CPU's: Quad VS. Dual (for my situation)

[rtjnyoface]

I plan on buying a new computer soon. I'm an intel person so I'm hoping others have some opinions on the E8400 Dual vs the Q6600 Quad. My main bit is video processing with xvid/divx and possibly divx's new roumelode(or however its spelled, sorry if that offends anyone). So..any opinions. Any from current E8400 or E6600 owners? Edit: tomshardware did THEIR work. Here it is:http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/xvid-1-1-2,403.html?p=1273%2C1265%2C1266%2C1262%2C1248%2C1249%2C12
46%2C1240%2C1238%2C1255%2C1304%2C1254%2C1295%2C1227%2C1281%2C1223%2C1220%2C1222%2C1280%2C1287%2C1288%2C1318
%2C1278%2C1312%2C1315%2C1218%2C1267

[linyx]

I don't know that much about either one, but why not go for the best that you can afford?

[rtjnyoface]

Well thats the problem. One could pretty much consider them at the same level. The E8400 beats the Q6600 with both xvid and divx but with better and better multiprocessor support and newer versions of divx such as roumelaude(or whatever) the Q6600 might be better. That's why I'm hoping for more opinions.

[jeffy]

@rtjnyoface: IMHO, should you decide for an H.264 route, get the quad. Should you stay with xvid, unless doing two files at once, get the fastest dual core possible. Q9300/Q9450/or a fastest dual core, if you can afford it.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Q6600 hands down.

~MiSfit

[rtjnyoface]

Whats your reasoning?

[Inventive Software]

4 cores for encoding are (almost) doubly better than 2 cores. The Q6600 is also quite nicely overclockable. :)

[RunningSkittle]

4 cores for encoding are (almost) doubly better than 2 cores. The Q6600 is also quite nicely overclockable. :)

and its cheap.

[Ranguvar]

The Q6600 is very overclockable, will get fantastic performance in x264, and already beats out Xvid 1.2 and DivX against a single core. AviSynth will be faster, too.

[jeffy]

@Ranguvar: if they insist on Xvid/DivX, the dual core might be faster than the quad core... Unless doing two parallel encodes :D

[rtjnyoface]

Tom's hardware has done our work for us. Dual beats quad hands down.I knew this but I'm still looking for more opinions from maybe some owners or someone with some better insight into the future of x264 and divx/xvid.Here's (http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/xvid-1-1-2,403.html?p=1273%2C1265%2C1266%2C1262%2C1248%2C1249%2C1246%2C1240%2C1238%2C1255%2C1304%2C1254%2C1295%2C1227%2C1281%2C1223%2C1220%2C1222%2C1280%2C1287%2C1288%2C1318%2C1278%2C1312%2C1315%2C1218%2C1267) what toms hardware has to say.

[Dark Shikari]

Tom's hardware has done our work for us. Dual beats quad hands down.I knew this but I'm still looking for more opinions from maybe some owners or someone with some better insight into the future of x264 and divx/xvid.Here's (http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/xvid-1-1-2,403.html?p=1273%2C1265%2C1266%2C1262%2C1248%2C1249%2C1246%2C1240%2C1238%2C1255%2C1304%2C1254%2C1295%2C1227%2C1281%2C1223%2C1220%2C1222%2C1280%2C1287%2C1288%2C1318%2C1278%2C1312%2C1315%2C1218%2C1267) what toms hardware has to say.What a worthless test; making ratings on processor speed of multicore CPUs... using a singlethreaded encoder? :rolleyes:

[Blue_MiSfit]

*yawn*

My sentiments exactly...

Are you really going to use Xvid / DivX for the lifetime of this computer?

Come on... :)

Tom's *and most hardware review sites* know exactly JACK about video encoding. They were still using FlasK MPEG and doing 1cd rips as of about a year ago. How long ago did we all move away from that disaster?

For our purposes, x264 is the best video encoder in existence. In my mind, there's absolutely no reason to use MPEG-4 ASP anymore - unless you happen to have a hideously slow machine for playback. H.264 has better hardware support, universal software support (every operating system, and web distribution via Flash), and vastly better video quality AND encoding speed (because it's faster period, and because it uses your quad core to its fullest :D)

So.... yeah. There's really no argument.

~MiSfit

[rtjnyoface]

Well we can't really just throw away their results can we? They had to have had a standard. Whether it was a certain quantization or whatever they had to have a standard to test upon. So, if the same settings were used and just the processor was different wouldn't the results be the same regardless of whether or not they knew HOW to use the codec.

[Dark Shikari]

Well we can't really just throw away their results can we?We can multiply all speeds by the number of cores on the CPU ;)

[rtjnyoface]

I truly, truly don't mean to be disrespectful because I am very new to this forum but I don't know if I should believe this last post of yours. What about dual vs quad optimization or compatibility of the codec and other such things. I don't know about all the different technical aspects but we can't just multiply by the number of cores. That'd be an incorrect assumption wouldn't it? Again, I mean no disrespect but am only looking for information.:D

[squid_80]

Tom's hardware has done our work for us. Dual beats quad hands down.
How do you come to this conclusion when all the dual-cores (except the wolfdales) have slower results than the quads?

[Shinigami-Sama]

I truly, truly don't mean to be disrespectful because I am very new to this forum but I don't know if I should believe this last post of yours. What about dual vs quad optimization or compatibility of the codec and other such things. I don't know about all the different technical aspects but we can't just multiply by the number of cores. That'd be an incorrect assumption wouldn't it? Again, I mean no disrespect but am only looking for information.:D

uhh....
hes one of the builders of x264
if you're not going to trust him well...

[jeffy]

@rtjnyoface: What I said above, applies. You can either have several parallel encodes running at once (format Xvid) and then you can utilize nearly (or truly) 100% of the cores or you can have a single x264 (format H.264) encode utilizing all four cores. It's nearly impossible to have a single Xvid encode utilizing all four cores fully.

[rtjnyoface]

@shinigami:

As I've said before I am entirely new to x264 so I am a novice entirely and my mistake as I didn't know he was a builder of x264. It's surprising to see that such a big name answered a newby's question (newby both to x264 and doom9). SO.....apparently quad "beats" dual with respect to xvid/divx and x264?

[Shinigami-Sama]

@shinigami:

As I've said before I am entirely new to x264 so I am a novice entirely and my mistake as I didn't know he was a builder of x264. It's surprising to see that such a big name answered a newby's question (newby both to x264 and doom9). SO.....apparently quad "beats" dual with respect to xvid/divx and x264?

s'ok we were all new once

quadcore is better than a dual, unless you use ffmpeg(ffdshow) for AVC decoding as that isn't very threaded yet(CABAC+ maybe something else dark mentioned)

Xvid/Divx aren't very threaded encoderwise, so you'd need to do parrallel(2+) at once to max a quadcore
but x264 can use them all
and x264 scales very very very close to linear; as in quadcore = dualcore * 2

and honestly xvid and divx are not used much anymore since x264 is generally higher quality and can actually make use of the powerfull new CPUs

[rtjnyoface]

Well what about speed? Using the same hardware setup and using CQ who would win: xvid/divx or x264?

[Shinigami-Sama]

Well what about speed? Using the same hardware setup and using CQ who would win: xvid/divx or x264?

default settings
dualcore divx/xvid

fastest settings, x264

quadcore x264 hands down

H.264(the format x264 is built on) also gets hardware acceleration if the file and videocard/player are compatible

but thats getting OT...

[rtjnyoface]

I thank you dear sir for your time. I appreciate your input.If you think of anymore comments you could add it'd be great to hear them. Thanks.:)

[Sharktooth]

fastest settings?
x264 wins with fast settings too.
the quality would be always superior to divx/xvid, expecially at low bitrates.

[burfadel]

Instead of the old Q6600, what about the Q9300, which is its replacement model?

[Blue_MiSfit]

Slightly faster, though not by a lot. Also, not as good in the overclocking department IIRC, due to a lower multiplier (?)

Not totally sure :)

They are supposed to be a lot cooler though.

~MiSfit

[komarovsky]

It's surprising to see that such a big name answered a newby's question (newby both to x264 and doom9).

that's one of the best things about this forum. there are very smart people and very smart people that are well known in the video encoding world that are willing to help people :D

[theReal]

I have a Q6600 quad core and I must say I am happy with how many of the programs I use fully support the quad cpu (I check with windows task manager and TaskInfo2002)

The programs I'm using that are able to use 100% processor power are Adobe Premiere CS3 and EncoreDVD CS3, the h.264 encoder, NeroAAC encoder uses 100% cpu when used with EAC, with foobar it only uses 1 core per file, but foobar then automatically encodes 4 files at once. WinRar comes to my mind as well. Basically all the programs that I use which need a lot of cpu power are capable of using all 4 processor cores.

The only downside of the quadcore is that it uses more power - 95W max. compared to 65W max. for a Dual Core. But that is only the maximum, as soon as there is nothing going on, the processor switches to 1500MHz idle mode anyways and then I guess the differences in power consumption will be very low.

[IgorC]

Found this http://www.fcenter.ru/img/article/CPU/Core_2_Duo_E8600/122257.png

Article http://www.fcenter.ru/forprint.shtml?online/articles/hardware/processors/24678

[Blue_MiSfit]

Not hugely useful without details on what settings were used - but it looks pretty accurate to me..

~MiSfit

[jwhyche]

Not hugely useful without details on what settings were used - but it looks pretty accurate to me..

~MiSfit

Agree'd that it's pretty dicey on the settings but assuming that all the settings are the same that is about the spread I would expect to see. We have the bottom 3 processors here at work and I've ran some quick and dirty encodings with x264 just to benchmark them. Its been a while but that spread looks about right.

I don't about the top 2. I haven't blown up a server to justify buying one.... Yet.....:devil:

[ilovejedd]

x264 benchmarks (standardized settings):
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=442

x264 HD benchmarks (standardized settings):
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=520

Results compiled from a lot of different users, including those on this board. You can download the tests and try them on your own system. Test is pretty transparent as you can review the batch file, avisynth script, etc.

[rtjnyoface]

Thank you very much. Those were great. Gives me an impression of what my current computer would do and what my future computer could possibly do. Gah that was great. Thanks again:thanks:

[RickA]

Greets,

As a fellow Q6600 owner you can chalk my opinion up as 'Go for the quad!' In my view the sheer brute horsepower boost of the additional cpu's more than make up for the extra bit of MHz you might gain by going with a faster dual core. It is so much easier to multi-task while you encode instead of feeling the need to leave the computer alone. I have a dual core OC'ed to 4GHz and it barely holds a candle to my quad @ 3GHz. Granted, it is an older model dual - but still. Nothing like encoding a movie via x264 (idle mode) while playing World of Warcraft. Getting zero lag and have the movie about done when you finish playing :-). I would not have attempted that with my dual core. Plus, you are semi future proofing yourself as more and more software is designed to take advantage of multi-core systems.

Cheers,
Rick

[zambelli]

This shouldn't even be a discussion :) - quad core is the way to go. Both x264 and Microsoft's VC-1 encoders (WMV9 DMO and VC-1 SDK) can take advantage of 4 cores, as I'm sure can many others. The difference should be roughly 2x compared to a dual-core of comparable clock speed. No amount of overclocking of the dual-core is going to make up for that kind of difference.

[2Bdecided]

For our purposes, x264 is the best video encoder in existence. In my mind, there's absolutely no reason to use MPEG-4 ASP anymore - unless you happen to have a hideously slow machine for playback.Surely you can't be comfortable encoding HD for wide distribution in H.264? There's a whole class of machines still in wide use where most of the ASP codecs run fast enough for HD, while the H.264 based codecs don't. SD or less is another matter.

I wouldn't let this alone dictate my choice of CPU though.

Cheers,
David.

[Shinigami-Sama]

Surely you can't be comfortable encoding HD for wide distribution in H.264? There's a whole class of machines still in wide use where most of the ASP codecs run fast enough for HD, while the H.264 based codecs don't. SD or less is another matter.

I wouldn't let this alone dictate my choice of CPU though.

Cheers,
David.

a while class of machines that are around 5 years old
which is well beyond the upgrade time of the majority of people

my old P4 can do 720p AVC without breaking a sweat
and thats how many generations old?

[Blue_MiSfit]

Oh - surely I can be! :)

Our clients have hardware decoders, so it's a non issue, provided we stick to rather strict limitations on bandwidth and profile compliance.

It's very true, however, that if we were encoding for the web we would hesitate to distribute H.264, at least 1080p H.264, since the Flash decoder (and QuickTime for that matter) is pathetically slow

~MiSfit

[KamalJoe]

Quad will be better choice....

[Jorge_O]

I'm an EE and had an equivalent problem some time ago - going from a single CPU to a dual.
I opted for a Pentim D 820 in an Intel mobo. Lots of heath (I could smell hot components when rendering) and some more speed.
The Pentium D is a kludge - 2 single core CPU's inside the same case.

Then I upgraded to a C2D E6600 (single piece of silicon). That's a fine chip! About 2X faster than the Pentium D and runs cool!

So, if the quad isn't a single piece of silicon, stay away of it. That's what I'm doing now.

[Ranguvar]

So, if the quad isn't a single piece of silicon, stay away of it. That's what I'm doing now.

I disagree :p So far, I've not seen any problem with chips that use the more hackish method. I have a Q6600 that runs beautifully myself. More likely you just had a bad CPU or other problem.