I got a new laptop (see previous post) with an AMD Turion 64 X2 Mobile TL-50, with a clock speed of 1.66 GHz per core.
Earlier, I got a new CPU to replace the broken one in a desktop computer. That one is an Intel Celeron 331, with a clock speed of 2.66 GHz.
I know clock speeds are more for marketing than for an indicator of performance, so I decided to try a benchmark. Each computer would try to optimize an approximately 6000×5000 pixel PNG image using OptiPNG.
This test is fairly simple and mostly geared towards CPU power. OptiPNG is not multi-threaded, so essentially I was comparing a single 1.66 GHz core with a 2.66 GHz CPU. No fancy processor instruction sets were used. Both processors are 64-bit, but both were running 32-bit Windows.
- Turion laptop’s hard drive is 5400 RPM. The other’s was 7200 RPM.
- Background processes may have been shifted to the Turion’s other core, thereby allocating more cycles to the benchmark, as opposed to the single-core desktop computer.
- Celeron 331: Finished the test in 1:06 min.
- Turion TL-50: Finished the test in 1:30 min.
From these results:
- If the Turion was running at 2.66 GHz per core like the Celeron, it would’ve finished in about 56 seconds, meaning it might be slightly more efficient (IPC) than the Celeron.
- If both cores of the Turion were used, it would have finished in about 45 sec.
- If the Celeron had a clock speed of 3.32 GHz (1.66 x 2), it would have finished in about 52 seconds.
This means, my Celeron is kinda slow. It also consumes more power (1.3 V vs. 1.1 V). However, it cost a whole lot less (partly because it’s for a desktop).