x264 Benchmark - Page 9

Team Scream · 20th Sep 2007, 12:15 AM

Where is the official result posted?

AlderaaN · 20th Sep 2007, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Scream

Where is the official result posted?

Hello Team Scream

You can find the results for both AMD and Intel processors in the dedicated graysky's x264 Benchmark article, here:
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.a...tno=442&pgno=0

Once you're there, simply scroll down to "Results to Date/Intel Chips" or "Results to Date/AMD Chips"

Have fun

Samuel.

Team Scream · 20th Sep 2007, 12:34 AM

Hey thank AlderaaN
I appreciate it !

Team Scream · 20th Sep 2007, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graysky

@AlderaaN - thanks for the data!
@chai - it's there, I just made two mistakes (got your chipset wrong and got your OS wrong). It's corrected now - sorry about that.

Hey graysky you also got my processors wrong as well, mine are X5355 NOT X5365, that is assuming that the scores at the top of the page are mine?

I was also wondering why the octa's are listed as 4x4=8 and not 4x2=8 ?

I am going to run the tests using XP-64 now just to see which is faster, I just finished installing XP-64 last night so I can run the tests and post up for you.

ditche · 20th Sep 2007, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chai

My result is missing...

Yeah sorry, there's too much CPU's, I have a choice...

graysky, you can edit the results of my P-M : http://forums.techarp.com/showthread...2&postcount=55

graysky · 20th Sep 2007, 03:45 AM

Made the corrections you guys mentioned and will reupload in a few.

@ditche - 15x100 is the new setting... is the memory still 2-3-3-6 @ 133 MHz?

graysky · 21st Sep 2007, 05:37 AM

As of 20-Sep-2007, we have data on over 100 Intel-based systems and on over 40 AMD-based systems. There are a few trends I picked-up on while browsing through the database. I put them into a single table and color coded them to make them easier to see. If you see a trend I missed, lemme know and I'll add it to the table.

Request: we don't have a single example of a machine that has both WinXP and WinVista on it. If you have a dual-boot setup, it would be cool to see the difference the O/S makes. Another missing trend is a 32-bit O/S vs. the same O/S that's 64-bit.

On to the table:

Yellow: Nearly 1:1 increase by adding an additional processor to a dual-chip MB
Orange: Some operating systems seem to handle x264 more efficiently than others
Red: Insignificant gain by upping the DRAM speed by 50 %
Blue: For the most part, these chips scale in a pretty linear fashion
Green: Tighter/looser memory timings have a pretty insignificant effect
Purple: Keeping the same over-all clock speed using a different combo of multiplier and FSB can give pretty insignificant gains

Again, I only gave this a once-over look; please point out any trends you see that I missed and also don't forgot about the O/S request!

Thanks again to all who contributed!

Max_87 · 22nd Sep 2007, 07:55 AM

Athlon 64 3200+ @ 200x10
1GB x 2 DDR
Windows Vista

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 28.06 fps, 1854.10 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 28.19 fps, 1854.10 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 27.73 fps, 1854.10 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 28.17 fps, 1854.10 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 28.25 fps, 1854.10 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 6.76 fps, 1825.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 6.74 fps, 1825.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 6.73 fps, 1825.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 6.76 fps, 1825.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 6.63 fps, 1825.89 kb/s

graysky · 22nd Sep 2007, 05:24 PM

thanks for the results, max. Just need the mem timings and mem core speed... also what is the codename of that chip?

marka211 · 23rd Sep 2007, 04:30 AM

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 150.45 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 150.66 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 150.85 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 150.45 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 151.06 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 41.29 fps, 1829.35 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 41.23 fps, 1829.30 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 41.43 fps, 1829.54 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 41.41 fps, 1829.05 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 41.26 fps, 1829.22 kb/s

Q6600@3.0GHz B3 Stepping
P965/ICH8 GigaByte 965P-DS3
4GB of Generic Samsung Memory 833@5-6-6-17

WinXP 32bit

20th Sep 2007, 03:45 AM	#86 (permalink)
graysky Getting there Join Date: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 167 Reputation: 249 Rep Power: 4	Made the corrections you guys mentioned and will reupload in a few. @ditche - 15x100 is the new setting... is the memory still 2-3-3-6 @ 133 MHz? __________________ http://encoding.n3.net <--- for all your DVD and audio CD backup needs!

21st Sep 2007, 05:37 AM	#87 (permalink)
graysky Getting there Join Date: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 167 Reputation: 249 Rep Power: 4	As of 20-Sep-2007, we have data on over 100 Intel-based systems and on over 40 AMD-based systems. There are a few trends I picked-up on while browsing through the database. I put them into a single table and color coded them to make them easier to see. If you see a trend I missed, lemme know and I'll add it to the table. Request: we don't have a single example of a machine that has both WinXP and WinVista on it. If you have a dual-boot setup, it would be cool to see the difference the O/S makes. Another missing trend is a 32-bit O/S vs. the same O/S that's 64-bit. On to the table: Yellow: Nearly 1:1 increase by adding an additional processor to a dual-chip MB Orange: Some operating systems seem to handle x264 more efficiently than others Red: Insignificant gain by upping the DRAM speed by 50 % Blue: For the most part, these chips scale in a pretty linear fashion Green: Tighter/looser memory timings have a pretty insignificant effect Purple: Keeping the same over-all clock speed using a different combo of multiplier and FSB can give pretty insignificant gains Again, I only gave this a once-over look; please point out any trends you see that I missed and also don't forgot about the O/S request! Thanks again to all who contributed! __________________ http://encoding.n3.net <--- for all your DVD and audio CD backup needs! Last edited by graysky : 22nd Sep 2007 at 03:54 AM.

22nd Sep 2007, 07:55 AM	#88 (permalink)
Max_87 h@x! Join Date: 11 Aug 2003 Location: Sarawak, Malaysia. Posts: 11,288 Reputation: 2024 Rep Power: 37	Athlon 64 3200+ @ 200x10 1GB x 2 DDR Windows Vista ---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 28.06 fps, 1854.10 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 28.19 fps, 1854.10 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 27.73 fps, 1854.10 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 28.17 fps, 1854.10 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 28.25 fps, 1854.10 kb/s ---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 6.76 fps, 1825.89 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 6.74 fps, 1825.89 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 6.73 fps, 1825.89 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 6.76 fps, 1825.89 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 6.63 fps, 1825.89 kb/s __________________ Max_87 Tech ARP http://www.techarp.com P4 630 / Abit IP35 Pro / G.Skill F2-8000CL5-4GBPQ / Radeon X1800 / Barracuda 7200.9 120GB / 7200.10 320GB x2 / Caviar SE16 WD5000AAKS / WD6400AAKS x2 / Dell 2007FP x2 / Silverstone ST56F

22nd Sep 2007, 05:24 PM	#89 (permalink)
graysky Getting there Join Date: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 167 Reputation: 249 Rep Power: 4	thanks for the results, max. Just need the mem timings and mem core speed... also what is the codename of that chip? __________________ http://encoding.n3.net <--- for all your DVD and audio CD backup needs!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Real World Testing vs Benchmark Testing	Chai	General Software	30	26th Jul 2006 11:46 AM

20th Sep 2007, 12:15 AM	#81 (permalink)
Team Scream Newbie Join Date: 18 Sep 2007 Posts: 7 Reputation: 0 Rep Power: 0	Where is the official result posted?

20th Sep 2007, 12:34 AM	#83 (permalink)
Team Scream Newbie Join Date: 18 Sep 2007 Posts: 7 Reputation: 0 Rep Power: 0	Hey thank AlderaaN I appreciate it !

23rd Sep 2007, 04:30 AM	#90 (permalink)
marka211 Newbie Join Date: 23 Sep 2007 Posts: 2 Reputation: 0 Rep Power: 0	---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 150.45 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 150.66 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 150.85 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 150.45 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 151.06 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 41.29 fps, 1829.35 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 41.23 fps, 1829.30 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 41.43 fps, 1829.54 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 41.41 fps, 1829.05 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 41.26 fps, 1829.22 kb/s Q6600@3.0GHz B3 Stepping P965/ICH8 GigaByte 965P-DS3 4GB of Generic Samsung Memory 833@5-6-6-17 WinXP 32bit