Performance

General Performance

The SYSmark 2007 benchmark we picked uses typical work scenarios to test the systems performance in the most popular real applications.

All in all, the new Celeron E1200 processor turns out much slower than CPUs from other families built on Core micro-architecture. Even Pentium E2160 priced only $11 more (according to the official price-list), outperforms dual-core Celeron E1200 by about 17-18% on average. Nevertheless, if we compare the dual-core newcomer against previous generation Celeron processors featuring only one core, we will definitely see some progress. Celeron 440 is about 12% slower than the new Celeron E1200. In other words, the transition of budget processors to dual-core design was right in time, because most contemporary software has already learned to take advantage of the few computational cores working in parallel.

I would like to stress that the new Celeron E1200 processor runs pretty slow in almost all scenarios. However, in some cases this processor’s smaller cache has more influence on the performance. For instance, the biggest lag behind the leaders can be seen in E-Learning scenario that emulates creation of a tutoring web-site with various media content and in 3D scenario that uses AutoDesk 3ds Max 8 and SketchUp 5 to create an architectural presentation.

I would also like to point out one more thing to you. Despite the transition of Celeron processors to dual-core architecture, Athlon 64 X2 will remain very attractive budget solutions. At least in our test session Athlon 64 X2 4000+ is indisputably faster than Celeron E1200, and the upcoming Celeron E1600 cannot outpace Athlon 64 X2 5200+.