Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
|
3rd November 2008, 19:26 | #1 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 176
|
x264 on Nehalem
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=3448&p=18
These benchmarks cite "We're reporting results from the 0.59.819 version of x264." I'm not familiar w/ that version numbering (i'm more familiar with the revision /commit numbers) is this a recent build? this is w/o the Nehalem optimizations right? |
3rd November 2008, 19:30 | #2 | Link |
Mr. Sandman
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
|
r819. that was pre-production hardware. the final results may vary (expecially in a better way)...
look here: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...78#post1209478 and here: http://www.ntcompatible.com/Intel_Co...p_s121605.html
__________________
MPEG-4 ASP Custom Matrices: EQM V1(old), EQM AutoGK Sharpmatrix (aka EQM V2), EQM V3HR (updated 01/10/2004), EQM V3LR, EQM V3ULR (updated 04/02/2005), EQM V3UHR (updated 17/12/2004) and EQM V3EHR (updated 05/10/2004) Info about my ASP matrices. MPEG-4 AVC Custom Matrices: EQM AVC-HR Info about my AVC matrices My x264 builds. Mooo!!! Last edited by Sharktooth; 3rd November 2008 at 20:26. |
3rd November 2008, 21:54 | #4 | Link |
Resize Abuser
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 623
|
is this official enough?
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/03/1324208
__________________
Mine: KenBurnsEffect/ZoomBox CutFrames Helped: DissolveAGG ColorBalance LQ Animation Fixer |
3rd November 2008, 22:18 | #5 | Link |
x264aholic
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 1,752
|
By official, I believe he means a "hard launch" where it's actually available for consumers, not a paper launch like they just did. That, and he may be under a NDA where he wouldn't be allowed to release it until a specific date.
__________________
You can't call your encoding speed slow until you start measuring in seconds per frame. |
3rd November 2008, 22:44 | #6 | Link |
Derek Prestegard IRL
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,988
|
You're telling me that the massive performance increase that's being reported by hardware sites doesn't even include Core i7 optimizations?
I can't wait I guess it's time to start thinking about new encoding servers / ~MiSfit
__________________
These are all my personal statements, not those of my employer :) Last edited by Guest; 4th November 2008 at 02:50. |
4th November 2008, 02:33 | #7 | Link |
x264aholic
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 1,752
|
Well, they used an x264 exe that's what, 200 revisions old? I'm sure by the time Nehalem rolls out proper we'll have some.. sizable gains in speed.
__________________
You can't call your encoding speed slow until you start measuring in seconds per frame. |
4th November 2008, 11:58 | #10 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 41
|
Yeah, it's lifted. There's a ton of Core i7 reviews up now as well.
*edit* Oh, and since the NDA is lifted, do you have any performace comparisons for us? Last edited by tph; 4th November 2008 at 19:11. |
5th November 2008, 12:52 | #12 | Link |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
Already done... I wanted to do the pminpos patch as well but there are still some issues with that one, like the fact that it doesn't actually work properly.
How about this? |
5th November 2008, 13:02 | #15 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,120
|
not bad
Would be good to see benchmarks in fps of High Profile Level 4.1 with 2-pass unrestricted profile and do 1920*1080, 1280*720 and 640*352 resolutions to give a real impression how much faster it is for bluray and for 1080i mpeg2 and 1080i mpeg4 tv encodes. |
5th November 2008, 15:54 | #16 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,346
|
Just curious about the mechanics of the new patch; does it use the new SSE4.2 instruction set, or some other aspect of the Nehalem architecture? or are the speed gains from 4 extra logical cores? or some combination of factors (probably) ?
Thanks |
5th November 2008, 16:09 | #17 | Link |
Mr. Sandman
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
|
SSE4.x = Pile Of Crap (at least for video encoding).
The speed advantages are almost all due to the improved architecture and maybe the new hyperthreading.
__________________
MPEG-4 ASP Custom Matrices: EQM V1(old), EQM AutoGK Sharpmatrix (aka EQM V2), EQM V3HR (updated 01/10/2004), EQM V3LR, EQM V3ULR (updated 04/02/2005), EQM V3UHR (updated 17/12/2004) and EQM V3EHR (updated 05/10/2004) Info about my ASP matrices. MPEG-4 AVC Custom Matrices: EQM AVC-HR Info about my AVC matrices My x264 builds. Mooo!!! |
5th November 2008, 17:06 | #18 | Link | |
too much lurking
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 668
|
@DS:
Quote:
|
|
5th November 2008, 17:13 | #19 | Link | |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
Quote:
I don't see how its that revolutionary; new CPUs are supposed to be faster, aren't they? |
|
5th November 2008, 17:24 | #20 | Link | |
The Crazy Idahoan
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Idaho
Posts: 249
|
Quote:
Whats amazing is the Size of the increase with nehelam (in the case of encoding) ~36% faster then the older penryn. Though the speed increases aren't uniform through all applications (as they rarely are) But in some cases I do feel somewhat disappointed in the increase. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|