Encoding performance of various current cpus benchmarked

[foxyshadis]

The site matbe.com has run another series of comprehensive benchmarks on current (mostly dual-core) processors, from celeron & sempron to core 2 and fx.

http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/306/merom-et-conroe-test-des-core-2-duo/page18.php

http://www.matbe.com/images/biblio/art_merom-conroe-et-allendalle/000000041577.png
(green = amd, blue = intel, red = overclocked)

This is xvid 1.1 and divx 6.2, so essentially a test of single-threading (divx 6.2 has bad MT, as they say barely 10% difference, 6.2.2 is somewhat better). If you'd like to see results of truly multithreaded video encoding look at:
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/306/merom-et-conroe-test-des-core-2-duo/page19.php
where TMpegEnc shines. x264 would likely follow a curve similar to this. (single-cores are practically shut out!) There are no 64-bit results available, unfortunately, which I'd be interested in.

So if you're looking for a new hardcore encoding machine, you can look at these results, and compare performance with prices (of cpu, mainboard, and possibly ddr2 ram) to pick out what will be best for you - or decide to wait until prices fall further. Since new platforms and cpu families (santa rosa, K8L, etc) seem to be coming every six months for the next few years, that's probably a quite viable option.

[BigDid]

Hi,

I have read the charts and the article, nice. Easy for a french reader, but at least the charts are understandable by all :)

I also had interest in this recent thread: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=112621

I do not own a dualcore, I have a a64-3000 on a 754 mobo.

I look forward the 24th of july to get the real prices, but I am already very tempted in the 939 combo Inc was referring to: A64 x2 3800+ and the Asrock dual sata2.

In the meantime I just keep looking for multithreaded apps or replacements when exists like this one for lame: http://softlab.technion.ac.il/project/LAME/html/lame.html even if objections on HA: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t42457.html

Did

[bkman]

My post from another thread:

Some benchmarks from digit-life (I made the charts from their xls):

http://thehandofkwll.googlepages.com/xvid.png
http://thehandofkwll.googlepages.com/x264.png

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/cpu/intel-conroe-2-13-ghz.html

[Sharktooth]

xvid and x264 are 2 different codecs... however it seems core 2 just owns.
however what x264 build and what compiler (and optimizations) were used?

[bkman]

xvid and x264 are 2 different codecs... however it seems core 2 just owns.
however what x264 build and what compiler (and optimizations) were used?

It is noted on the page; v.438
Edit: Don't know which compiler flags they used.

Btw, iXBT have done a newer benchmark since with more C2D models: http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/cpu/intel-core2-duo-x6800.html
xls: http://www.ixbt.com/cpu/images/intel-core2-duo-x6800/results.xls

[dragongodz]

however it seems core 2 just owns.
PLEASE dont say such ridiculous generic statements. there is not just 1 core2 model and while the top end ones ,such as e6700, are currently leading the speed race ones such as the e6300 can be matched and beaten by amd cpus.

heres a link HardwareGeek posted in another thread
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=8

note i take no notice of overclocked results and people should not try and use them, to me atleast, as meaning anything. the simple fact is that it doesnt matter what person A managed to overclock to it doesnt mean person B will be able to do the same. nor does everybody WANT to overclock.

[Sharktooth]

ridiculous? it's a fact Core 2 architecture just actulally owns and even if it is a hybrid solution it is BY FAR more efficient than K8 architecture.
On the other side K8L will add dual SSE execution units per core, shared L3 cache and other optimizations already seen in Core 2 and presumably it will be the speed king again... but that will come only in 2007.

[dragongodz]

ridiculous?
because as i said its a generic statement that doesnt cover the facts.

it's a fact Core 2 architecture just actulally owns and even if it is a hybrid solution it is BY FAR more efficient than K8 architecture.
sorry but the statement you made
however it seems core 2 just owns.
talks nothing about architecture. and the simple fact is that not all models are faster than all models of amd x2 cpus. so such a generic statement is wrong.

[Sharktooth]

clock for clock Core 2 is faster, so it's a more efficient architecture.
that is THE fact. there's nothing to cover. the CPUs specs and architectures are detailed on the intel and amd websites.

[dragongodz]

clock for clock Core 2 is faster, so it's a more efficient architecture.
as i said that wasnt your statement. in no way did you mention architecture or anything else to say exactly what you meant. instead made a generic statement.
also clock for clock comparisons in no way take actual cost to buy in to consideration. i couldnt care less if cpu A is faster at the same clock if its also more expensive so i couldnt afford it.

that is THE fact. there's nothing to cover.
and if you are going to buy an E6300, for example, you wont be faster than some AMD X2 models. THAT is THE fact.

[Sharktooth]

well, there are reviews that point that out... but remember E6300 is a relatively cheap CPU and AMD adjusted prices to keep the competition.
Also the Core CPUs are very overclockable so it's easier to outperform even the x2 5000+ with an E6300.
However, i will stick with my AMD x2 for a while.

[dragongodz]

well, there are reviews that point that out
yes and some that dont by comparing things like E6700 etc to X2 4600+ etc. but my point was about generic statements like "core2 owns" and "core2 is king" etc which are floating around forums. it gets damn annoying to constantly read such things without clarity of what the statement is actually meant to mean or cover. newbs reading such generic statements could easily get the wrong idea that buying an E6300 for example means it will be the best no matter what they are doing or software they are using.

but remember E6300 is a relatively cheap CPU and AMD adjusted prices to keep the competition.
of course. Intel didnt just price the core2's at random either. competition is good for all of us consumers. :)

Also the Core CPUs are very overclockable so it's easier to outperform even the x2 5000+ with an E6300.
i already gave my thoughts on overclocking and what i think about that. :)

[UofC]

A gain of salt with everything. There is pros and cons of both with neither the clear winner.

I would like to test Intel personally before expressing a opinion.