x264 benchmark on nehalem

[b@nned]

x264 benchmark on Tech ARP. Here is the result, can someone translate it and how would it rank to the other benchmarks on the site.

EDIT: Here is the right chart: http://www.techarp.com/x264_Benchmark/hd//results-1.htm

Results for x264.exe v0.58.747
encoded 1442 frames, 95.14 fps, 3904.94 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 99.45 fps, 3904.94 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 100.21 fps, 3904.94 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 100.64 fps, 3904.94 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 33.73 fps, 3974.08 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 33.95 fps, 3974.08 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 33.98 fps, 3974.08 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 33.81 fps, 3974.08 kb/s


System Details
--------------
Name Intel Processor
Codename Bloomfield
Specification Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 940 @ 2.93GHz (Engineering Sample)
Core Stepping
Technology 45 nm
Stock frequency 2933 MHz
Core Speed 4004.0 MHz (22.0 x 182.0 MHz)

Northbridge Intel X58 rev. 12
Southbridge Intel 82801JR (ICH10R) rev. 00

Memory Frequency 1456.0 MHz ()
Memory Type DDR3
Memory Size 3064 MBytes

Windows Version Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3 (Build 2600)

max VID 0.825 V
Voltage sensor 0 1.40 Volts [0xAF] (CPU VCORE)
Number of processors 1
Number of threads 8
Number of threads 8 (max 16)
L2 cache 4 x 256 KBytes, 8-way set associative, 64-byte line size
Instructions sets MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, EM64T
Package Socket 1366 LGA (platform ID = 1h)

Temperature sensor 0 29°C (84°F) [0x1D] (SYSTIN)
Temperature sensor 1 57°C (133°F) [0x71] (CPUTIN)
Temperature sensor 2 32°C (88°F) [0x3F] (AUXTIN)
Temperature sensor 0 69°C (156°F) [0x24] (core #0)
Temperature sensor 1 70°C (157°F) [0x23] (core #1)
Temperature sensor 2 68°C (154°F) [0x25] (core #2)
Temperature sensor 3 65°C (148°F) [0x28] (core #3)
Temperature sensor 0 35°C (94°F) [0x23] (GPU Core)

[woah!]

QX9650 Yorkfield at 4200mhz does this on that site 00:35 229.39fps / 62.90fps 1:12:51

so going by that it aint that special...

[kemuri-_9]

A. it's an old revision of x264 (250+ revisions old <_<), get one more up-to-date
B. there's no settings and no specification of what the source is, so the encoding rates are pretty useless to use as a comparison to anything else...

not to mention that entire chart is based on incredibly old revisions it seems - r663 and r598, so they're not the most useful for comparing against current revisions.

[b@nned]

here is a Q9650 at 4 Ghz:

Results for x264.exe v0.58.747
encoded 1442 frames, 79.89 fps, 3904.67 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 81.08 fps, 3904.67 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 79.48 fps, 3904.67 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 80.38 fps, 3904.67 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 23.56 fps, 3952.97 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 23.61 fps, 3952.97 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 23.63 fps, 3952.97 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 23.56 fps, 3952.97 kb/s

[b@nned]

here is the chart for the HD, the one I posted was for SD

http://www.techarp.com/x264_Benchmark/hd//results-1.htm

[stanjr]

No Linux 64-bit machines used to benchmark with?

[b@nned]

is there any updated x264 benchmark I can run?

[plonk420]

if someone wants to create a benchmark, i can host it (if the video is sane .. like under 100mb) and try to keep up with keeping the spreadsheet.

edit: oh, it looks like the link is good once again. and the spreadsheet somewhat up to date (sans Phenoms). i hadn't seen it updated in quite a while every time i'd look at it...

[Ranguvar]

is there any updated x264 benchmark I can run?

Yes. x264.exe from x264.nl.