start menu
PC Buyers
CPU Prices
RAM Prices
Compare Prices
About Us
Sharky Extreme : CPU Reviews & Articles June 10, 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

TMPGEnc Xpress 3.0 MPEG-1 Encoding Performance

TMPGEnc Xpress 3.0 is a revision to this popular MPEG encoder, and a program that not only provides real-world MPEG performance results, but also includes a host of specialized CPU support options. The program supports virtually all CPU multimedia features such as MMX/MMX-2, SSE/SSE2/SSE3, 3DNow!, and even support for dual core and Hyper-Threading technologies.

For the following test, we've taken a high-end, 3-minute AVI file, and then encoded it to MPEG-1 using TMPGEnc. The test results are expressed in the form of time elapsed (minutes: seconds) and unlike our other benchmarks, a smaller bar denotes less time taken, and therefore higher performance.

Value processors are not exactly speed demons when it comes to video encoding, and while the top-end processors are pushing against the 1-minute barrier in this test, we see all of the Celeron D and Sempron models languishing above 2 minutes. The Celeron D 351 and Sempron 3400+ & 3300+ still put on a good show, but it's AMD coming out with a slim victory, as the Sempron 3400+ outpaced the Celeron D 351 by 9 seconds.

TMPGEnc Xpress 3.0 MPEG-2 Encoding Performance

For the next test, we've taken the same high-end, 3-minute AVI file, and encoded it to MPEG-2 using TMPGEnc Express 3.0. This is more stressful on the system than our previous MPEG-1 encoding, and is the standard for DVD authoring. The performance results are expressed in the form of time elapsed (minutes: seconds) and as with the MPEG-1 results, a smaller bar denotes less time taken, and therefore higher performance.

MPEG-2 encoding is much a tougher test for our processors, and this time, the Celeron D 351 shows more muscle, and takes the performance lead. None of these processors is going to set an encoding record, but the 3.2 GHz Celeron D did post a time that was a full minute faster than the Sempron 3400+. Even more surprising, the 2.93 GHz Celeron D 340 also slipped by the AMD competition with a 2-second margin of victory.

XMPEG DivX 6.1 Encoding Performance

Along with standard MPEG tests, we have also added in a few different media encoding tests, starting with XMPEG and its DivX encoding benchmark test. The same 3 minute video file is used, and the time to encode the first 5K+ frames is displayed in the chart below. As with the previous encoding tests, these are time-based and a smaller bar denotes higher performance. We have also upgraded to the latest DivX 6.1 codec, which features new optimizations for dual processor (SMP), dual core, and Hyper-Threading-enabled systems.

While the dual core Pentium D models demonstrate that Intel has some legs in the DivX arena, the single core Celeron D shows some definite issues. The XMPEG DivX encoding times have the Sempron processors displaying a decided edge over their Celeron D competition, with over a 35-second gap between the Celeron D 351 and Sempron 3400+ encoding times.

Windows Media Encoder 9 Performance

Our last multimedia test measures basic Windows Media Encoder performance using the 3-minute DivX file we produced above, and using the Windows Media Encoder 9 to convert it into .wmv format. WME 9 offers support for multi-threading and CPU optimizations, which makes it another great media encoding test for our high-end processors.

Windows Media Encoder 9 benchmarking gets the Celeron D 351 back on track, and this little desktop demon provides a nice performance boost compared to the AMD competition. This is not just a Celeron D advantage either, as the Sempron 3400+ makes short work of the 2.93 GHz Celeron D 340, and it takes the full 3.2 GHz of the Celeron D 351 to get the top 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