AMD Phenom's

[expresspotato]

Hi,

After building some a few servers hoping they would be ideal for video converting, I'm a little surprised at the encoding frame rate.

On a Xeon 2.6 Ghz, the server is able to pull rougly 22 fps of an HD encode with various settings.

The same encode and settings on our new AMD Phenom 2 X4's are revealing surprisingly the exact same results. The AMD's are overclocked from 3.2 to 3.7 Ghz.

How on earth could a processor that's 1.1Ghz faster *per core* still manage a nearly identical frame rate?

All this is running on Linux, with ffmpeg threads enabled. Both servers run the same configure options for both x264 and ffmpeg.

Any advice that might help the frame rate would be appreciated :o

[poisondeathray]

hyperthreading , higher IPC for intel processors

You can't compare clockspeeds between different architectures, apples/oranges

[DJ Bobo]

Yeah, your Xeon seems to be based on the Core i7 technology, which has hyperthreading (8 threads on 4 cores).
The Phenom II is rather comparable to the Core 2 Quad and derived Xeons if you take the frequency as scale and is much cheaper anyway: you're squeezing the same performance from a 120€ processor! What did your Xeon cost? 800€? ;)

[expresspotato]

You're absolutely correct about the architectures. Even then, the Phenom II is no lemon. x264 Should be able to pull ahead with respect to fps on this one.

[nm]

You're absolutely correct about the architectures. Even then, the Phenom II is no lemon. x264 Should be able to pull ahead with respect to fps on this one.
No it shouldn't. See: http://git.videolan.org/gitweb.cgi/x264.git/?a=commit;h=a5ac6a5b8688915553fe6fccee09f1272f3788ac
Overall speed improvement with Nehalem vs Penryn at the same clock speed is around 40%.

Take a look at some benchmarks too. For example the second-pass framerates in this Anandtech article (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=14).

[expresspotato]

Thank you very much for providing the Nehalem specific commits.