x264 CPU benchmark - Compare different CPUs encoding the same file

[0gg]

1) What are you mem timings?
2) Can you run it again @ stock settings?

1. 5 5 5 12 (FB DIMM, ECC ...)
2. no : it is a hardware modifiction on pin mod
3. i will do it again on 2xE5440 @ 2.4 + 8x1 Go with XP 64b

[graysky]

Updated the Intel table. It now contains several Yorkfield ES chips including:

Xeon E5330 (Dual board)
Q9550
Q9350

[0gg]

Dual Xeon Quad Core E5340ES 2.4
8x1 Go RAM PC5400 DDR667 FBDIMM 4 4 4 12 (266 Mhz)
FSB : 9x266
OS = XP Pro 64 bits

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 115.88 fps, 1849.61 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 119.84 fps, 1849.61 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 116.97 fps, 1849.61 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 119.59 fps, 1849.61 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 116.48 fps, 1849.61 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 60.28 fps, 1834.86 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 60.70 fps, 1834.22 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 60.31 fps, 1834.90 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 60.64 fps, 1834.86 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 60.50 fps, 1834.22 kb/s

[graysky]

@ogg - thanks again for the data. A question. Isn't the E5340's stock speed 2.33 GHz w/ a 333 MHz FSB? See this (http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13036) article for the reference.

[0gg]

Isn't the E5340's stock speed 2.33 GHz w/ a 333 MHz FSB?
My Xeon E5340 is ES, but all E5340 have their FSB 266

Xeon E5345 is 2.33GHz w/ a 333 MHz FSB

In fact :
- 53x0 = 266
- 53x5 = 333

With 53x0 you can modify pin mod to o/c by hardware in order to have a better Vcore and a 333 FSB, without much more heat
And then with Systool, you're able to put a maximum of 373 FSB
... 9x373 = 3357 Mhz

The best Xeon is X5350 running @ 2,66 FSB66
By BSEL modification = 3330 Mhz and then with systool = 3730 Mhz.... but power supply 700 W must have !

++

[graysky]

Updated the tables with another 45 nm chip: the QX9650 -- both at stock levels and @ overclocked to 4.2 GHz! With it, and the others (Xeon E5330 (Dual board), Q9550, and Q9350) there is now data on 4 different 45 nm chips.

One thing that I found striking about these new chips is that they are only marginally faster than their 65 nm counterparts when encoding x264 (about 5-6 % faster with all other factors being equal or close to equal). Have a look at the general trends table for the Kentsfield vs. Yorkfield comparison at the official host (http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=442&pgno=0).

[Bigmango]

C2D E6400, Conroe, 8x400, 4-4-4-12, Asus P5B-Deluxe

Vista x64.

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 82.82 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 84.38 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 85.40 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 86.03 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 85.55 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 20.84 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 20.93 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 20.98 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 20.97 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 21.24 fps, 1826.37 kb/s


It looks like compared to the results on XP 32bit, the first pass is about 4 fps slower and the 2nd pass about 1 fps slower on vista x64. It would be interesting to compare this with a 64bit build of x264.

[maxisvk]

My notebook Acer Aspire 5920G
Cpu: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7300 @ 2.00GHz (200x10), MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, EM64T, 2 x 32 KBytes , 2 x 32 KBytes , 4096 KBytes
Chipset: Intel GM965 rev. C0
Memory: 2 X DDR2, PC2-5300 (333 MHz), 1024 MBytes, Hyundai Electronics 5-5-5-15 @ 333Mhz


---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 55.55 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 55.61 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 54.76 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 54.42 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 55.36 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 13.63 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 13.62 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 13.49 fps, 1826.21 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 13.48 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 13.46 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

;)

[Limit]

CPU: Brisbane-G2 4400+ (11.5x200)
Chipset: AMD 790FX
Mem: 2x DDR2, PC2-8000 (500MHz), 2048MBytes, 5-5-5-15 @383Mhz

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 61.64 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 61.64 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 61.60 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 61.67 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 61.67 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 14.61 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 14.62 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 14.60 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 14.60 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 14.60 fps, 1826.38 kb/s


CPU: <some as above> (11.5x250)
Chipset: <some as above>
Mem: <some as above> @ 479MHz

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 77.57 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 77.46 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 77.52 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 77.57 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 77.52 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 18.46 fps, 1826.21 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 18.56 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 18.54 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 18.53 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 18.49 fps, 1826.27 kb/s

CPU: <some as above> (11.5x264)
Chipset: <some as above>
Mem: <some as above> @ 506MHz

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 82.00 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 82.06 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 82.19 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 82.49 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 82.61 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 19.59 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 19.59 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 19.58 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 19.58 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 19.58 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

[Konrad Klar]

Poor results of Core2Duo E6320 7x350:

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 58.21 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 58.45 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 58.57 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 58.30 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 58.03 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 16.11 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 16.15 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 16.18 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 16.04 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 16.09 fps, 1826.38 kb/s
P965. 4GB of DDR2, running at 700MHz 4-4-4-12 [2T]

My conclusion: 4MB of L2 cache (against 2MB in E6300/E6400) does not help at all in x264.

[graysky]

Thanks for the data guys. Will update the table soon.

[dansus]

Ok, im up to speed now.

C2Q Q6600 G0 - 455x8

Intel P35 - Abit IP35 Pro

Geil DDR2 6400: 5-5-5-15 1:1

Ram @ 455mhz

OS : Windows XP SP3

Test Results


---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 195.01 fps, 1850.51 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 195.70 fps, 1850.51 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 194.33 fps, 1850.51 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 193.99 fps, 1850.51 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 193.99 fps, 1850.51 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 51.75 fps, 1829.56 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 51.80 fps, 1829.56 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 51.94 fps, 1829.56 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 51.79 fps, 1829.56 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 51.85 fps, 1829.56 kb/s

:)

[HarryM]

CPU Intel Dual-Core E2140 (nominal 8x200)
MB Intel i865G chipset, IGP not used (very old chipset, but prepared for C2D family too!)
http://www.giga-byte.com/Products/Motherboard/Products_Overview.aspx?ProductID=2562)
Memory DDR1 400MHz PC3200 2x512MB Dual Channel, timing for all tests is 2,5-3-3-7
Windows XP SP2

***********************************
Case A - nominal, 8x200MHz=1.6GHz, FSB:RAM divider = 1:1 (DDR1 running on 400MHz)

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 46.70 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 46.81 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 46.82 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 46.76 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 46.70 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.98 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.96 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.99 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.97 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 11.01 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

***********************************
Case B, 8x200MHz=1.6GHz, FSB:RAM divider = 5:4! (DDR1 running on 320MHz, underclocked)

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 45.15 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 45.26 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 45.28 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 45.26 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 45.34 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.79 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.82 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.81 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.80 fps, 1826.20 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 10.79 fps, 1826.26 kb/s

***********************************
Case C - overclocked, 8x266MHz=2.13GHz, FSB:RAM divider = 5:4! (DDR1 running on 426MHz)

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 60.77 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 60.70 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 60.67 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 60.77 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 60.67 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 14.47 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 14.47 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 14.51 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 14.50 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 14.51 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

[DJ Bobo]

OK, here I am... with unpleasant results.
I was expecting something higher with this system: Celeron D 320 (Prescott core), 18x133, VIA P4M800 chipset, RAM on 2.5-3-3-7 @ 166 MHz, Windows XP Pro SP2

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 14.23 fps, 1854.10 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 14.32 fps, 1854.10 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 13.93 fps, 1854.10 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 13.99 fps, 1854.10 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 14.40 fps, 1854.10 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 3.01 fps, 1825.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 3.03 fps, 1825.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 3.03 fps, 1825.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 3.01 fps, 1825.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 3.02 fps, 1825.89 kb/s

[Lele-brz]

The results on my laptop

Intel Core Duo T2400, 6x166, i945PM, 4-4-4-12 @ 266MHz, XP Home SP2

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 46.29 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 46.35 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 46.27 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 46.31 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 46.41 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 11.25 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 11.23 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 11.21 fps, 1826.32 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 11.26 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 11.24 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

[Lele-brz]

And this on my Windows Server:

Intel Xeon 5130, 6x332.5, Intel 5000X, DRAM Frequency 332.5 MHz, Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition, Service Pack 2

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 99.41 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 100.30 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 98.97 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 99.41 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 100.03 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 27.56 fps, 1829.20 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 27.76 fps, 1829.45 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 27.75 fps, 1829.16 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 27.75 fps, 1829.54 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 27.69 fps, 1829.20 kb/s

[Konrad Klar]

Core2Duo E6600 @2997 MHz, Memory at 666 MHz. WindowsXP SP2 (x86).


---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 67.37 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 67.49 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 67.20 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 67.29 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 67.04 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 19.55 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 19.52 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 19.47 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 19.41 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 19.53 fps, 1826.26 kb/s

[Raptus]

C2D E4500 @ 8x350 (2.8Ghz), Gigabyte EP35-DS3, 4-4-4-12 @ 420Mhz, XP Pro SP2.
---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 80.53 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 80.35 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 80.47 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 80.30 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 80.35 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 19.77 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 19.75 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 19.76 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 19.77 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 19.75 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

EDIT: It's a nice and quick way to test x264 speed improvements in different versions (in this particular setting of course). Dropping in the current 736 I saw a speed gain of 3.5% for the first pass and 5% for the second compared to the version 663 used in this test.

[Konrad Klar]

Inspired by Raptus result I have dicided to make another test, this time with memory working at 864 MHz (still at Core2Duo E6600 @2997 MHz)

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 72.69 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 74.13 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 74.52 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 74.52 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 74.18 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 20.01 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 20.20 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 20.21 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 20.19 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 20.21 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

So speed of memory does matter (more than size of L2 cache).

[Raptus]

So speed of memory does matter (more than size of L2 cache).
I was quite surprised to see my E4500 getting higher marks despite running slower. It seems x264 is quite sensitive to memory subsystem performance, so the different chipsets could explain the result, as demonstrated here (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2991&p=3).

[bibikul]

@graysky don't let go this project.

maybe on day we will see it on tomshardware for testing new cpu's!!!!!!

soon i'll post my results with 2xquad xeon E5410 penryn. I'm verry confidend in my new rigg :)

[graysky]

I won't forget about it... next big update is what techarp (the host) updates their back-end stuff so the data isn't a HUGE gif file.

[bibikul]

Intel Vernonia 5000X
2 x intel xeon E5410 2333 Mhz
4 x FBDIMM Kingston DDR2 667 5-5-5-15 @ 333 Mhz

Windows Vista 32, SP1




---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 128.13 fps, 1849.61 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 129.61 fps, 1849.61 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 129.16 fps, 1849.61 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 130.07 fps, 1849.61 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 128.57 fps, 1849.61 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 56.79 fps, 1834.85 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 57.14 fps, 1834.90 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 57.55 fps, 1834.86 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 57.35 fps, 1834.86 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 57.32 fps, 1834.21 kb/s

[graysky]

First off, thanks to all who contributed data.

24-Feb-2008 - Finally updated the data tables on the x264 benchmark page (http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=442&pgno=0). They are now html based (not .gif images) which makes my life updating them much easier and I will keep this tables up-to-date daily as people post results. Have a look at the 'Data Tends' table that contains a look at the Phenom quad vs. both Kentfield and Yorkfield quads. There are also some comparisons of Wolfdale dual vs. Conroe dual, and some other good stuff.