MeGUI CPU Time Test - Compare different CPUs encoding the same file

[graysky]

I am interested in seeing how newer CPUs compare to my old Athlon XP 3200+. To participate in the test, just download the test file and follow the "instructions.txt" file that's included in the rar file and just post your results to this thread. I'll compile them and post them collectively here.

The rar file contains a small (43 meg) mpeg-2 clip with the an avs script file, d2v file, the jobs etc.

test files (null)
and
avisynth plugins if you need them (null)

(edit - links removed due to inactivity, if you want them, make a post in the thread and I'll add them back)

Remember to read the instructions.txt in the rar file and be sure to grab the older version of x264.exe (also in the instructions.txt).

UPDATE:The results to-date were using a pretty aggressive avs file. I have since updated the files and made a new test.rar -- if you participated in the test PLEASE DELETE YOUR C:\WORK AND WORK.RAR and download the new one from the same URL which uses a more realistic avs file. The new test doesn't require you to mess with the threads setting at all - it is automatic for everyone. I'll start populating a new table with your new results. I started with my own.

Thanks all!

Update: 07-Apr
Added new data comparing the mt.dll results from the standard results for some multicore machines.

-------------------------------------

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/8972/resultsnewerrw1.gif

If you keep your CPU:Mem bus 1:1, you'll find that the data scales in a highly linear fashion albeit short of the theoretical maximum. Here is a little analysis on chantmak's data to this end.

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/8745/graphstw7.gif

Here is a subset of the data showing that, at least with MeGUI doing this avs, there is really no advantage to running with a higher FSB @ the same clockrate. Mem timing does seem to have an effect (last row). Have a look for yourself:

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/7766/fsbfl1.gif

Have a look at the post by aicjofs here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=975017#post975017) where he shows that using mt.dll (http://avisynth.org/mediawiki/MT) on the work.avs I provided can translate into an addition boost of ~14 % on his QX6700. Morph166955 also got a pretty hefty boost on his octacore machine you can read about here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=122318&page=14). I compiled their results in the table below. If you want to experiment with mt.dll yourself, please post your results in the thread and I'll add them to the table as well.

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/4425/resultsmultizu0.gif

[steve77]

I have an E6300 overclocked to 3.2GHz. Doesn't have the 4MB of L2 cache, but I get a boost from the higher memory speeds.

Post a link so everybody can download it, I'm sure you'll get some takers.

I don't really want to download a ton of plugins though....

Post your AVS file and upload your clip. Mediafire.com is apparently good.

[The Scientist]

Not quite what you asked for but I have a E6600 (Vista). It sounds like you are not quite getting the speed you expect from your encode?

[graysky]

Thanks to both of you guys. I'll put the clip and script together and hopefully later tonight get a friend to put it up on the web for you to d/l.

I have an old athlon xp and just wanted to see how much speed gain the 6600 or 6700 would offer doing an encode (2x speed gain, 4x speed gain, etc.) I'm thinking about building a new core 2 duo system to replace this one. I'll PM you guys with the link ASAP.

Thanks!

[jeffy]

Hi Graysky,

maybe there are more people willing to test, so I would like to suggest using some public upload site like rapidshare.de (see sticky http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=96362) if you haven't considered this already. Hopefully, then you might be able to compare the results between different PCs more objectively.

If you do this, it will make sense posting results like this:
time - CPU - frequency - RAM - frequency - OS
36 s - E6600 - 2.4 GHz - 1 GB DDR2-800 - WinXP Pro

[graysky]

Thanks jeffy... I agree with you that for a serious comparison and to draw meaningful conclusions we need to be more rigerous about this. My goal here is just to see ballpark numbers to help justify the cost of a new machine right now :)

I think for a real test like you're talking about, we'd need to do more than a 1 minute clip which is just what I got here and am about to put up on a friend's webspace. Are you interested in becoming a datapoint too?

[jeffy]

Thanks jeffy... I agree with you that for a serious comparison and to draw meaningful conclusions we need to be more rigerous about this. My goal here is just to see ballpark numbers to help justify the cost of a new machine right now :)

I think for a real test like you're talking about, we'd need to do more than a 1 minute clip which is just what I got here and am about to put up on a friend's webspace. Are you interested in becoming a datapoint too?
Yes, I might help. C2D - E6600 - 3.5 GHz overclocked - 533 DDR2 at 587 MHz.

[graysky]

Here are the results from the encode on an Athlon XP 3200+ with 1.0 gig of PC3200 (all at stock settings):

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/6322/resultsvt3.jpg

[jeffy]

As promised:
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/6404/resultszg9.jpg
4:42 - E6600 - 2.4 GHz - overclocked 3.5 GHz - 1 GB DDR2-533 - overclocked 587 MHz - WinXP Pro

final muxed size: 36,597,760 bytes

In three months' time there are price cuts expected for Core 2 Duo & Quad Cores:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=121978

[graysky]

Very cool. Thanks for doing the test. So it's ~2x boost in encoding time. Can you comment on your overclock. How different are the settings you're using from the stock settings? Also, which MB do you have and would you recommend it?

I'm thinking about either a 6600 or 6700. I also read about the planned cuts, thanks for the link. The other thing I'm thinking pretty hard about is waiting for the 6650 and 6750 to get released and run one on the newer chipset... decisions decisions!

Thanks.

[jeffy]

Very cool. Thanks for doing the test. So it's a little under a 2x boost in encoding time. Can you comment on your overclock. How different are the settings you're using from the stock settings? Also, which MB do you have and would you recommend it?

I'm thinking about either a 6600 or 6700. I also read about the planned cuts, thanks for the link. The other thing I'm thinking pretty hard about is waiting for the 6650 and 6750 to get released and run one on the newer chipset... decisions decisions!

Thanks.
Explained above: 3.5 GHz vs. stock 2.4 GHz
RAM 587 MHz vs. 533 MHz stock
Regarding the motherboard: ASUS P5W DH Deluxe,
http://www.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=3&l2=11&l3=248&model=1198&modelmenu=1
I used Noctua NH-U12F for CPU cooling
http://www.noctua.at/main.php?show=productview&products_id=6&lng=en

I had some issues with this board, but unfortunately it proved that I had my RAM modules faulty so I had to RMA them (running with replacements now), therefore I am unable to comment on its stability.

[graysky]

Thanks for the info. Can I get you to repeat the test @ stock clock speeds? It'll be interesting to see if the increase is linear.

[jeffy]

Thanks for the info. Can I get you to repeat the test @ stock clock speeds? It'll be interesting to see if the increase is linear.
Probably after half a day :-)

[graysky]

Here is the same job on a PII-450 MHz w/ 512 meg of PC133.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/2686/p2450mh0.jpg

About 34x slower than your machine and about 16x slower than mine :)

[jeffy]

Here is the same job on a PII-450 MHz w/ 512 meg of PC133.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/2686/p2450mh0.jpg

About 34x slower than your machine and about 16x slower than mine :)

:eek: 2:34:20 :thanks:
PII-450/512 RAM.... it used to be ehm... mid-stream, some time ago.... memories :cool:

You have my sympathy for being able to wait 2,5 hrs for a 62-second clip!

[graysky]

Anyone else (someone with a faster Athlon 64 or FX maybe) willing to try it and post results?

[cbarroso]

Hey, I want to participate too! E6400@2.4Ghz (almost passive heatsink :p ), DDR2 @600MHz 4.4.4.12, Vista Utimate. Please, tell where the RAR file is.

[The Scientist]

Couldn't do the test as the first job required the neroAAC. I thought you would have done the test with the default stuff that comes/gets downloaded with meGUI.

[jeffy]

Well, I have to admit something happened the first time... the filesize is too LOW :confused:

So in the end I have decided to make the overclocked high priority comparison again. I have forgotten to make a note about filesize in some cases, sorry.

I have also tried changing the priority in job1-2.xml and job1-3.xml from IDLE to HIGH and NbThreads from 1 to 2, 3 and 4.

Stock, idle:
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/223/resultsstocktj0.jpg

Stock, high:
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/8434/resultsstockhighvs2.jpg

Overclocked, high, take 2:
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/6564/resultshightake2ht3.jpg

Overclocked, high, 2 threads:
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/7286/results1ovhigh2tje1.jpg

Overclocked, high, 3 threads:
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/1003/results1ovhigh3tgj9.jpg

Overclocked, high, 4 threads:
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/7704/results1ovhigh4tcp1.jpg

Final comparison table:
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/8017/comparisonqh6.jpg

[graysky]

Couldn't do the test as the first job required the neroAAC. I thought you would have done the test with the default stuff that comes/gets downloaded with meGUI.

Sorry man, I thought most had that. It's a free d/l

ftp://ftp6.nero.com/tools/NeroDigitalAudio.zip

Just put neroAacEnc.exe in your MeGUI dir (not the /tools) and it should work.

[graysky]

Final comparison table:
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/8017/comparisonqh6.jpg

Very interesting data. Thanks for posting these. Your priority (low vs. high) findings are also interesting. I wonder if the odd result in the o/c example was due to some sort of instability? I just ran mine again on high priority and normal got results that are damn near the low priority results:

Priority: Low
FPS 1st Pass: 13.9
FPS 2nd Pass: 3.81

Priority: High
FPS 1st Pass: 14.0
FPS 2nd Pass: 3.72

Priority: Normal
FPS 1st Pass: 14.0
FPS 2nd Pass: 3.78

I have changed the jobs to all be NORMAL priority and re-uploaded the rar file.

[jeffy]

Very interesting data. Thanks for posting these. Your priority (low vs. high) findings are also interesting. I wonder if the odd result in the o/c example was due to some sort of instability?
Well, I think the reason was not overclocking, but the main system partition (C) probably became full during the mux. During the take 2, the filesize 81,617,462 bytes seemed okay.

EDIT: Almost full. The file needed about 80 MB, but less than 40 MB was available.

[graysky]

Since I don't have a dual core processor... how do you change the number of threads? That seems to make a very big difference. Also, can you repeat the results using stock level with different number of threads?

Also, I'm assuming your o/c settings are the same as before: 3.5 GHz RAM 587 MHz?

Thanks!

[jeffy]

Since I don't have a dual core processor... how do you change the number of threads? That seems to make a very big difference. Also, can you repeat the results using stock level with different number of threads?

Also, I'm assuming your o/c settings are the same as before: 3.5 GHz RAM 587 MHz?

Thanks!
I just changed the line in job1-2.xml and job1-3.xml.
<NbThreads>1</NbThreads>
The settings used for overclocking remained the same as before. I am sorry, but I will not repeat the test with stock settings. Anyway, I do hope that someone else will post their results soon.

[cbarroso]

Here is my test:
http://img293.imageshack.us/my.php?image=meguitestkw2.gif
Core 2 Duo E6400@2.4, DDR2@600 4.4.4.12, Windows Vista
Threads = 0 (auto)

[graysky]

Thanks... results added to first post.

[steve77]

This is the result 2 threads:

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/7691/2thread79705jk7.jpg

This is the result 4 threads:

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/1350/4thread79702ci2.jpg

2Thread resulting file size: 79,705 KB

4Thread resulting file size: 79,702 KB

Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 3.205GHz, DDR2-916, 2x512MB of RAM. Gigabyte 965P-S3 motherboard, G.Skill HZ ram 4-4-4-12

[rack04]

Overclocked results:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a199/rack04/untitled-3.jpg

AMD XP-M 2400+ @ 2.37 GHz
PDP PC3200LLK 2x512mb @ 215MHz

The final file (test-muxed.mp4) is 77.8 MB (81,622,374 bytes).

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a199/rack04/untitled1.jpg

[graysky]

Updated.

[steve77]

I'm actually pretty happy with my times... given that I have a lower clock speed than jeffy, and less L2 cache.

I suspect that memory performance has a big influence on the overall speed...

Great thread, I'll bench my D915 (stock) later on when I get a chance.

[graysky]

Sounds good, thanks for contributing.

...wish I could get you C2D guys to do the test with the optimal # of threads and at the stock levels -- wink wink ;)

[jeffy]

Sounds good, thanks for contributing.

...wish I could get you C2D guys to do the test with the optimal # of threads and at the stock levels -- wink wink ;)
What number is the optimal?? ;)

[graysky]

What number is the optimal?? ;)

Good questions... for you seems like 3 or 4. Wonder how that compares to a setting of 0 like cbarroso's run.

[jeffy]

Good questions... for you seems like 3 or 4. Wonder how that compares to a setting of 0 like cbarroso's run.
Well, I am reconsidering the stock speed test (after half a day) with threads 0 or maybe even threads 4 as well. I can't do that straight away, you have to interrupt all the work, switch to BIOS, reset all the switches necessary, reboot, patiently wait doing nothing and then another reset, setting the appropriate overclock... and getting back to your work, which isn't that :cool:

[graysky]

Whenever you can get to it would be great. Thanks. I'm leaning towards a e6600 and that asus board you have: a 3x increase would be nice. Is it stable at that level of O/C? Have you torture tested via prime95 for 12 hours or so? What are your settings (voltage, FSB, etc.)

Any complaints about the Asus board? I'm also looking at the MSI 975X Platinum Power Up.

[jeffy]

Whenever you can get to it would be great. Thanks. I'm leaning towards a e6600 and that asus board you have: a 3x increase would be nice. Is it stable at that level of O/C? Have you torture tested via prime95 for 12 hours or so? What are your settings (voltage, FSB, etc.)

Any complaints about the Asus board? I'm also looking at the MSI 975X Platinum Power Up.
I have torture tested it only shortly (Prime 95 - approx. 2 hours), it is stable at this level of OC. Regarding the MB, this thread is a don't-miss-it thing:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=110193

You should probably weight ins and outs of OC as it voids the CPU warranty. Many people do it, but you have to bear this in mind. It's good to watch CoreTemp temperature:
http://www.thecoolest.zerobrains.com/CoreTemp/
(Supported Intel and AMD CPUs:
http://www.thecoolest.zerobrains.com/CoreTemp/supportlist.html)
Mine are 53/51 degrees of Celsius as of now, CPU usage 87%.

[graysky]

Thanks for the info... how many watts is your PS rated? Also, what brand did you endup going with?

[graysky]

New data point from a dvdrhelp.com (http://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=322709&highlight=) user. Thanks!

[j4gg3r]

You should also provide links to DGIndex, LeakKernelDeInt, Undot and Decimate.
I'll have my unclocked XP2800+ results for you soon.
Well maybee not soon if you have set HQ x.264 output. :D

Edit:
And warn about DGIndex :scared:
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/8079/warndgyc8.jpg

So I'm guessing v1.48 yes?

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/2826/h264benchamd2800xpfx5.jpg

Specs:
ASUS A7N8X-X nForce2 400FSB
AMD XP2800+
512MB DDR 400MHz(CAS3) @ 333MHz(CAS2.5 Sync to CPU FSB Multiplier)
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/3164/cpuzchiphy7.jpg

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/1584/cpuzmemdw1.jpg

FileSize: 77.8 MB (81,622,555 bytes) every time

[jeffy]

stock, high, threads=0, auto, 81,615,286 bytes
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/4536/resultsstockhigh0tautoqs3.jpg

stock, high, threads=3, 81,613,746 bytes
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/4931/stockhigh3tod8.jpg

overclocked, threads=0, auto, 81,615,159 bytes
EDIT: high
http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/2724/results1ovhigh0tautoax5.jpg

[jeffy]

Thanks for the info... how many watts is your PS rated? Also, what brand did you endup going with?
PSU is 350W, Fortron FSP350-60THN-P
http://www.fsp-group.com/english/1_product/2_detail.asp?mainid=1&fid=52&proid=213

[graysky]

You should also provide links to DGIndex, LeakKernelDeInt, Undot and Decimate.
I'll have my unclocked XP2800+ results for you soon.
Well maybee not soon if you have set HQ x.264 output. :D

Edit:
And warn about DGIndex :scared:

Something must have gone wrong with the MeGUI update... when you launch it, the app should automatically install those items for you (at least it did for my system) :confused:

In any case, thank you very much for the data points!

[graysky]

@jeffy: again, thanks for the information and the data! (By now you're sick and tired of resetting overclock settings!)

[jeffy]

@jeffy: again, thanks for the information and the data! (By now you're sick and tired of resetting overclock settings!)
:D :goodpost:
As I was explaining the outs of overclocking, I realized that the stock settings might be more useful for you, so... the results are here.

[rack04]

Overclocked results:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a199/rack04/untitled2-1.jpg

AMD XP-M 2400+ @ 2.43GHz
PDP PC3200LLK 2x512mb @ 220 MHz

The final file (test-muxed.mp4) is 77.8 MB (81,622,374 bytes)

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a199/rack04/untitled1-1.jpg

[rack04]

Overclocked results:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a199/rack04/untitled2-2.jpg

AMD XP-M 2400+ @ 2.48GHz
PDP PC3200LLK 2x512mb @ 225 MHz

The final file (test-muxed.mp4) is 77.8 MB (81,622,374 bytes)

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a199/rack04/untitled1-2.jpg

[graysky]

Cool man, updated the data. Thanks again for contributing.

[The Scientist]

I was messing around with some code and after reading this thread sort of came up with a little XVID encode test. I know the thread was aimed at a meGUI test but you may be interested in an XVID test.

Don't expect too much, just a silly little test. Download the zip file, sorry it's nearly 15MB, it's due to the data file needed for the conversion test. Just unzip and run the 'bench.NET' file, after a minute or two you should have:

http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/_files/c2d_xvid_112.png

DOWNLOAD LINK (http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/_files/xbench.NET.zip)

P.S. It's a '.NET' program so you know what.....

[Blue_MiSfit]

My Results:

http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/7071/misfitrz4.png (http://imageshack.us)

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/807/cpuzam3.png (http://imageshack.us)

[Nematocyst]

I have also tried changing the priority in job1-2.xml and job1-3.xml from IDLE to HIGH and NbThreads from 1 to 2, 3 and 4.


Why would you want to video encode at >= normal priority other than to convince yourself it confers no speedup?

It doesn't make sense to run processes that aren't time critical at a priority that allows them to usurp normal processes. (Unless you like turning your box into a paperweight during an encode)

[Now that I think about it, I guess it's because you're running a test and mostly interested in just the encoding performance irrespective of other factors. I guess it makes more sense for a test to use high priority than a real encode. Although, since my typical encodes are done at idle, results using idle priority would be most meaningful to me. Not that it matters... If you aren't using your computer, or just light browsing, you won't see any significant difference in the encode performance... just the performance of the other processes.]

[jeffy]

Why would you want to video encode at >= normal priority other than to convince yourself it confers no speedup?

It doesn't make sense to run processes that aren't time critical at a priority that allows them to usurp normal processes. (Unless you like turning your box into a paperweight during an encode)

[Now that I think about it, I guess it's because you're running a test and mostly interested in just the encoding performance irrespective of other factors. I guess it makes more sense for a test to use high priority than a real encode. Although, since my typical encodes are done at idle, results using idle priority would be most meaningful to me. Not that it matters... If you aren't using your computer, or just light browsing, you won't see any significant difference in the encode performance... just the performance of the other processes.]
Some people need the encoding jobs done as quickly as possible and some don't need it. I like the speed, but if I need the CPU power for another processes as well, I can lower the priority anytime. As high vs. idle offered more than 6% speedup, I'm glad it made the difference. Another point of view: some do their encodes when away from the computer, so the highest possible speed is appropriate.

[jeffy]

I was messing around with some code and after reading this thread sort of came up with a little XVID encode test. I know the thread was aimed at a meGUI test but you may be interested in an XVID test.

Don't expect too much, just a silly little test. Download the zip file, sorry it's nearly 15MB, it's due to the data file needed for the conversion test. Just unzip and run the 'bench.NET' file, after a minute or two you should have:

http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/_files/bench.png

DOWNLOAD LINK (http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/_files/bench.zip)

I used XviD v1.1.2.

P.S. It's a '.NET' program so you know what.....
I can post my results, but it might be better to separate the threads.

EDIT: Could you please explain what do the methods "X","Y" and "Z" do exactly with the source?

[Nematocyst]

Some people need the encoding jobs done as quickly as possible and some don't need it. I like the speed, but if I need the CPU power for another processes as well, I can lower the priority anytime. As high vs. idle offered more than 6% speedup, I'm glad it made the difference. Another point of view: some do their encodes when away from the computer, so the highest possible speed is appropriate.

Except your own data shows that at stock, the encode times were the same for idle or high. That's exactly what you'd expect for a computer not being used for other tasks.

I guess I don't really understand the test either-- why not md5 the result file to make sure each test is indeed doing the same work? I've never used MeGUI before so maybe that's why I don't understand. But it seems to me if you have the same inputs and use the same process on them, you'll end up with the same output. That doesn't appear to be what's happening, for whatever reason.

[jeffy]

Except your own data shows that at stock, the encode times were the same for idle or high. That's exactly what you'd expect for a computer not being used for other tasks.

I guess I don't really understand the test either-- why not md5 the result file to make sure each test is indeed doing the same work? I've never used MeGUI before so maybe that's why I don't understand. But it seems to me if you have the same inputs and use the same process on them, you'll end up with the same output. That doesn't appear to be what's happening, for whatever reason.

I don't know the exact reason why the filesizes differ. I think when you enable multiple threads like I did, you don't get bit identical output and the filesize will also be different, due to the threading penalty. I have tried running a single threaded idle priority test in its original form twice, the filesizes were 81,617,459 and 81,617,462 bytes although the settings were the same, BUT I have in "Tools-Settings-Delete intermediate files" no checkmark, so I could verify the filesizes of both test.264 raw files were identical 81,089,002 bytes and they were bit identical (MD5 sums: 1D31E91B10EB5FA1153640224C167780 and 1D31E91B10EB5FA1153640224C167780). The difference is the sound file 513,551 vs 513,548 bytes. However raw filesizes do differ when the threads are greater than 1 or auto.

[Nematocyst]

However raw filesizes do differ when the threads are greater than 1 or auto.

Ok. That's makes sense. But it's also scary to think that some distributed computing projects could produce different results based on the number of utilized threads, or even because of different synchronization due to external factors. Yikes.

[The Scientist]

I can post my results, but it might be better to separate the threads.Good point, just think it's a bit over kill for a little app, what the hell, I'll start a new thread, try to give it a whirl, someone might like it.

Could you please explain what do the methods "X","Y" and "Z" do exactly with the source?Well rather than do a single test, using certain settings, I use three sets of settings, X,Y,Z, they don't mean anything, could be 1,2,3 or A,B,C. Roughly, X=fast codec settings, Y=medium, Z=slow, qpel, gmc e.t.c.

[graysky]

My Results:

Thanks for contributing man.

It's interesting that my old Barton with the same clock rate as your 64 3500+ keeps pace with it.... at least for this test. After reviewing the data to-date, it seems that the real bang for your buck comes from the dual cores when multithreaded.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Indeed. I'm a little irate that I've been through two platform changes since I had my Barton, and I've seen pretty small gains in video encoding. Still, plenty of other improvements in gaming and photoshop etc to make it well worth it..

A new C2D is on the horizon for me soon :D

~MiSfit

[graysky]

A new C2D is on the horizon for me soon :D

Which C2D are you looking at? I'm on the fence now given the April 22 price cuts on the 6600 or 6700. Also, the whole overclocking for either of these is a bit unknown to me. I'm not wanting to push it to the point of 50C idle temps like jeffy is reporting @ 3.5 GHz. Maybe something a little more conservative like 3.2 GHz which is why I'm thinking the 6600 would be fine.

Anyone know what advantage the 6700 would give me if I'm planning to clock either the 6600 or 6700 around 3.2 GHz? Is it worth the extra 200 bucks in this scenario?

[jeffy]

Which C2D are you looking at? I'm on the fence now given the April 22 price cuts on the 6600 or 6700. Also, the whole overclocking for either of these is a bit unknown to me. I'm not wanting to push it to the point of 50C idle temps like jeffy is reporting @ 3.5 GHz. Maybe something a little more conservative like 3.2 GHz which is why I'm thinking the 6600 would be fine.

Anyone know what advantage the 6700 would give me if I'm planning to clock either the 6600 or 6700 around 3.2 GHz? Is it worth the extra 200 bucks in this scenario?

50C ISN'T IDLE!!! I did said this before:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=955793#post955793

As of now:
CoreTemp 53/51C (89% CPU usage now) means 34C shown in SpeedFan.
Idle CoreTemp is: 46/44C (29C SpeedFan) (CPU usage below 3%)


The difference is explained at the section of CoreTemp website:
http://www.thecoolest.zerobrains.com/CoreTemp/
(Intel and AMD recently published detailed, public information about the "DTS" (Digital Thermal Sensor), which provides much higher accuracy and more relevant temperature reading than the standard thermal diode sensors do.)

It does require better than a stock boxed HSF (cooler) when you want to keep it cool overclocked, my Noctua NH-U12F costs about US$65/EUR55
(http://www.noctua.at/main.php?show=presse_archiv&step=2&news_id=18&lng=en)
This one isn't even noisy - 17 dB(A)
(http://www.noctua.at/main.php?show=productview&products_id=6&lng=en)

[graysky]

It does require better than a stock boxed HSF (cooler) when you want to keep it cool overclocked, my Noctua NH-U12F costs about US$65/EUR55

I was considering the Scythe Ninja Plus. Since I too am thinking about the Asus P5W DH Deluxe board, can you describe your settings? All are done in the BIOS, no?

FSB=?
Multip=?
CPU Voltage=?
Mem Ratio=?
Mem Voltage=?
Other settings I'm not listing=?

Also, do you have speedstepping enabled?

Thanks man.

[jeffy]

http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=973&pageID=2628



Disclaimer: All the settings desribed are shown for informational purposes only. They work for me, but there is no warranty whatsoever, express or implied, they will work for anyone else. Everything you do you do at your own risk and the information is provided "as is". Any higher voltage than specified might cause damage to the chips, you have been warned. I did overclocked the CPU and upped the voltages in really small steps.

Advanced - JumperFree Configuration
http://www.xbitlabs.com/misc/picture/?src=/images/cpu/core2duo-e6300/bios-1.jpg&1=1
AI Overclocking: Manual
CPU Frequency 390
DRAM Frequency (as mine allows 533 only) 292
Performance Mode Auto
PCI Express Frequency 100 MHz
PCI Clock 33.33 MHz
Memory Voltage Auto
CPU VCore Voltage 1.525 V (This voltage is really high and I don't RECOMMEND it to anyone)
FSB Termination Voltage Auto
MCH Chipset Voltage 1.60 V (again high voltage)
ICH Chipset Voltage Auto

Advanced - Chipset
http://www.xbitlabs.com/misc/picture/?src=/images/cpu/core2duo-e6300/bios-2.jpg&1=1
Hyperpath 3 Disabled
DRAM Throttling Disabled
Memory Remap... Disabled

BTW, while I am on XBITLABS, there is also a review:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/core2duo-e6300.html

The same page also shows usually ...minor... subtle... differences between 2 and 4 MB L2 cache, according to tests 1.86 GHz AutoGK 2.27/DiVX 6.2, fps = 40.23 vs 40.81 = 1.4%

And when you are in the mood for 158 pages worth/long reading
you still have Asus P5W DH - Problems + Fixes Thread
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=110193
-- information about voltages, cooling, successful/unsuccessful overclocking etc. Some people say their later produced CPU chips require significantly lower voltage for their reliable operation than the other chips produced earlier and some are overclockable on stock voltage as well.

My board is not modded in any way, the chipset coolers were not lapped/thermal conductive material altered etc. BIOS I use: 1506

The only different thing I used with Noctua NH-U12F cooler instead of a supplied thermal paste was Arctic Silver 5.

Also, when choosing your PSU, beware, 350W like mine are not enough when you go for a newer graphic card.

Quote:
To power a single GeForce 8800 GTX card, Nvidia recommends a 450-watt power supply in a PC with a high-end dual-core chip and a typical combination of internal hardware. But the trick is that the power supply must have two PCI Express card power connectors to plug into the two sockets on the back of the card. Most modern power supplies should have the necessary connectors. If you want to add two 8800 GTX cards in an SLI configuration, however, you've got a challenge on your hands.
http://reviews.cnet.com/Nvidia_GeForce_8800_GTX/4505-8902_7-32132889.html

These motherboard comparison reviews might be useful:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/11/four_975x_motherboards_for_core_2_duo/
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/13/shootout_at_the_core_2_corral/

Also, do you have speedstepping enabled?
I will report sometime later, I am not sure.

[graysky]

Thanks for the info as usual.

[jeffy]

Whilst I was digging something for Xbench.net thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=958053#post958053), I noticed there was the CPU you were asking about, E6700 included in this test (2.66/3.33/3.46 GHz):
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/10/cheap_thrills/page3.html#test_system

Xvid and DivX included:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/10/cheap_thrills/page4.html#video

[graysky]

Thanks for the links.. I nearly ordered a 6600 system today and I realized. The board I was about to buy was over a year old and ditto for the chip. Why am I paying a premium for it I wondered? I think I'll just wait for the Bearlake chipset to get released and pick up a 6650 or 6750 to put on it. I dunno.

[jeffy]

Thanks for the links.. I nearly ordered a 6600 system today and I realized. The board I was about to buy was over a year old and ditto for the chip. Why am I paying a premium for it I wondered? I think I'll just wait for the Bearlake chipset to get released and pick up a 6650 or 6750 to put on it. I dunno.

As the title says, if you can wait, then maybe in six months... but there might be "teething" problems with motherboards, my Asus had quite a row of BIOSes.... the same for Gigabyte etc... simply said.

Intel Bearlake chipsets set to arrive in May
(I can only use the link from http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/01/31/intel_bearlake/)
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20070130PD220.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/chipsets/display/20070215115130.html
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9006938&pageNumber=3

I don't think there was a specific release date published, according to some sources it looks like Q2 or Q3/2007.
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-1477-view-intel-bearlake-release-date.html
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-686-view-intel-bearlake-chipset-launch-date-and-full-specification.html
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32786
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4588
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_chipsets

As a last comment, more affordable quad-cores on the way ($530 for Q6600 this April/May).

[graysky]

Ha, finally uppd the FSB on my machine from 200 to 225 and did the benchmark. The machine is actually stable at this level. Anyway, added to the table. I also did the same experiment at higher and lower values; perhaps unsurprisingly, the results are linear. In other words, if you increase the clock rate by 10 %, your benchmarks increase by 10 %.

It's seems to be a limited return on these older chips compared to the pretty huge gains jeffy reported (46 %).

[Selmer79]

I'll get on with testing my rig as soon as I'm done dumping 24 S1 to my HDD for encoding..

[Selmer79]

<NbThreads>1</NbThreads>:
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p270/Selmer79/meGUI1.gif

<NbThreads>2</NbThreads>:
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p270/Selmer79/meGUI2.gif

Oh, realized I had this image on my Photobucket site.. Should make it really easy to verify my setup..
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p270/Selmer79/cpuz1.gif http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p270/Selmer79/cpuz3.gif

[graysky]

Thanks for the data points - I updated the tables.

[Crisao23]

Since xtremesystems forum went down for the moment, I'm posting here:

Opteron 165 @ 2906Mhz, 2GB DDR400 @ 264Mhz using 4 threads with high priority

http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/508/results29064threadsva3.th.jpg (http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/508/results29064threadsva3.jpg)

[jeffy]

Also, do you have speedstepping enabled?


SpeedStep - disabled in BIOS

[Selmer79]

greysky, you might want to re-calculate your numbers..

My 1-thread test is just about identical to jeffy's 1-thread test, yet his is listed as 1.3x and mine is listed as 1.1x.. ;)

[graysky]

Darnit... I have to error check these. Thanks for the catch.

[Selmer79]

OK, I reproduced your spreadsheet and went over the numbers for you..

Two things I noticed was:

1: Don't use negative values in the last column, just use plain ?.?x. (Ex. george's P2-450 wasn't 18.4x slower, but it was 0.05x of the reference-speed).

2: Instead of running different thread-tests for all kinds of numbers, you should only make a chart of <NbThreads>1</NbThreads> (how powerful the core is) and <NbThreads>0</NbThreads> (how powerful the CPU is). I don't really think you'll see much of an improvement by processing with fewer threads than what meGUI finds optimal. (Only difference might be in video-quality, but this is a SPEED-test right?)

I don't want to be too absolute here, but I'd say that the difference in speed in jeffy's OC'ed 3-, 4-, and 0-thread tests are so small that it's just as likely to be randomness than trend..

(Input on these points is very welcome, since I'm no expert on this area.)

[jeffy]

I don't want to be too absolute here, but I'd say that the difference in speed in jeffy's OC'ed 3-, 4-, and 0-thread tests are so small that it's just as likely to be randomness than trend..
(Input on these points is very welcome, since I'm no expert on this area.)

Comment:
As I had the time to compare the same encode with NbThreads setting of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, in the end the table shows how insignificant the difference sometimes is.

[Selmer79]

My point being that running nine tests on an Intel quad-core would be kinda meaningless since what's really interesting is the 1-thread test (which is a nice way to gauge speeds between different CPU manufacturers and models) and the 0-threads test (which is a nice way to show just how much horsepower is hiding in the CPU).

From what I understand from the meGUI wiki, running much more than 3 threads can have a negative impact on image quality (or was it compressibility?) because you can't trace motion-vectors between theads...

If I had the choice today, I'd get an Intel system, but when I got my rig, the options in Intel motherboards with SLi was VERY limited... My next rig WILL be Intel though.. My first Intel since 2001 or something?

[Selmer79]

It's good to watch CoreTemp temperature...

SpeedFan can also read out Core Temp (does so on my X2 4600+ atleast). Core Temp is much nicer than that stupid thermistor in the CPU-socket..

http://almico.com/speedfan.php

Core Temp is more accurate, and more responsive. In my rig, the core-temp is usually higher than socket-temp under load, and lower than socket-temp when idle.. I also use SpeedFan to control my CPU-fan, because the on-board Q-Fan feature on my ASUS A8N32-SLI is either full-on or full-off, and it seems to be triggered off the core-temp exactly at 50c (meaning that audio-encoding makes the CPU-fan go up and down "constantly", which is really annoying).

[foxyshadis]

From what I understand from the meGUI wiki, running much more than 3 threads can have a negative impact on image quality (or was it compressibility?) because you can't trace motion-vectors between theads...

That was the old threading model, before r600; the new one has nearly zero quality degradation no matter how many threads it runs. Well, after 32 it starts becoming an issue. Not sure if the wiki's been updating with that info.

[Selmer79]

That was the old threading model, before r600; the new one has nearly zero quality degradation no matter how many threads it runs.

Thanks for the info. :)

This makes me think that this speed-test should be <NbThreads>1</NbThreads> and <NbThreads>0</NbThreads>.. Maybe make a second set of 4 jobs with <NbThreads>0</NbThreads> already in them so that people don't need to muck about with the files themselves (and people with single-core systems will run the test twice with a single core (which would give a bit more accuracy)?

[graysky]

Update to the table: we now have a quad core example -- thanks drjay!

[steve77]

Wow, the Quad Core really flies! However if you have a complex filter chain it must really put it in it's place (especially as many filters are single threaded).

[Selmer79]

Since you're trying to add core-names to the listings, mine is a Manchester...

[graysky]

Updated the chart and will upload to the thread soon.

[Wishbringer]

I have an Athlon64 X2 4600+ (Toledo, 2.4GHz) with 2 GB Corsair 2-2-2-5 DDR1/400 Ram on a Nforce3 Board.
Tests were made with 1 to 4 Threads with increasing speed each step.
System is not overclocked.

1 Thread = 373 sec
2 Threads = 240 sec
3 Threads = 218 sec
4 Threads = 216 sec

[graysky]

UPDATE:The results to-date were using a pretty aggressive avs file. I have since updated the files and made a new test.rar -- if you participated in the test PLEASE DELETE YOUR C:\WORK AND WORK.RAR and download the new one from the same URL which uses a more realistic avs file. The new test doesn't require you to mess with the threads setting at all - it is automatic for everyone. I'll start populating a new table with your new results. I started with my own.

The URL is in the first post in this thread.

[steve77]

Allright, I'll give it another shot. I really don't feel like going stock-clocks though... hope you don't mind. I'll get it done within the next hour or so

[graysky]

Sounds great man. The only thing getting a stock data point is good for is seeing if your clock ratio = your performance ratio. In other words, you're o/c'ing by 20 % you'd expect a 20 % increase in performance.

[steve77]

http://img9.imagepile.net/img9/25122newtest.jpg

Alternative Link to Image: http://img301.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newtestzw2.jpg

File Size: 16,830,651 bytes
Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 3.205GHz (7x458FSB)
Ram 1:1 @ DDR2-916 4-4-4-12

[rack04]

I get this error:

Calling setup of processor failed with error The file C:\work\test-NEW.avs cannot be opened.
Error message for your reference: Telecide: you must specify the order parameter (0=bff, 1=tff).
Refer to the user manual for how to set it properly.
An incorrect setting will result in incorrect decombing.
(C:\work\test-NEW.avs, line 5)

[graysky]

That's odd... I tested it on several machines with no error. Did you install Avisynth to C:\Program Files\AviSynth 2.5 and does your plugins dir within have Decomb.dll ? That should have been updated automatically when MeGUI update runs.

This is what the avs file (test-NEW.avs) should look like:global MeGUI_darx = 4
global MeGUI_dary = 3
DGDecode_mpeg2source("C:\work\test-new.d2v")
AssumeTFF()
Telecide(guide=1,post=2,vthresh=35) # IVTC
Decimate(quality=3) # remove dup. frames
crop( 2, 0, -10, -4)
Spline36Resize(640,480) # Spline36 (Neutral)

Please let me know :)

[rack04]

Yes I have AviSynth installed to C:\Program Files\AviSynth 2.5 and Decomb.dll is in the plugin directory. I didn't have any problem with the first script you posted.

[graysky]

What happens if you drag and drop the script file into your media player? Same error?

[jeffy]

I have even better error! :p
(No offense, please.)

I can't get it to start audio encoding job1-1.xml.
What are the pre-requisities? I can only abort it, then it will do video passes only and of course muxing fails as well.

[ditche]

Nice idea... :)

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/803/meguiet8.png

Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (Manchester - s939) 2.2 GHz o/c @ 2.53 GHz (11x230), 2 Go DDR PC3200

[graysky]

Same as before: MeGUI (dotnet2.0) and Avisynth. As long as you have MeGUI updated it should just work. As long as you're running it from c:\work it should work (be careful it's not c:\work\work which is could be depending on how you unrared it).

What happens if you load your fav. media player and drag-and-drop the avs file into it? Does it play or give an error?

If you copy of the jobs files to your /megui/jobs and then load megui. Hit Queue and they should be there with status "waiting."

[graysky]

Think I figured it out. I suspect you're missing some dlls from you avisynth/plugins dir that should have been added automatically when megui updated... wonder why it didn't update them for you if I'm right about this.

They are here (http://home.insightbb.com/~pixels/test_encode/plugins.rar). Simply unrar them to the plugins dir of avisynth (where ever you installed it, the default is C:\Program Files\AviSynth 2.5\plugins).

Please let me know if it worked for you both and thanks again!

I also updated work.rar with plugins.rar and updated the instructions.txt to help others if this problem occurs for them too.

[BigDid]

Hi,

I had done the first test but being a non-megui user I was unable to get my C2d to work at full load (E4300 à 2400: 20.89/4.82 fps :( )

New test is ok.
Here are the results for a E4300/1800Mhz o/c @2630 -9x292 Fsb - Ram 2x512 DDR @ 219 - 4:3, timings 3.3.3.8 1t dual channel - MB is an Asrock 775DualVSTA : 52.89/18.17fps
Config still in test, for techs details see: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=120509


http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/7919/x264test2e4300263mem219lz8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/2299/cpuz263ez9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Did

Edit: I'll try to take the time to redo at stock speed in a near future

[graysky]

Very cool result. If you have time, it would be cool to see the same test @ stock GHz to compare the efficiency of the E4300 to overclock.

Thanks!

[rack04]

What happens if you drag and drop the script file into your media player? Same error?


Same error when playing the file in Media Player Classic. I have all the files necessary in the Plugins directory.

[jeffy]

Same as before: MeGUI (dotnet2.0) and Avisynth. As long as you have MeGUI updated it should just work. As long as you're running it from c:\work it should work (be careful it's not c:\work\work which is could be depending on how you unrared it).

What happens if you load your fav. media player and drag-and-drop the avs file into it? Does it play or give an error?

If you copy of the jobs files to your /megui/jobs and then load megui. Hit Queue and they should be there with status "waiting."
Avs plays fine, I don't have a problem with the video, plugins are ok, the path is "C:\Work" only.

I found the culprit:
The file job1-1.xml, I had to change this line:
<ForceDecodingViaDirectShow>true</ForceDecodingViaDirectShow>
to:
<ForceDecodingViaDirectShow>false</ForceDecodingViaDirectShow>

[The Scientist]

Slightly overclocked, not much, on a rather crappy overclocking mATX board, P5B-VM, so only a little amount of boost.

Vista with 1GB ram.

http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/_files/c2d261.png

[graysky]

@jeffy: I wonder why that errored out for you? No matter, the audio track is simply there to allow megui to mux something and produce a successful file. I just tested it three times and got results that were identical to the three times I tested it with my old jobs.

I went ahead and updated the main work.rar with that change to maximize compatibility. Good catch and a great piece of detective work there!

[graysky]

@The Scientist: Thanks for running the experiment. If you have some time, please consider running it again on your machine @ stock levels so we can see how efficiently the E4300 overclocks (compare the increase to the clock speed to the increase in performance like I did for my chip in the first post of the thread).

I'm pretty sure jeffy will do the same w/ his 6600.

Thanks!

[ditche]

I don't see my result in your table... :scared:

:)

[graysky]

I don't see my result in your table... :scared:

:)

Oops, sincere apologizes, man. I dunno how I missed your post! Updated now :) Thanks for participating! If you get bored, please run the experiment again at stock levels so we can see how efficiently the Manchester overclocks at your settings.

[ditche]

OK, but wait for my next reboot. :p

[The Scientist]

so we can see how efficiently the E4300 overclocksI have a 6600...... But I'll do stock levels if you want.

[graysky]

I have a 6600...... But I'll do stock levels if you want.

Oops... steve77 has the 4300. Yeah man, by all means please do :) It'll also be interesting to compare your stock result with jeffy's stock result.

[BigDid]

Hi,

@grayski, methinks I am the only one (in spite of my efforts to promote it :) ) to own a E4300; Steve77 had a E6300 a few days ago, so I'm quite sure he stills has it -> 1st post sheet change from E4300 to E6300 ;)

@steve77
Wow, the Quad Core really flies! However if you have a complex filter chain it must really put it in it's place (especially as many filters are single threaded) Or try the MT/Setmt() way :)

Originally Posted by graysky
If you have some time, please consider running it again on your machine @ stock levels so we can see how efficiently the E4300 overclocks
That one is for me, I'll let the E6600 to The Scientist ;)

Did

[graysky]

Same error when playing the file in Media Player Classic. I have all the files necessary in the Plugins directory.

Here (http://home.insightbb.com/~pixels/test_encode/plugins.rar) is a small rar file containing the three dlls this script is using. I'm thinking you might be missing TDeint.dll from that error. I dunno why MeGUI updater didn't give it to you if I'm right about this.

Please unpack them to your avisynth/plugins and try it again... we'll get it working :)

[The Scientist]

http://www.dvduk.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/_files/c2d240.png

[graysky]

Cool, updated the chart. Thanks again.

...how do you like Vista by the way? Is it a memory hog like I've read?

[jeffy]

E6600 9x266 stock DDR2-533@534 2.4 GHz 16,827,736
http://img460.imageshack.us/img460/1381/newst0t9x266jn5.png

E6600 9x356 OC DDR2-533@534 3.2 GHz 16,834,044
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/2594/newov0t9x356gk7.png

E6600 8x400 OC DDR2-533@600 3.2 GHz 16,832,952
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/4449/newov0t8x400ka9.png

E6600 9x400 OC DDR2-533@600 3.6 GHz 16,832,858
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/153/newov0t9x4002ts4.png

[The Scientist]

...how do you like Vista by the way? Is it a memory hog like I've read?lol, if I had listened to just 1% of the things I've read about Vista then I'm sure I would never have upgraded from XP. As with all new OS's, more memory is needed. Luckily, I upgraded to Vista the same time I upgraded my hardware, went from a P4 @ 3GHz 512MB ram 6200 GFX to a C2D 2.4GHz (6600) 1GB ram 7600GT GFX and have never looked back, system is now awesome compared to my previous setup. I would never go back to XP, every program I have works fine on Vista.

This is just my own opinion and experience of Vista, don't anyone else reply with the "why Vista is crap" as it will destroy the thread with off topic discussions. :D

[graysky]

@jeffy: as always, thanks for the large data set. If I entered them correctly, there are two things that stand out to me.

1) It's kinda odd that both the 3.2 GHz examples gave identical results suggesting that the FSB isn't the bottleneck for this experiment (x264.exe with this clip).

2) The overclocking efficiency for your chip is also interesting. If you look at the % increase of the clock vs. the % increase in performance, they aren't 1:1 (see table in first post of this thread). I guess you can also look it in terms of clock rate and work done.

Here's a plot of clock rate vs. encoding time.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/8079/graphoj6.gif

Since you and The Scientist both have data @ clock rate for this chip, I set the error bars to that difference (2.5 %). I'm no statistician, but that's probably okay for these purposes -- we aren't landing a man on the moon after all!

The point I'm making is that you can see a similar trend in the clock rate vs. encode time, suggesting that at some point in your O/C, you face a diminishing return or a loss of efficiency at higher clock rates. Clearly, you'd need a larger number of points in the curve to figure out the sweetspot, but it's interesting none-the-less :)

...if we assume one factor in the decrease of efficiency is heat (which is probably a safe assumption), I wonder if this sort of data set correlates loosely to "chip health"? In other words, a "healthy" overclock probably isn't on the extreme of the plot and is more likely is the inflection point in the curve? What do you guys think about this? Am I missing something?

[graysky]

You know, the more I think about this the more I'd like to see more data to help decide which chip is optimal. Think if you could have 6 or 7 point curves for each chip. You can then figure out which one has the best O/C'ed performance curve and buy that one. In my case I'm torn between the E6600 and E6700. I wonder if the curve for a E6700 would peak earlier then the curve for the E6600 since it's got a higher multiplier... hmmm

[jeffy]

...if we assume one factor in the decrease of efficiency is heat (which is probably a safe assumption),

I don't think it is my case, as the chip is not throttling.

[The Scientist]

Since you and The Scientist both have data @ clock rate for this chipOne other thing to bear in mind, my RAM is DDR2-800.

[ditche]

Nice idea... :)

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/803/meguiet8.png

Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (Manchester - s939) 2.2 GHz o/c @ 2.53 GHz (11x230), 2 Go DDR PC3200

Groumf, my Maxtor 160 Go didn't like the reboot... he's practically dead... :angry: thanks to GetDataBack ! :p

So, now my results @ stock (2,2 GHz - 11x200)

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/1353/megui2ek2.png

What do you think create an Excel graph ?

(Sorry for my english... :D )

[graysky]

One other thing to bear in mind, my RAM is DDR2-800.

True... I forgot jeffy is using DDR5xx so it's actually pretty amazing that he got to 400. Hmmm... he just PMed me to remind me of that fact. I still think the concept of a clock rate vs. performance has merit. Since my machine can't get the range of a C2D, it would be a poor test case. I'm either about 1:1 or it doesn't boot :)

Someone with a C2D and fast memory that wouldn't interfer with the graph would need to do it: start at stock and work his/her way up to the high end and see if it's linear.

[The Scientist]

If only there's was a proper modern mATX overclocking board I could do it for you.

[graysky]

That's okay... check out the latest table: drjay has broken triple digits with his O/C'ed QX6700. That machine is encode the video faster than you can watch the original!

[Selmer79]

Finally got meGUI to run on Vista. Took some thinking to realize the obvious and get AviSynth-scripts in etc..

Here's the result of the new test under Vista (64-bit):
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p270/Selmer79/meGUI/meGUItestVistaStock.jpg
Stock speeds.

Same test on the same machine under XP Pro (32-bit):
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p270/Selmer79/meGUI/meGUItestXPStock.jpg.
Stock speeds.

[jeffy]

True... I forgot jeffy is using DDR5xx so it's actually pretty amazing that he got to 400. Hmmm... he just PMed me to remind me of that fact. I still think the concept of a clock rate vs. performance has merit.

I know there are many points having effect on this equation:
:: FSB TO MEMORY RATIO ::
- I saw somewhere in Sandra that you can get best performance while having 1:1 ratio
- I was able to have 400 MHz FSB and 300 MHz DDR2=600 MHz, ratio 4:3

:: MEMORY TIMINGS ::
:: CPU FREQUENCY ::
:: HARD DRIVE SPEED:: and if it is the same drive as the one used for system
and probably also ::RAM SIZE:: depending on the script eg. yours uses on my PC at some point in time
x264.exe 328116 (VM) + 194252 (PM)
megui.exe 149808 (VM) + 33992 (PM)
VM = Virtual Size
PM = Working Set (both given by Process Explorer)

[graysky]

FSM to Mem Ratio was something I didn't think about. I wondered how you hit 400 with your DIMMs :)

I'd still like to see that sort of graph I suggested to see if it's linear or more parabolic.

[graysky]

Thanks for the data, selmer. The small difference between the two O/Ss is interesting.

[The Scientist]

Thanks for the data, selmer. The small difference between the two O/Ss is interesting.
Bear in mind the 32-bit/64-bit too.

[steve77]

I think there might be a mis-calculation: I'd be really surprised if my PC @ 3.2Ghz is just shy of Jeffy's result @ 3.6GHz. If that's the case, I guess that memory bandwidth really does play a huge part! I somehow doubt it though...

[Selmer79]

Feeling bored, I just ran some more tests:

XP Pro, 5% OC:
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p270/Selmer79/meGUI/meGUItestXP5pctOC.jpg

XP Pro, 10% OC:
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p270/Selmer79/meGUI/meGUItestXP10pctOC.jpg

Vista Home Premium x64, 5% OC:
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p270/Selmer79/meGUI/meGUItestVista5pctOC.jpg

Vista Home Premium x64, 10% OC:
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p270/Selmer79/meGUI/meGUItestVista10pctOC.jpg

This is just a very simple CPU (FSB) overclock.. Since the temp at the CPU core went up quite a bit (without a very big improvement in performance) I'll keep my system running at stock speeds..

EDIT: I notice that on my 5% Vista OC, there's barely any difference on the first pass.. I think I'll re-run the test and see if it's because of my new arch enemy: Speed Fetch.. It makes video-encoding perform like I was doing a defrag while encoding.. Totally indiscriminate about when it stores it's findings. :eek:

[The Scientist]

@graysky

Whilst editing the original post list you've messed up the % Overclock (core speed) on my test.

[The Scientist]

I guess that memory bandwidth really does play a huge part!Yes it does, especially on more lean (faster) settings.

[graysky]

@TS: I sure did... fixed now, good catch.

[graysky]

I think there might be a mis-calculation: I'd be really surprised if my PC @ 3.2Ghz is just shy of Jeffy's result @ 3.6GHz. If that's the case, I guess that memory bandwidth really does play a huge part! I somehow doubt it though...

The formulas are right to my eye. Guess the FSB really does boost the speed.

[Selmer79]

I've decided to run my own test to compare XP Pro vs Vista Home Premium on my own sources (a full episode of something, probably 24), and while prepping my spreadsheet I noticed I get slightly different results than you do on the "% Performance (TET)"..

What is your formula?

From what I read, it's something like this?

(sTET-oTET)/sTET

sTET = Stock TET
oTET = Overclocked TET

Also, should I use an interlaced source or not (does it make a difference?), and if yes, what filters should I avoid (i.e. non-multithreading filters).

Also, the last row (speed relative to the reference machine).
Am I right the formula used there is:
1/(sTET/rTET)

sTET = Sample TET (setup I just tested)
rTET = Reference TET (non-overclocked XP in my case)

[rack04]

Here are my results from a different computer. I still can't figure out why it doesn't work on my other system.

Intel Pentium D 945 stock @ 3.40 GHz w/ 2GB RAM

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a199/rack04/untitled1-3.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a199/rack04/untitled-4.jpg

[Selmer79]

I've been playing some more with the numbers here, and started looking at Total Encoding Time vs Video Encoding Time (since only the video-encoding benefits from multi-threading).

As soon as I run my longer tests and get graysky's formulas I'll post my findings here..

[jeffy]

I get this error:

Calling setup of processor failed with error The file C:\work\test-NEW.avs cannot be opened.
Error message for your reference: Telecide: you must specify the order parameter (0=bff, 1=tff).
Refer to the user manual for how to set it properly.
An incorrect setting will result in incorrect decombing.
(C:\work\test-NEW.avs, line 5)


Have you really tried overwriting your Decomb.dll in Avisynth plugins directory with the version supplied by graysky?
The error looks similar to this thread:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=559997#post559997
If you can, post the MD5 checksum of Decomb.dll.

[rack04]

Have you really tried overwriting your Decomb.dll in Avisynth plugins directory with the version supplied by graysky?
The error looks similar to this thread:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=559997#post559997
If you can, post the MD5 checksum of Decomb.dll.

I tried the Decomb.dll version supplied by graysky in the "work" folder. I don't have access to the problem computer at the moment, but what I can do is copy the Decomb.dll version installed on this computer and overwrite the one on my personal computer when I get home. Thanks for your help.

Here is the MD5 checksum for the Decomb.dll I have on this computer that works:

E4B664C5C504E7A961E676071C347E45

[ditche]

Oops, sincere apologizes, man. I dunno how I missed your post! Updated now :) Thanks for participating! If you get bored, please run the experiment again at stock levels so we can see how efficiently the Manchester overclocks at your settings.
Wouhou ? Twice. :D
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=960226#post960226

[Wishbringer]

corresponding to my first test results based on the old work.rar:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=959947#post959947

here's my test with the new work.rar:
124 secs
on a Athlon64 X2 4600+ (Toledo, 2.4GHz) with 2 GB Corsair 2-2-2-5 DDR1/400 Ram Nforce3 Board not overclocked

(as long picture is pending: pass1 = 49,03 fps = 28 sec, pass2 = 16,08 fps = 85 sec... CPU-Settings 12*200)
Maybe differs from Selmer79 because of DDR1 vs. DDR2 or other Tcl/Tras/Trcd or because of other Core (Toledo/Manchester)

[graysky]

What is your formula?

From what I read, it's something like this?

(sTET-oTET)/sTET

sTET = Stock TET
oTET = Overclocked TET

Yep, that's what I'm doing in mine.

Also, should I use an interlaced source or not (does it make a difference?), and if yes, what filters should I avoid (i.e. non-multithreading filters).

I used an interlaced source since it came off a PVR-250. I wanted a realistic test so I intentionally used an interlaced source. I think you should design a test that works for your application (do you mostly do interlaced or progressive in other words). I unfortunately don't know which filters are multithreaded. You might wanna email the authors of them to find out for sure... (let me know what you find out btw)!

Also, the last row (speed relative to the reference machine).
Am I right the formula used there is:
1/(sTET/rTET)

sTET = Sample TET (setup I just tested)
rTET = Reference TET (non-overclocked XP in my case)

I'm using just rTET/sTET for that which is more or less what your formula is as well.

[graysky]

I've been playing some more with the numbers here, and started looking at Total Encoding Time vs Video Encoding Time (since only the video-encoding benefits from multi-threading).

As soon as I run my longer tests and get graysky's formulas I'll post my findings here..

Total Encoding Time is just the sum of the Time1 and Time2 in my spreadsheet. Maybe I should rename it Total Video Encode Time to be more clear. I don't take the audio compression or muxing into account at all -- they're just there to make MeGUI happy and to make a complete video file of known size.

[graysky]

Wouhou ? Twice. :D
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=960226#post960226

This is a perfect example of what happens when you start to juggle too many balls :) I'm going to burn out one day soon.

[graysky]

Here are my results from a different computer. I still can't figure out why it doesn't work on my other system.

Intel Pentium D 945 stock @ 3.40 GHz w/ 2GB RAM

I'm confused a bit by the pics and your statement. When you said it's stock @ 3.40 GHz do you mean stock voltage?

Also the pics: the first one shows CPU-Z screenshot with 12x200 = 2400 clock rate, but it also shows "Intel (R) Pentium (R) D CPU 3.40GHz." What's going on... if you're o/c'ing it, what are the multiplier and bus for that O/C? The encode times are more consistent with a 2.4 GHz machine.

Did you run the test twice (once @ stock and once @ o/c and just post the wrong pic)?

I'll add your result(s) to the table once I understand them -- no offense intended, I am genuinely confused :)

[graysky]

here's my test with the new work.rar:
124 secs
on a Athlon64 X2 4600+ (Toledo, 2.4GHz) with 2 GB Corsair 2-2-2-5 DDR1/400 Ram Nforce3 Board not overclocked

Thanks for running it again (sorry about that by the way). The attachment needs some sort of approval before it is viewable. I'm assuming the 124 sec is the sum of the two times so I'll add it to the table as such and update it once the pic becomes available to the public.

Also, is stock for your Toledo 9x266?

[jeffy]

I tried the Decomb.dll version supplied by graysky in the "work" folder. I don't have access to the problem computer at the moment, but what I can do is copy the Decomb.dll version installed on this computer and overwrite the one on my personal computer when I get home. Thanks for your help.

Here is the MD5 checksum for the Decomb.dll I have on this computer that works:

E4B664C5C504E7A961E676071C347E45

Sorry for getting back so late: mine is the same and working
E4B664C5C504E7A961E676071C347E45

[Selmer79]

I'm using just rTET/sTET for that which is more or less what your formula is as well.

Looking at my formulas, I saw that I was making a few errors (math isn't exactly my strong side), but I didn't have time to correct my post (had a bus to catch).

Nice to know you were actually only using the video-encoding in your test.. I always thought you used the whole run.. :thanks:

[graysky]

I should change the column header to make it more clear what is going on...

[Selmer79]

Testing with or without interlacing is really meaningless as long as you use the same source and AviSynth script I guess.. The only thing I can think a filter does to a test like this is add complexity to the encoding, which adds time..

In my case, I don't need to add more time since my progressive source will still take about 30 minutes to encode per test, and ~30 minutes is long enough to get a good sample (random interference will have less influence on the end result).

Since we're counting whole seconds, 1 second is a "big" percentage of 2 minutes, but 1 second is "insignificant" over 30 minutes.

PS: Why do you even need the audio and mux in your test? If you do a 2-pass video-encode alone with your setup, you'll get the "test-new.264" file, which is a known filesize. meGUI is perfectly happy with making just a video-file without sound..

[rack04]

I'm confused a bit by the pics and your statement. When you said it's stock @ 3.40 GHz do you mean stock voltage?

Also the pics: the first one shows CPU-Z screenshot with 12x200 = 2400 clock rate, but it also shows "Intel (R) Pentium (R) D CPU 3.40GHz." What's going on... if you're o/c'ing it, what are the multiplier and bus for that O/C? The encode times are more consistent with a 2.4 GHz machine.

Did you run the test twice (once @ stock and once @ o/c and just post the wrong pic)?

I'll add your result(s) to the table once I understand them -- no offense intended, I am genuinely confused :)

Hell, you got me. It's my work computer so just the regular Dell package deal. Sorry that's all I can tell you. You can omit my results if you like. I was able to find this information:

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL9QB

[*.mp4 guy]

-A64 3800 venice core @2400mhz (stock, single core)
-2*512MB pc3200 Dual channel 2-2-2-5 1T @200mhz (stock, 400mhz DDR)
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/2305/meguiww5.png
-241s total time

[The Scientist]

You forgot to drag the slider... can't see the FPS. :)

[*.mp4 guy]

First pass was 27.33fps, second was 8.8fps.

[BigDid]

The result for the E4300 stock @ 1800Mhz 9x200/200 - 1:1, same Ram timings:

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/3039/x264test2e430018mem200qk2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Also a cpuz snapshot for the 2630 results ( in post 98)

Did

[jeffy]

Hell, you got me. It's my work computer so just the regular Dell package deal. Sorry that's all I can tell you. You can omit my results if you like. I was able to find this information:

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL9QB

I was looking at that sheet a few hours ago as well, as it says multiplier 17... 17x200=3400 MHz=3.4 GHz, I could only think of CPU-Z showing a SpeedStep state. However, if the PC is still responsive during the test, then you might be able to take the CPU-Z screenshot while the test is running and it should show a full used frequency. There is no need to let the test run again, you can cancel it thereafter, this is just for the CPU frequency to be shown properly.

[graysky]

Hell, you got me. It's my work computer so just the regular Dell package deal. Sorry that's all I can tell you. You can omit my results if you like. I was able to find this information:

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL9QB

I suppose CPU-Z could be wrong... or could be like jeffy said while idled. When you get to work again, can you try jeffy's suggestion? Also, what speed does it display right after the POST on a reboot?

Please let us know what else you can find out :)

[graysky]

First pass was 27.33fps, second was 8.8fps.

Thanks for running the experiment!

[The Scientist]

Hell, you got me. It's my work computer so just the regular Dell package deal. Sorry that's all I can tell you.If you get chance, time, and don't mind, download xbench.NET (in this same forum) and see what it says. It should display the current CPU speed.

[rack04]

Calling setup of processor failed with error The file C:\work\test-NEW.avs cannot be opened.
Error message for your reference: Telecide: you must specify the order parameter (0=bff, 1=tff).
Refer to the user manual for how to set it properly.
An incorrect setting will result in incorrect decombing.
(C:\work\test-NEW.avs, line 5)

Well I still can't get this test to run on my home PC. I used the .dll files in the work.rar and still no go. Here are the md5 checksomes of the 3 files:

E4B664C5C504E7A961E676071C347E45 *Decomb.dll
948D3769BC96B047A4D962A01C65FF5D *DGDecode.dll
495086AFC53C7E33200A3B9374C698A4 *TDeint.dll

I don't know if it makes any difference but I'm using AviSynth 2.56 Build: Oct 28, 2005 [18:44:09]

[jeffy]

Calling setup of processor failed with error The file C:\work\test-NEW.avs cannot be opened.
Error message for your reference: Telecide: you must specify the order parameter (0=bff, 1=tff).
Refer to the user manual for how to set it properly.
An incorrect setting will result in incorrect decombing.
(C:\work\test-NEW.avs, line 5)

Well I still can't get this test to run on my home PC. I used the .dll files in the work.rar and still no go. Here are the md5 checksomes of the 3 files:

E4B664C5C504E7A961E676071C347E45 *Decomb.dll
948D3769BC96B047A4D962A01C65FF5D *DGDecode.dll
495086AFC53C7E33200A3B9374C698A4 *TDeint.dll

I don't know if it makes any difference but I'm using AviSynth 2.56 Build: Oct 28, 2005 [18:44:09]
doesn't return the order value for Telecide, that's all folks! :D
Seriously, mine is 2.57 Dec 31, 2006.
All your MD5 checksums match all my files.

Workaround:
change this line in the file test-NEW.avs
Telecide(guide=1,post=2,vthresh=35) # IVTC
to this:
Telecide(order=1,guide=1,post=2,vthresh=35) # IVTC

[cbarroso]

http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/8144/testio0.gif

Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2371 (296X8)

[ditche]

Can you create a graph like this ?

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/3675/megui3fq0.png

[graysky]

doesn't return the order value for Telecide, that's all folks! :D
Seriously, mine is 2.57 Dec 31, 2006.
All your MD5 checksums match all my files.

Workaround:
change this line in the file test-NEW.avs
Telecide(guide=1,post=2,vthresh=35) # IVTC
to this:
Telecide(order=1,guide=1,post=2,vthresh=35) # IVTC

Before trying jeffy's work around (which may change the speed -- I haven't used the order=x parameter myself). You might try upgrading to the newer version of Avisynth which is 2.5.7 -- dunno if that will handle it differently or not?

[graysky]

Can you create a graph like this ?

I never tried to do double bar graphs like that. I'm assuming you want to see the stock vs. o/c for the machines? Maybe someone else can try it out.

[graysky]

RJ pointed me to this thread (http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=30) which shows how FSB values from about 360-400 tend to hurt your memory performance which may explain the lower values in chantmak's results (particularly the 9x375 result), assuming he's using a P965 board. I asked.

What do you guys think about this?

[ditche]

Me ? :D

http://users.skynet.be/bk314761/megui01.png

And without o/c:

http://users.skynet.be/bk314761/megui02.png

:)

[graysky]

What did you use to generate those graphs?

[ditche]

Excel (2007 beta). :)

[BigDid]

Excel (2007 beta). :)
Hi,

Would you consider re-doing a graph with a performance order?
Simpler criterion being the TET (total encoding time) ...

:thanks:

Selfnote: If I want to beat the Athlon64 x2 I have to overclock more :D
Edit: ATM I am n°2 (was n°1) for best %Performance: 46% o/c -> 29.9% TET

Did

[Blue_MiSfit]

Dudes, this is a really good benchmark. A few pieces of it could be better standardized, like the AviSynth version, plugins residing in the plugins folder, the versions of all the encoders (though MeGUI's auto update pretty much takes care of that).

It's quite reproduceable and is an accurate representation of modern high end media encoding.

Review sites should use this :)

~MiSfit

[steve77]

Yeah, if those graphs could be redone by order of performance, and maybe change the font character for the OC'd machines (or make 2 graphs, probably the better idea) It would be one hell of a graph

[graysky]

There are already too many columns in the table for my tastes (I like things to be simple and streamlined), but if you add another column which simply takes the the work divided by the overclock rate (% TET / % Overclock) you get a "over clock efficiency."

With the exception of The Scientists, all of the Core 2 Duo chips overclock to about 65-70 % with this test. Strange that they aren't 100 % efficient. Here is a snapshot of the current table:

http://home.insightbb.com/~pixels/test_encode/snapshot.gif

[The Scientist]

Yippeeeeeeeeeee I'm top of something :)

Me thinks the DDR2 PC-6400 (800) may have something to do with it.....

[graysky]

Actually I'm confused by the results. If you calculate efficiency values based separately on the frames per second, they track much better with the clock rate compared to the times. I did a sample calculation using chantmak's data since his cpu:mem is 1:1 here:
http://home.insightbb.com/~pixels/test_encode/linear2.gif

[graysky]

Me thinks the DDR2 PC-6400 (800) may have something to do with it.....

Chantmak also has DDR2 PC-6400.

[The Scientist]

Yes but if he's at 1:1, then hes memory must be getting underclocked (375). Were as mine was getting overclocked (+400).

[graysky]

Well, the results do scale in a linear fashion:
http://home.insightbb.com/~pixels/test_encode/workvclock.gif

[steve77]

For the sake of the test, this is my time with stock speeds:

1.86Ghz DDR2-533 4-4-4-8 (a little different timings, I tightened them and forgot to change it to 12... shouldn't have a huge impact)

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/9030/mp4stockuh5.jpg

[graysky]

updated thanks for the data.

[graysky]

Ok! Updated the chart. Interesting that for O/C'ed machines, in general, the work values (1st pass FPS) seem to track closer to the clockrate than the total video encode time does... I still can't figure that one out.

[The Scientist]

Well, the results do scale in a linear fashion:
http://home.insightbb.com/~pixels/test_encode/workvclock.gifYou're making the graph fit an hypothesis, which is easy enough to do, believe me. It doesn't make sense to say it represents a linear fashion when you're comparing the total time (time of both passes) against the FPS of just the 1st pass. Compare like for like, time 1st pass v FPS 1st pass, or 2nd passes, or both.

[The Scientist]

I still can't figure that one out.Although the cpu/motherboard/ram and speeds all play their part in both tests, if you're interest in the brute force of the CPU then concentrate on the 2nd test, if you like to see how the ram and bus speeds play their part look at the 1st test. It goes without saying look at both tests for an overall picture.

[shpitz]

here's mine.
http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/7161/cpuz200pr9.gif
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/5728/excel200az7.gif
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/2341/megui200cd4.gif
1-thread at the top, 8-threads at the bottom.

[graysky]

here's mine.

Very interesting data set. Can I get you to run one at threads = 0 to be consistent with the other entries in the table as well? Also, just for my knowledge, when you ran your tests, did you just change the threads value in the jobs file, here:
<NbThreads>0</NbThreads>?

Or did you also change it in the commandline for x264:
--pass 2 --bitrate 1000 --stats "C:\work\test-NEW.stats" --ref 3 --bframes 3 --b-pyramid --weightb --direct auto --subme 6 --trellis 1 --analyse all --8x8dct --vbv-maxrate 25000 --me umh --merange 12 --threads auto --thread-input --progress --no-psnr --no-ssim --output "C:\work\test-NEW.264"

[graysky]

You're making the graph fit an hypothesis, which is easy enough to do, believe me. It doesn't make sense to say it represents a linear fashion when you're comparing the total time (time of both passes) against the FPS of just the 1st pass. Compare like for like, time 1st pass v FPS 1st pass, or 2nd passes, or both.

I agree with like for like, I just put FPS1 and total time up there to show that both are linear, in fact if you put all 4 up there: fps1, fps2, time1, and time2, they are all linear. I can't understand why the fpsx values tracks closer to clockrate than the time does.

[ditche]

Hi,

Would you consider re-doing a graph with a performance order?
Simpler criterion being the TET (total encoding time) ...

:thanks:
Salut,
OK, I do (make ?) that when I'm at home. :)

[Wishbringer]

No Pictures for CPU-Z oder MeGUI yet, didn't managed to make some under Vista.

Intel Pentium 4 (Prescott, Socket 478, 90 nm)
3000 MHz, 200 MHz*15, not overclocked
with 2 GB of OCZ 2-3-2-5 DDR400 Platinum XTC

Pass1 = 20,07 fps = 69 sec
Pass2 = 6,66 fps = 208 sec (evil, isn't it?!)

and 298 secs for whole process

[The Scientist]

I agree with like for like, I just put FPS1 and total time up there to show that both are linearBut have no direct relationship to each other. It's like taking a 100 mile journey at 60mph then coming back home at 25 mph and you're linking the total journey time to the first 100 mile 60 mph journey.

I can't understand why the fpsx values tracks closer to clockrate than the time does.If you want to see the correct correlations you need to change the way you're looking at it. You're never going to get anywhere displaying FPS1 and FPS2 as seperate entities and linking to total time. Either find the mean of the two FPS values against total time or each FPS against time each individual run took, not total. If we had values/graphs with these figures it may be easier to see, if any, relationships between them.

[rack04]

Before trying jeffy's work around (which may change the speed -- I haven't used the order=x parameter myself). You might try upgrading to the newer version of Avisynth which is 2.5.7 -- dunno if that will handle it differently or not?

Here is an update:

I had some time to run CPU-Z again and here are the results.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a199/rack04/asdfasdf.jpg

Not it shows the clock speed as 3.4GHz. Strange. I'll rerun your test and report back.

Also, I don't want to upgrade to the newest AviSynth on my personal computer because I need the 2.56 version for DVD Rebuilder.

The version on my work computer which works is AviSynth 2.5.7 Build:Dec 21, 2006. I guess this error comes from an old AviSynth version.

Here is the newest encode:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a199/rack04/qweweqr.jpg

[ditche]

When they are several same CPU like the E6600, I take that which have the best results, OK ?

PS: A 4600+ Toledo ? Manchester nop ? :)

[Selmer79]

Ok, I finally finished my lengthy XP vs Vista benchmark that was inspired by graysky.. Here are my findings:

Source: 24 S4E01 DVD-rip - 61866 frames @ 25fps progressive, no audio.
Encoder: x.264 r620
AviSynth Script:
DGDecode_mpeg2source("C:\24-test\VTS_01_1.d2v")
crop( 2, 2, -2, -2)
LanczosResize(640,352) # Lanczos (Sharp)

Results:
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p270/Selmer79/meGUI/summary.jpg

Conclusions:
1: Vista is slower than XP at the moment (like so many others have found before me). From this test and my results on graysky's test, I'd say about 5% slower.
2: Benchmarking under Vista can be a bitch!
3: Something kept engaging my hard-drive during the Vista-tests, and I found no way to stop it.. This has negatively influenced at least three of the Vista-tests.
4: I'll have to re-do all the Vista-tests at a later date to see if I can get more sensible numbers.

If you add 2% performance to the Vista stock, 3% and 8% tests you get more the performance I saw when I ran graysky's test (which was apparently too short to be affected by the hard-drive stuff).

[shpitz]

Very interesting data set. Can I get you to run one at threads = 0 to be consistent with the other entries in the table as well? Also, just for my knowledge, when you ran your tests, did you just change the threads value in the jobs file, here:
<NbThreads>0</NbThreads>?


i only changed the nbthreads entry in the xml files. was i supposed to change other entries? i thought the <nbthreads> entry is a global variable for threads and will affect all commandline execution commands.

what would threads=0 do? isn't it just auto assigning the # of threads according to # of logical cpus? in my case threads=0 should be equal to threads=4...

i will also post the testing i've done with an E4300 in the next few minutes.

thanks

[shpitz]

here's another bench i've done on an E4300 running on a Gigabyte 965P-DS3 rev 2.0 mobo.
default settings, no o/c: fsb @ 200, mem @ 400.
o/c settings: fsb @ 370, mem @ 493

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/5113/cpuz200vt8.gifhttp://img249.imageshack.us/img249/2530/mem200400as9.gif
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/3113/excelul9.gif
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/4400/cpuz370ee9.gifhttp://img249.imageshack.us/img249/4160/mem370493dm9.gif

very interesting data compared to my dual xeon machine.

[ditche]

Updated.

http://users.skynet.be/bk314761/megui01.png

[cbarroso]

I did an Update:

Stock:
http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/7084/result266ex7.gif

300X8:
http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/913/result300iy1.gif

Mem 1:1, 4-4-4-12
Windows Vista Utimate

[graysky]

But have no direct relationship to each other. It's like taking a 100 mile journey at 60mph then coming back home at 25 mph and you're linking the total journey time to the first 100 mile 60 mph journey.

I agree with you: they aren't directly related to each other, but they are both independently related to the clock rate. I just graphed them both independently scaling in a linear fashion with clock rate (I could have used two separate graphs).

I did a little analysis on chantmak's data to this end. Bottom line: the chips are scaling in a linear fashion.

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/4616/itslinearjr8.gif

[graysky]

Ok, I finally finished my lengthy XP vs Vista benchmark that was inspired by graysky.. Here are my findings:

Pretty interesting that Vista is that much slower (overhead of all those UI effects perhaps?)

[graysky]

what would threads=0 do? isn't it just auto assigning the # of threads according to # of logical cpus? in my case threads=0 should be equal to threads=4...

I'm not entirely sure what it does... thought it was like 1.5x something... I only wanna put stuff in the main table that uses the same script, files, etc. If you wanna run your system with the "standard" thread = 0 scripts, I'll gladly add them. That said, the data you generated is pretty interesting. I wonder if the optimal number of threads depends on the script file or the video source you're using (i.e. some scripts would use different plugins and/or settings, different video sources, etc.)

[graysky]

OK! I updated the table with everyone data (I think). If I'm missing something (mem timing perhaps) on your runs, please don't post it to the thread, just PM the missing info or error correct to me and I'll fix it.

The table is larger than my 1280x1024 monitor now; I had to go into 1600x1200 to take that screenshot. Dunno what I'm gonna do when it gets much larger. I think my monitor will do 1920x something :)

Thanks again to all who contributed to it to date. There is a lot of interesting data in there!

[ditche]

Athlon XP 1500+ Palomino, 512 Mo SDR PC133 :devil:

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/7453/1500ik7.png

Test 1 : 11,49 FPS
Test 2 : 3,88 FPS
TET : 512 s

[jeffy]

I'm not entirely sure what it does... thought it was like 1.5x something... I only wanna put stuff in the main table that uses the same script, files, etc. If you wanna run your system with the "standard" thread = 0 scripts, I'll gladly add them. That said, the data you generated is pretty interesting. I wonder if the optimal number of threads depends on the script file or the video source you're using (i.e. some scripts would use different plugins and/or settings, different video sources, etc.)

Threads auto does set 1.5 multiple of the total of cores on E6600, the verification can be found in test-NEW.stats, that is: if you have the Tools-Settings-Delete intermediate files option unchecked.
#options: 640x480 fps=24000/1001 cabac=1 ref=1 deblock=1:0:0 analyse=0x1:0 me=dia subme=1 brdo=0 mixed_ref=0 me_range=12 chroma_me=1 trellis=0 8x8dct=0 cqm=0 deadzone=21,11 chroma_qp_offset=0 threads=3 nr=0 decimate=1 mbaff=0 bframes=3 b_pyramid=1 b_adapt=1 b_bias=0 direct=3 wpredb=0 bime=0 keyint=250 keyint_min=25 scenecut=40(pre) rc=abr bitrate=2045 ratetol=1.0 rceq='blurCplx^(1-qComp)' qcomp=0.60 qpmin=10 qpmax=51 qpstep=4 ip_ratio=1.40 pb_ratio=1.30

The proof can be found in the header of test-NEW.264 as well.

[graysky]

Interesting... does that [threads=3] hold true for his xeon as well? I can enter the threads=3 data for both chips in the table is so.

[Selmer79]

Pretty interesting that Vista is that much slower (overhead of all those UI effects perhaps?)
Well, UI probably takes it's share, but that should become less as graphics-drivers are improved.. As far as I know, the Vista UI is mostly GPU and not CPU..

Right now, I think the biggest performance-reduction comes from the hard-drive interaction.. It's much more than what meGUI would produce itself, so it's either swap or SpeedFetch..

[graysky]

Dammit... I just updated MeGUI and without thinking overwrote the "old" version of x264 with the new one (r623). Does anyone have the "old" version they can upload somewhere? I have no idea how this new version compares and for the tests to be meaningful, everyone has to use the same version of the application.

The "current" version is:
x264.exe --version
x264 0.54.623

I dunno what the prev. version was... anyone?

Thanks.

[jeffy]

I dunno what the prev. version was... anyone?

Thanks.

IF I am not mistaken, r620, http://mirror01.x264.nl/x264/?dir=./revision620

[Selmer79]

Yep, r620 was the previous version.. I delayed updating to r623 for my test since I had run the first two XP-tests on r620 when the update was released..

[ditche]

Pentium M 715 GHz (Dothan) + 512 Mo DDR2100.

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/5003/couper2lp4.png

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/6978/couperpo8.png

[graysky]

1.5 GHz or 600 MHz?

[Kurth]

AMD Athlon XP 2400+ with 512 MB PC2100
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/3523/computerjl0.png

Encoding Results
http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/2234/normalbp1.png

I can overclock my processor to 2267 MHZ and my computer stay stable with this overclock.
http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/9672/computeroverclockek8.png

Encoding Results
http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/723/overclockpp9.png

12%~13% more fast with this overclock ^_^

[foxyshadis]

1.5 GHz or 600 MHz?

715 is 1500 MHz max, 600 MHz min, with speedstep. It looks correct, being slightly higher than my old Banias's (1300) speed.

[ditche]

1.5 GHz or 600 MHz?
1.5 GHz. :)

[graysky]

I'm not entirely sure what it does... thought it was like 1.5x something... I only wanna put stuff in the main table that uses the same script, files, etc. If you wanna run your system with the "standard" thread = 0 scripts, I'll gladly add them. That said, the data you generated is pretty interesting. I wonder if the optimal number of threads depends on the script file or the video source you're using (i.e. some scripts would use different plugins and/or settings, different video sources, etc.)

Threads auto does set 1.5 multiple of the total of cores on E6600, the verification can be found in test-NEW.stats, that is: if you have the Tools-Settings-Delete intermediate files option unchecked.
#options: 640x480 fps=24000/1001 cabac=1 ref=1 deblock=1:0:0 analyse=0x1:0 me=dia subme=1 brdo=0 mixed_ref=0 me_range=12 chroma_me=1 trellis=0 8x8dct=0 cqm=0 deadzone=21,11 chroma_qp_offset=0 threads=3 nr=0 decimate=1 mbaff=0 bframes=3 b_pyramid=1 b_adapt=1 b_bias=0 direct=3 wpredb=0 bime=0 keyint=250 keyint_min=25 scenecut=40(pre) rc=abr bitrate=2045 ratetol=1.0 rceq='blurCplx^(1-qComp)' qcomp=0.60 qpmin=10 qpmax=51 qpstep=4 ip_ratio=1.40 pb_ratio=1.30

The proof can be found in the header of test-NEW.264 as well.

Sorry it took me so long to reply to this: taking jeffy's thoughts into account it makes sense to use the threads=3 values data points. Entering them as we speak.

One thing shpitz's dedication to understanding the effect threads=x has on encoding has taught us is that the auto setting isn't necessarily optimal, but is probably good enough. I have no idea what the error between runs would be on a dual core or dual chip machine -- it hovers around 1 % on my single core machine with a n=3 comparison.

Anyway, thanks for generating those data sets!

[graysky]

@ Kurth: thanks for the data, updating the table now.

[ditche]

Nice idea... :)

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/803/meguiet8.png

Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (Manchester - s939) 2.2 GHz o/c @ 2.53 GHz (11x230), 2 Go DDR PC3200
More details...
http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/1633/megui4di7.png

[ditche]

Updated.

http://users.skynet.be/bk314761/megui03.png
http://users.skynet.be/bk314761/megui04.png


CPU @ stock :

http://users.skynet.be/bk314761/megui02.png

[graysky]

Updated main table with new data points. Also, the award for the slowest machine goes to: me! Check out my PII-450 which is pushing 10 years old. It has an (encode time:view time) ratio of about 85:1! Anyone have a slower machine that still runs?

[lucassp]

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/8378/x264tw5.th.png (http://img103.imageshack.us/my.php?image=x264tw5.png)

[graysky]

Thanks for the data, lucassp. Updated.

[lucassp]

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/1823/x264defaultys3.th.png (http://img105.imageshack.us/my.php?image=x264defaultys3.png)

and these are the results using the default CPU and Memory Settings :D

[lucassp]

On my Vista Virtual Machine :D

http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/296/x264defaultrg8.th.png (http://img161.imageshack.us/my.php?image=x264defaultrg8.png)
DEFAULT

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/9256/x264ocmu9.th.png (http://img170.imageshack.us/my.php?image=x264ocmu9.png)
OCed (the same as in XP)

[graysky]

Running it via a virtual machine? Ack, that'll cost you some fps.

[Selmer79]

I re-ran my XP vs Vista test with a smaller source and some other modifications and finally got reliable results..

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p270/Selmer79/meGUI/Summary2.jpg

One noteworthy thing I found was that the overclocking efficiency (ΔVET/%overclock) for XP was 80-85%, and on Vista it was 89-94%.. Maybe with some improved drivers Vista will eventually be faster than XP? ;)

[lucassp]

Running it via a virtual machine? Ack, that'll cost you some fps.

the results are experimental, not to be added in your comparison table. :P

[graysky]

I re-ran my XP vs Vista test with a smaller source and some other modifications and finally got reliable results..

Vista seems to be reliably more inefficient than XP :) Honestly, I don't see how M$ can call it an upgrade. From what I've read it's more or less a new UI at the cost of bloat and performance.

[onix]

Hi everybody,
Nice thread you have here. Reading it I've noticed something odd: all Vista benchs are lower than XP's. And I say that's odd because the only application I've tried that actually gets a tangible boost is x264 encoding.
Since I first started testing Vista with the Beta made available in June, I've seen the OS evolve and the last free version is pretty colse to the comercial one (afaik).
RC2 has been my OS of choice for the last several months, and I've conducted tests of every kind. Differences are very small, less tha 5%, and sometimes in the 1% to 2% range. They favor XP or Vista quite evenly. I'm talking about real apps as well as synthetic tests.
With that background I was amazed to see that x264 encoding was more than 10% faster under Vista. Using different clips, the speedup ranged from 10,07% to 12,91%.
The encodes were 3-pass. I don't use the 64 bit version because I don't get the x264-64 bit to work. So it's Vista 32 for the moment. I see people here use the 64-bit version of Vista (along with the 32 bit version of x264?). It's either that or the bitrate. The speedup increases when you lower the kb/s.

[check]

are you sure your commandline was absolutely identical? Also, what specs are your two systems?

[onix]

At that time I wasn't using the CLI version, but the vfw one trough VirtualDub.
The machine is the same for both OSes, an Allendale OCed to somewhere between 3,4 and 3,6.
And yes, the parameters were the same ones.
I will check with the command line, anyhow.

[zambelli]

I re-ran my XP vs Vista test with a smaller source and some other modifications and finally got reliable results.
Thanks for sharing those results! I'd love to see more. My one concern so far: the tests compare 32-bit XP to 64-bit Vista that's running 32-bit x264 under WOW64. I'm not sure that's a true apples-to-apples comparison. It'd be great to see results for a similar test comparing 32-bit XP to 32-bit Vista.

[Selmer79]

@Zambelli
Maybe, maybe not.. I don't know.. I don't have access to 32-bit Vista, so someone else would have to test that.

[graysky]

It'll be interesting to see when vista gets a bit more polished (i.e. sp2 or so) if the CPU clock cycle efficiency improves.

[onix]

CLI testing done.
I've compressed Peter Jackson's King Kong using DVDecrypter 3.5.4, DGDecode 1.4.8 (reference idct), Avisynth 2.5.7 (bicubic resize 640x266) and x264 svn 623. This time I've tried single pass encoding:
x264 VTS_01_1.avs -o *.mp4 -B (several) --threads 3 --thread-input -b 4 --b-pyramid -A all --8x8dct -w -m 6 --b-rdo --no-psnr --no-ssim --progress
Verdict: XP is about 0.3 - 0.8% faster than Vista, I guess the rest of the difference others are getting is because of the WoW "·#*¿&
The 10 - 15% difference on the vfw version (svn 573) stands in favor of Vista, for what it's worth.

[aicjofs]

This was a fun test Graysky thanks!!!

One comment I have is that for this particular .avs it's not really showing the true CPU potential for dual cores and quad cores when compared to single cores. Using the MT.dll plugin to multi thread avisynth can really improve frame rates on a multi CPU system which is what the CPU itself is really worth. Here is an example just by adding SetMTmode(2,0) which isn't necessarily the most efficent use of the MT plugin.

For your job I see almost a 14% increase by using MT plugin.

Without MT
http://home.comcast.net/~msibios/megui.jpg

With MT
http://home.comcast.net/~msibios/megui1.jpg

Not questioning the testing, just adding to the discussion.

[graysky]

mt.dll is the key, eh? So do you make the first line of the .avs read, "SetMTmode(2,0)" or what?

I googled around and found this (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=94996) but most of the discussion went over my head. Also found this (http://avisynth.org/mediawiki/MT_support_page). Can you post a link if you have more informative ones? Also, are there any quality sacrifices when using this plugin?

Thanks for the info and I'll update the table.

Also, what kind of setup do you have (hardware specs, mb, cooling, etc.) and what kind of temps do you see w/ 11x346? (I'm assuming you're using liquid cooling). I was planning to wait for the q6600 to drop in price in Q3 of 2007 (rumored to be under $250) and clock it @ 10x333 but I'm concerned about heat since I don't wanna mess with liquid cooling.

Thanks!

[jeffy]

mt.dll is the key, eh? So do you make the first line of the .avs read, "SetMTmode(2,0)" or what?

I googled around and found this (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=94996) but most of the discussion went over my head. Also found this (http://avisynth.org/mediawiki/MT_support_page).
Well, you have to replace the original avisynth.dll as well. It might be good to backup the original, as I saw a new one causing some weird errors like VirtualDub crashing when loading the script, but it was some time ago and a lot of things have changed.

Basically, you found both the correct resources. The AviSynth wiki (the 2nd link) is explaining differences in MT() and SetMTMode(). However, there are still some filters that cannot be used with MT() or SetMTMode(). Besides those listed in the wiki, it's everything concerning MaskTools, such as MCBob, MVBob, MVFlowFps etc. The main thread (the 1st link) already has 25 pages so far, so take your time and read :)

E6600 9x400 OC DDR2-533@600 3.6 GHz 16,832,957, SetMTMode(2,0) as the first line of the file test-NEW.avs:
http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/3daaec3002.png

E6600 9x400 OC DDR2-533@600 3.6 GHz 16,832,604, normal test-NEW.avs:
http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/7cec7d5d87.png


With my configuration, SetMTMode() is slower :p.

A note: Please do not compare my previous results, I have used a brand new r635 of x264 with this test (manually replaced in megui directory).

[graysky]

Cool man, thanks for the info

[aicjofs]

Looks like you found the info on MT avisynth. I'm suprised Jeffy got lower scores. Yes I just used SetMTmode(2,0) at the beginning of the script. More efficent usage would be changing the various modes throughout the script depending on filters. I'm not strong on avisynth myself. I have the filters I use for movies, and cartoons and my templates and I don't deviate much, but what I do know is I get alot better speed with MT avisynth. In fact my framerates are still climbing on the 1st pass of the test job but it's over too quickly so it's hard to say if it's a good average or not.

For hardware(since Jeffy and Graysky asked me for some detail):

CPU: QX6700 2.66Ghz
Motherboard: Intel BadAxe2 (975 chipset)
RAM: 2x1GB Crucial PC2-8000 (DDR1000)
Hard Drive : 3x Seagate 7200.10 320GB RAID 0
Power Supply : PC Power and Cooling 610W
Video: 8800GTS 320MB (oh boy HDCP... yippy!)
Sound: X-FI
Cooling: Water
CPU block: DTek Fusion
Pump: Iwaki MD-20 high head impellar
Radiator: Thermochill PA120.3
Rad Fans: 4x Yate Loon 120mmx25mm ML

Vcore: 1.5V
Vdimm: 2.2V
Vmch : 1.55V
Vfsb : 1.3V

Idle via CoreTemp: ~40C
Load via CoreTemp: ~61C

Here's the Guts:

http://home.comcast.net/~msibios/DCP02502.JPG

and the external water cooling

http://home.comcast.net/~msibios/DCP02503.JPG

Yeah I've heard prices of $250 for the Q6600 are coming soon. You might get 3.3 with excellent air cooling. I have been overclocking since Pentium 1/K-6 days, and I have never seen the heat these puppies can put out. I just built a water cooling rig for a friend and it has weak watercooling in it and I can't get more then about 3.33-3.4 stable on his QX6700 at it loads at 71C now.(keep in mind it's average watercooling at best).

A look at the sub par cooling for quad:

(notice how much better I made his look then my own...my theory the better it looks the worse she runs...LOL..j/k)

http://home.comcast.net/~msibios/DCP02445.JPG

[jeffy]

aicjofs, thank you very much!
Now, That's What I Call A Detailed Setup :)

[graysky]

Yeah, ditto. I'm pretty sure you have my case judging by those pics btw! I've had mine for over 5 years and can't remember the model number. Do you know?

Also, any idea what kind of temps I could expect using a q6600 @ 9x333 cooled with air? I'm planning to get the thermalright ultra-120 + scythe s-flex sff21f fan as the hsf and use it in a well ventilated case like the antec p180. Problem I'm having with a quad processor is that I know they tend to run hot and room temp will probably be 75-77F for the next 4-5 months since summer is right around the corner. I'm not looking to squeeze every MHz out of the thing, and think that the stock multiplier x 333 would be as high as I push it since I'm planning to run it 24/7.

If the q6600 is gonna run over 60C @ load with my hardware given those room temp numbers, I'm thinking either a e6600 @ 9x333 or a e6700 @ 10x333. The key for me is decent load temps whatever I end up getting cooled on air.

Thanks for any info and for that pretty detailed reply!

[jeffy]

--> pointing you all the way to the fellows at XtremeSystems.org -->

Q6600/6700 mixed

Water less than 50C/60C
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=126820&highlight=Q6600

Tuniq Tower 120
About 70C
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=126900&highlight=Q6600

Or 40C idle/70C load (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1961752&postcount=22)
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=130549&highlight=Q6600

Even water can go to 70C
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=127964&highlight=Q6600

And again watercooled 40C idle/60C load
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=122350&highlight=Q6600

And here comes the heavyweight, air cooling "monster"
50C/full load 80C overclocked! (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1986126&postcount=29)
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=132058&highlight=Q6600
(he used 36dB fans though)

But you should remember their TJunction is higher than C2Ds: 100C vs. 85C

A really great discussion here (p. 2, 70C Tuniq Tower):
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/QX6700-Tjunction-Tcase-safe-ftopict227618.html

[graysky]

Thanks for the links man! I'll dig into them. BTW, here's a related article (http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/03/26/the_gigahertz_battle/) that just published.

[tsp]

graysky: Do you plan to repost the test file?

[graysky]

Done: test files (http://home.insightbb.com/~pixels/test_encode/test.rar)
and
avisynth plugins if you need them (http://home.insightbb.com/~pixels/test_encode/test-plugins.rar)

Remember to read the instructions.txt in the rar file and be sure to grab the older version of x264.exe (also in the instructions.txt).

[HookedOnTV]

Opteron 165 - 2.48GHz (9 x 275) - 1GB DDR550

http://www.hookedontv.com/test_encode.jpg

[graysky]

updated

[aicjofs]

Been wondering about the Vista stuff myself...so...

Here is my Vista comparison. I tried to match the running services of XP and Vista as close as possible. Vista sidebar is turned off. Aero skin is on. XP install is 2 weeks old, Vista install 1 day old. Both using old x264 for this test, and exact same filters.

MT OFF

http://home.comcast.net/~msibios/vista1.jpg

MT ON

http://home.comcast.net/~msibios/vista.jpg

Old results of course were here http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=975017#post975017

So we have

Without MT Avisynth

XP
1st pass 121.2
2nd pass 55.01

Vista
1st pass 123.67
2nd pass 53.16

With MT Avisynth

XP
1st pass 138.16
2nd pass 54.15

Vista
1st pass 147.91
2nd pass 53.78

Looks like without MT avisynth it is a wash. Gain 2fps, lose 2fps. With MT, it would seem a huge increase on the 1st pass almost a wash with 2nd pass. Like I mentioned before I wonder how accurate the 1st pass numbers really are since it happens so fast and the framerate hasn't really stabalized. Makes me want to not believe the numbers and only look at 2nd pass in which case Vista is ever so slightly slower.

Anyway food for thought. If you believe the numbers, At least on this quadcore, at this speed, it would seem Vista and MT avisynth are the way to go if using these filters. Either that or that .1Mhz of memory is the difference. LOL

[morph166955]

ok so I lied...I ended up not going with the 1.86 or the 2.33...I went with the 2.66 :devil:

The final parts list (all of this is ordered, half is in already):

Moved to new thread @ http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=124099 because it diverged too much from this one plus its more visibile there for people looking for other non MeGUI tests.

[Selmer79]

Been wondering about the Vista stuff myself...so...

Here is my Vista comparison. I tried to match the running services of XP and Vista as close as possible. Vista sidebar is turned off. Aero skin is on. XP install is 2 weeks old, Vista install 1 day old. Both using old x264 for this test, and exact same filters.

32-bit or 64-bit Vista?

Also, if you want to expand the test (to stabilize the numbers a bit), do like me and make your own test with a larger source..

Just look here (http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=963856&postcount=192) and then here (http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=965573&postcount=223)..

[aicjofs]

Good catch. 32bit Vista, since I was using 32bit XP.

No doubt a longer source would help out for these side tests. I'll give it a go when time permits.

[Selmer79]

The reason why I asked was that some person wondered if running a 32-bit application under 64-bit Vista would be a cause for reduced performance.. I'll be repeating my test later when I feel Vista is more mature (and/or a "64-bit meGUI" comes).

PS: I know that a 64-bit meGUI won't help unless everything that meGUI accesses is 64-bit too.