start menu
PC Buyers
CPU Prices
RAM Prices
Compare Prices
About Us
Sharky Extreme : CPU Reviews & Articles June 9, 2011
Get the latest reviews and tutorials!
Register for the free
Hardware Daily Newsletter!

 - Most Active Threads
 - Technical Support
 - CPUs & Overclocking

RSS feed

Be a Marketplace Partner

Be a Commerce Partner

Internet News
Small Business
Personal Technology

Search internet.com
Corporate Info
Tech Jobs
E-mail Offers

CPU Reviews & Articles


Celeron D 351 (3.2 GHz) Processor Review

By Vince Freeman :  February 2, 2006

SiSoft SANDRA 2005 Performance

SiSoft SANDRA 2005 is the latest revision of this popular system benchmark, but it sticks to its roots and supplies a wide range of individual benchmarks and system utilities. These include processor, system, network, hard drive benchmarks and many other performance tests. The memory bandwidth test is the most popular section of the SiSoft SANDRA benchmark suite, and highlights the potential performance levels of the CPU-memory subsystem. As the Integer and FPU scores are quite similar, we are only including the first one in our benchmark suite.

SiSoft SANDRA memory benchmarking also shows the Celeron D 351 in first place, but this time the race is a bit closer. The dual channel DDR2 configuration is still more than the single-channel DDR Sempron can handle, and the same basic trends exist, with the main difference being the consistency of the three Sempron scores. In PCMark05, the cache levels seemed to have an impact, with the 128K Sempron 3300+ suffering, but here it's more even between the various models. Strangely, the Intel side exhibits the opposite trend, as the 3.2 GHz Celeron D 351 shows more of a gap compared to the 2.93 GHz Celeron D 340.

ScienceMark 2 Performance

We have incorporated the ScienceMark 2 memory benchmark to our suite, and more specifically the MemBench portion of the program. This high-end test utilizes a series of memory bandwidth algorithms, and then offers a measure of the overall memory bandwidth of a given CPU/memory/platform combination. In many ways, it is similar to SiSoft SANDRA in terms of output and format, but depending on the platform and CPU, the actual tests can offer a slightly different result.

Our final memory benchmark again draws the competitors closer together, but does nothing to change the overall rankings. The ScienceMark 2 test scores also have the Celeron D 351 out in front, but the various Sempron 3100+ to 3400+ models have closed the gap somewhat.

CINEBENCH 2003 Performance

CINEBENCH 2003 is a system benchmark that uses CINEMA 4D for both CPU and video-based testing. This benchmark processes a large, detailed image file on-screen, times the overall performance, and displays the results. As this is a processor review, we're concentrating on the CPU score, which incidentally, can utilize multi-processing and Hyper-Threading.

The Celeron D and Sempron processors must take the old school approach with CINEBENCH 2003 testing, with no aid from HT or dual core support. This shows up in the relatively low scores, but this time, the Celeron D 351 falls behind both the Sempron 3400+ and 3300+, while equaling the score of the Sempron 3100+. This is also the first "desktop performance" benchmark to push the Celeron D 351 out of the top performance spot.

Page 1

The Celeron D 351 Processor

Page 2

Test Setup and Benchmark Software

Page 3

PCMark05 Pro Performance

  • Page 4

    SANDRA 2005, ScienceMark 2 & CINEBENCH 2003 Performance

    Page 5

    MPEG-1/2, DivX 6.1 and WME Encoding Performance

    Page 6

    Quake 3, UT 2004 & 3DMark05 Performance

    Page 7

    DOOM 3, FarCry and Half-Life 2 Performance

    Page 8

    Quake 4, Painkiller and CoR Performance

    Page 9

    Benchmark Analysis, Overclocking, Value and Conclusion

    The Network for Technology Professionals


    About Internet.com

    Legal Notices, Licensing, Permissions, Privacy Policy.
    Advertise | Newsletters | E-mail Offers