA, 1 MB Shared L2, Dual-Core, Power-savings enabled
Intel Celeron G1610 (Ivy Bridge) 2.6 GHz (26 * 100 MHz), LGA 1155, 2 MB Shared L3, Dual-Core, Power-savings enabled
Intel Atom D2700 (Cedarview) 2.13 GHz (16 * 133 MHz), BGA559, 2 x 512 KB L2 Cache, Hyper-Threading enabled, Power-savings enabled
AMD A4-4000 (Richland) 3.0 GHz (30 * 100 MHz), Socket FM2, 1 MB L2, Turbo Core enabled, Power-savings enabled
MotherboardMSI Z77 Mpower (LGA 1155) Intel Z77 Express, BIOS 17.8
Zotac D2700-ITX WiFi Supreme (BGA559)
MSI FM2-A85XA-G65 (Socket FM2) AMD A85X, BIOS 2.0
MemoryCrucial 4 GB (2 x 2 GB) DDR3L-1333, CT25664BF1339.M8FKD at 1.35 V
G.Skill 4 GB (2 x 2 GB) DDR3-1066, F3-8500CL7D-4GBSQ at 1.5 V
Patriot 4 GB (2 x 2 GB) DDR3-1600, PGS34G1600ELKA at 1.5 V
Hard DriveSamsung 840 Pro 256 GB, SATA 6 Gb/s
GraphicsNvidia GeForce GTX Titan 6 GB
Power SupplyCorsair AX860i, 80 PLUS Platinum, 860 W
System Software And Drivers
Operating SystemWindows 8 Professional x64
DirectXDirectX 11
Graphics DriverNvidia GeForce Release 320.18AMD Catalyst 13.10 BetaIntel 15.31.9.64.3165
Benchmark Configuration
Adobe Creative Suite
Adobe Photoshop CS6Version 13 x64: Filter 15.7 MB TIF Image: Radial Blur, Shape Blur, Median, Polar Coordinates
Audio/Video Encoding
iTunesVersion 10.4.1.10 x64: Audio CD (Terminator II SE), 53 minutes, default AAC format
Lame MP3Version 3.98.3: Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min, convert WAV to MP3 audio format, Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
HandBrake CLIVersion: 0.98: Video from Canon Eos 7D (1920x1080, 25 FPS) 1 Minutes 22 Seconds Audio: PCM-S16, 48,000 Hz, Two-Channel, to Video: AVC1 Audio: AAC (High Profile)
TotalCode Studio 2.5Version: 2.5.0.10677: MPEG-2 to H.264, MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec, 28 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG-2), Audio: MPEG-2 (44.1 kHz, 2 Channel, 16-Bit, 224 Kb/s), Codec: H.264 Pro, Mode: PAL 50i (25 FPS), Profile: H.264 BD HDMV
Productivity
ABBYY FineReaderVersion 10.0.102.95: Read PDF save to Doc, Source: Political Economy (J. Broadhurst 1842) 111 Pages
Adobe Acrobat XVersion 10.0.0.396: Print PDF from 115 Page PowerPoint, 128-bit RC4 Encryption
File Compression
WinZipVersion 17.0 Pro: THG-Workload (1.3 GB) to ZIP, command line switches "-a -ez -p -r"
WinRARVersion 4.2: THG-Workload (1.3 GB) to RAR, command line switches "winrar a -r -m3"
7-ZipVersion 9.28: THG-Workload (1.3 GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=5"
Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
3DMark 11Version: 1.0.1.0, Benchmark Only
SiSoftware Sandra 2013Version 2013.01.19.11, CPU Test = CPU Arithmetic / Multimedia / Cryptography / Memory Bandwidth / Cache Bandwidth
  • SteelCity1981
    only 2mb of l2 cache for 4 cores. talk about starving 4 cores with 2mb of l2 cache.
    Reply
  • DjEaZy
    ... interesting is the modular core thingy.. it ir like the FX module from AMD... 2 cores on joined L2 cache? Hmm... and GPU on the silicon... it seams, intel waits till the software is there...
    Reply
  • stickmansam
    11551610 said:
    ... interesting is the modular core thingy.. it ir like the FX module from AMD... 2 cores on joined L2 cache? Hmm... and GPU on the silicon... it seams, intel waits till the software is there...

    Shared L2 cache exists on Intel's side during the Core 2 era with two or more cores sharing the L2 cache, similar to how L3 cache is shared now except there is an additional private L2 cache. Basically, with Nehalem, Intel moved the shared cache a level lower to L3 and put in a new private cache (L2). GPU on the same die/chip has been on Intel's side too for quite a while as well....

    11551497 said:
    only 2mb of l2 cache for 4 cores. talk about starving 4 cores with 2mb of l2 cache.

    The i5s have actually less cache than the Q9x50's so cache size isn't everything. Their ipc is still lower than the Athlon IIx4's which have similar amounts of cache are not that bottle necked (compared to Phenom II's, maybe 20% slower?). Cache implementation also matters and the shared L2 should be better than the piecemeal Athlon II L2, provided the cores don't thrash each other.

    Bay Trail is a quite interesting chip with good enough performance to pretty much beat out most ARM chips in tablets yet provide comparable power efficiency and graphics. The price is not too high either, with the top end chip ~$40, making it at least somewhat competitive with ARM. The ability to run Android/Linux/Windows 8 means that OEM's can build one product to sell to different markets and save on production line costs. It also lets them adjust the OS to meet market demand on the go potential (ship non selling OS version back to factory and load OS that sells better and send it back out). ASUS seems to have something like that going on with the T100 having buttons half way between Windows and Android and no Windows branding.

    This all makes me want to grab a Bay Trail and run both Android and Windows on it, have Windows when I use it connected to a screen for desktop and run desktop apps and then Android on the go so I get the larger app store (Windows if I am lazy).
    Reply
  • vipervoid1
    There is Kabini in the review ??
    Why compare Richland with this ??
    Isn't Kabini is the one to compare ??
    Reply
  • runswindows95
    Then again, the thing to keep in mind these CPU's aren't gaming / workstation CPU's. These CPU's will quite honestly work for the majority of PC owners, who mainly do social media and Youtube. A quad-core that only uses 10W intrigues me a lot since I don't game, but do a lot of heavy word processing.
    Reply
  • Cryio
    Hey Tom. Winrar 5 is out. Could you please use that? :D
    Reply
  • ojas
    11551718 said:
    There is Kabini in the review ??
    Why compare Richland with this ??
    Isn't Kabini is the one to compare ??
    Agreed.

    Though, Tech Report and AnandTech have previewed the Z3770 and put it up against mobile chips and Kabini.

    (hint: the 4w Z3770 matches a 15w A4-5000 Kabini and soundly thrashes ARM in CPU performance)

    http://techreport.com/review/25329/intel-atom-z3000-bay-trail-soc-revealed

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/7314/intel-baytrail-preview-intel-atom-z3770-tested
    Reply
  • de5_Roy
    i sorely missed a kabini setup in the benches and efficiency tests. i woulda liked to see both bay trail and kabini socs run 1080p and 1600p gaming (tablet oriented).

    a few nitpicks:
    in the test hardware chart - a4 4000 doesn't have L3 cache. afaik, neither does baytrail (1MB shared L2).
    in the bga 65w skus vs bga 10 skus table, the core i- cpus clockrates are base clockrate, turbo is missing while baytrail socs' burst clockrate is reported while base clockrate is absent.
    Reply
  • Wisecracker
    11552261 said:
    11551718 said:
    There is Kabini in the review ??
    Why compare Richland with this ??
    Isn't Kabini is the one to compare ??
    Agreed.

    Though, Tech Report and AnandTech have previewed the Z3770 and put it up against mobile chips and Kabini.

    (hint: the 4w Z3770 matches a 15w A4-5000 Kabini and soundly thrashes ARM in CPU performance)
    http://techreport.com/review/25329/intel-atom-z3000-bay-trail-soc-revealed

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/7314/intel-baytrail-preview-intel-atom-z3770-tested

    Not according to Tom's ...







    Power consumption looks great ... especially compared to a 65w Richland desktop (WTF, THG?) ... but the A4-5000 remains quite formidable in efficiency according to Tom's own testing
    Graphics performance compared to the AMD SoCs must blow, or it would have been hyped to the max. I suspect this means Bay Trail will be Temash'd (or, Kabini'd).


    Reply
  • CaedenV
    Looks like these new Atom based Celerons and Pentiums are what I want to look for in my little always-on server build I am prepping for. Extremely low power, enough performance to run a gigabit NAS, and hopefully some passive or other extremely quiet cooling solutions. I just hope that the motherboards offer some RAID options to work with in FreeNAS and the price is appropriately cheap.
    Reply