4. Benchmarks

Personally speaking, I'm not a big benchmark person. Most of the modern day systems are so fast that I'll honestly take anyone as long as it meets my needs. However, I know a number of you live by these numbers so I'll attempt to give you as much as possible. Like I said before, I did not do any BIOS tweaking. All these results are with standard settings in the BIOS. There are some nice BIOS features that let you overclock the processor and control the memory speeds but I didn't get a chance to try them out. Perhaps one day...

4.1 Some more details on the scores

As expected, this system does fairly poorly on 3D graphics scores. The integrated video just doesn't compare to standalone AGP solutions. However, I personally was expecting it to do so coming into this section. I was building a system for someone who doesn't care about the latest in 3D gaming. The 2D performance of the 845GL chipset is good enough for nearly all uses and the XP device drivers are very solid.

4.2 Sandra

The synthetic benchmarks that Sandra runs put the Celeron 1.8 right in between the P4 1.6 and the P4 2.0 GHz scores that they have in their database. These benchmarks don't show the entire picture however. When you put benchmarks that try to show real world usage, the small cache of the Celeron 1.8 comes into play bringing it much closer to the performance of something around a Pentium 4 1.6GHz to 1.7GHz processor if even.

CPU Arithmetic Benchmark

CPU Multimedia Benchmark

Memory Bandwidth Benchmark

File System Benchmark

4.3 MadOnion

MadOnion PCMark 2002 Benchmarks

MadOnion 3DMark2001 Benchmarks

Of course you should take the 3DMark 2001 scores lightly since it's compared up against a GeForce4 Ti4200. But I chose to put that there to emphasize the fact that the onboard video isn't good enough for 3D gaming purposes.

4.4 ETesting Labs (Ziff Davis)

Business Winstone 2001 Scores

Content Creation Winstone 2002 Scores

It's interesting to see that these scores are so much lower for the Celeron 1.8GHz system. After some analysis into the scores, the total system performance of the Gigabyte G-MAX was lower than the AMS gBOX. Undoubtedly the slower generic DDR memory and the smaller L2 cache had a major role in the scores above. It should be noted that I did not tweak the BIOS for the G-MAX so we're undoubtedly underperforming the G-MAX a bit here. I would have preferred to have run the tests again but I didn't have time as of this writing so take the Business Winstone and Content Creation Winstone scores with a grain of salt but do recognize that the Celeron's smaller L2 cache plays a vital role in everyday business usage when compared up against it's bigger brothers - the Pentium 4.

[Home] [Previous Page] [Next Page]