RSS Feed

HCW Tech Blog

For the latest info on computer hardware, tech, news, video games, software tips, and Linux, check out our new improved front page: HCW Tech Blog

Reviewed by: Carl Nelson [09.24.08]
Manufactured by: AMD, Intel


3D Rendering

This is not something I do personally, but I know a lot of people are into 3D rendering at home. To test 3D rendering performance, we make use of Maxon's CineBench program.

Based on Maxon's animation software, Cinema 4D, CineBench is a good real-world benchmark that makes comparing systems easier for those of us who aren't really familiar with creating 3D art. Cinema 4D was used to make such movies as Spiderman and Star Wars. Good enough for me!

Once again, the lack of cache rears its ugly head. And once again, the high clock speed is able to make up for it a bit.

Power Consumption

Because CineBench has seperate single- and multi-threaded modes, it makes for a good benchmark for power consumption. To test this, we ran each test with the system plugged into our Watts Up power meter in multi threaded mode. We also checked the idle power usage of each system, with all 'efficiency' features enabled. Average power consumption for the duration of the test is given, in watts:

When idling, the Celeron system is able to consume less than 100W, and the X2 isn't much higher than that. This is with a 7950GT video card, which isn't exactly the most efficient, so this could be even better. However, once you overclock the processors, the X2 jumps up by 13W, even when not being used. The Celeron also increases a bit, but only by about 8.2W.

Under full load, the horrible efficiency of the X2 rears its ugly head, especially once it is overclocked! 150W at stock speed is bad enough, but 211W is terrible, considering the performance!

The Celeron at full load barely sips more power than it does at idle, and that increases by about 34% when it is overclocked.

Using a bit of 5th-grade math, I was able to put the next graph together to put things into an even clearer perspective. Since we have a performance result from CineBench, and know the amount of average power used to obtain that result, we can find out how much power it took to achieve that result in the form of "Performance per Watt" (Higher is Better in this case):

Both CPUs start horribly low (the 45nm E8500 scores about 50 on this test), but once overclocked the efficient Conroe-based Celeron is able to pull ahead.


Yeah I know, we already looked at the 'pure math' results on the first page of this review. But sometimes math calculation in itself works in practical PC usage. Back in the day, the most popular program for overclockers to show off their e-peen was SuperPi. Unfortunately though, that program is not multi-threaded. So to take its place, we have wPrime. wPrime actually has absolutely nothing to do with prime numbers - what it does is calculate the square root of really large numbers (upwards of 32 billion at this point). Total calculation time is given in seconds. If more than one core is detected, the test is split into several threads.

Once again we have a tie. And once again, we can thank the Celeron's lack of a decent amount of cache.

Next Page: (Conclusion)