Yeah, our Desktop CPU Comparison Guide also lists the Q9550 as 8.5 x 333. However, all Core 2 processors have their lower multipliers unlocked. So, he may be running the Q9550 at 8 x 333. That would make it equivalent to the Q9450.
Well, the coloring in the table uses black for processors at their stock speed settings...if it's a Q9550 with a non-stock multiplier it should be shown in red. If it's really a Q9450, then the chip is mislabeled as a Q9550 in the table. Possibly a typo. In short, the combination of the following means something is wrong: 1.) black text indicates a stock speed setting 2.) presence on the combined Intel/AMD table indicates a stock speed setting 3.) a chip labeled as Q9550 has a stock multi of 8.5, not 8, as shown in the table Either the chip is mislabeled in the table, or the table row should be colored red and then the chip should not be listed in the combined stock speeds table.
CDRInfo using the x264 benchmark CDRInfo used the graysky x264 benchmark in an Oct 15, 2007 review of X38 chipset motherboards. Using an Intel E6600 running on 3 different X38 chipset boards (1st pass, 2nd pass): Asus Blitz Formula 71.47, 17.21 Asus Maximus Formula 71.34, 17.22 Gigabyte GA-X38-DQ6 71.30, 17.19 Intel X38 Motherboard Roundup Intel X38 Motherboard Roundup --- One of my encoding benchmark irritants is when a site only lists the encoding times and not the encoding FPS, and also does not give much info about the encoded source (source material, length of source). Knowing encoding FPS is more useful to me so I can estimate how long other encode jobs are likely to take for content of the same resolution, at any source content framerate.
Pentium 4 Northwood 14x 200MHz i865P 2.5-3-3-8@200MHz XP Home SP2 ---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 26.42 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 26.40 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 26.20 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 26.46 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 26.42 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 6.26 fps, 1826.37 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 6.27 fps, 1826.26 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 6.24 fps, 1826.38 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 6.21 fps, 1826.38 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 6.21 fps, 1826.38 kb/s
Overclocked E2180 @ 3.2 ghz + VMware Server 1.0.4 Hello, I ran a few tests on an overclocked Intel Core2/Pentium Dual-Core E2180 @ 3.2 ghz (10x320) (stock speed 2 ghz, 10x200) on a Gigabyte GA-G33M-DS2R motherboard. The machine is running Ubuntu 7.10 (Gutsy) with VMware Server 1.0.4, installed from the 'ubuntu gutsy partner' repository. Windows XP SP2 was running in a virtual machine on VMware. Here are results of the x264 benchmark running on WinXP SP2under the VMware Server 1.0.4 virtual machine on Ubuntu on an otherwise idle Intel E2180 @ 3.2 ghz: First, performance with the VMware virtual machine set to a single processor. VMware Tools not installed: ---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 41.67 fps, 1854.10 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 42.65 fps, 1854.10 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 42.69 fps, 1854.10 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 41.68 fps, 1854.10 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 41.79 fps, 1854.10 kb/s ---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 10.42 fps, 1825.89 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 10.38 fps, 1825.89 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 10.32 fps, 1825.89 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 10.40 fps, 1825.89 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 10.02 fps, 1825.89 kb/s Second, performance with the VMware virtual machine set to a single processor. VMware Tools for Windows installed on the copy of WinXP SP2. ---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 42.64 fps, 1854.10 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 44.65 fps, 1854.10 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 44.31 fps, 1854.10 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 44.68 fps, 1854.10 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 44.69 fps, 1854.10 kb/s ---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 10.96 fps, 1825.89 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 10.92 fps, 1825.89 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 10.99 fps, 1825.89 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 11.04 fps, 1825.89 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 10.92 fps, 1825.89 kb/s Third, performance with the VMware virtual machine set to two processors, WinXP HAL changed to support two processors. VMware Tools for Windows installed on the copy of WinXP SP2. ---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 73.55 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 76.36 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 76.98 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 77.14 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 76.36 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 19.00 fps, 1826.37 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 19.20 fps, 1826.38 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 19.14 fps, 1826.37 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 19.06 fps, 1826.37 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 18.53 fps, 1826.37 kb/s My observations are: 1.) installing VMware Tools slightly helped performance ...I measured a boost of about 5.7% 2.) activating the second processor in the VMware virtual machine gave me a performance boost of 74% over the single processor configuration 3.) using the 2nd pass score of 20.93 fps from the E2160 @ 9x356=3.2ghz that is shown in the published benchmark results table, VMware may have an overhead of about 9.4% (20.93 fps/19.13 fps). This matches closely with a published stat for another VMware product: "for VMware ESX Server, we measured CPU overhead to be less than 10%." seen on http:// blogs.vmware.com/performance/2007/11/ten-reasons-why.html 4.) I don't think there is any measurable overheard on the single processor stats, as VMware could shift its own overhead to the otherwise unused processor. I did not run a test with a 2 processor virtual machine without VMware Tools. I do not have any tests of this processor at stock speeds, but they are likely very similar to the E2140 and E2160 results. I would like to run a test using Avisynth and x264 under WINE to see how that fares compared to VMware.
I just ran this on my new 8400 and decided to post the results sine I didn't see any Wolfdale results yet. CPU 8400 @ 4197 (466x9) DFI LP LT P35 A-Data 6400 4-4-4-12 @ 466 5-5-5-14 (2x1g ---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 120.88 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 121.14 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 121.14 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 121.15 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 121.01 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 30.92 fps, 1826.37 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 30.95 fps, 1826.38 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 30.89 fps, 1826.37 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 30.93 fps, 1826.37 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 30.94 fps, 1826.38 kb/s My old system 930 @ 3702 (247x15) Asus P5P800SE OCZ 4400 @ 247 3-3-3 ---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 51.25 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 50.97 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 50.95 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 51.39 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 51.32 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 13.00 fps, 1826.37 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 12.90 fps, 1826.22 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 12.90 fps, 1826.37 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 13.00 fps, 1826.37 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 12.99 fps, 1826.38 kb/s Quite an improvement for me (mostly do 1080i or 720p HDTV to xvid conversion).
Core 2 Duo E8200 334MHz x 8 x38 [email protected] Win Vista Ult 64 ---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 77.16 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 79.23 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 78.90 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 78.73 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 78.95 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 19.89 fps, 1826.37 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 19.91 fps, 1826.37 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 19.85 fps, 1826.37 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 19.91 fps, 1826.37 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 19.93 fps, 1826.37 kb/s
Core 2 Extrme QX9650, 9x333, X38, DDR3 8-8-8-24 @ 667 MHz, XP Pro SP2 -------------------------------------------- ---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 166.08 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 167.58 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 167.56 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 167.56 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 166.83 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 44.88 fps, 1829.12 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 44.88 fps, 1829.31 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 44.90 fps, 1829.37 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 45.01 fps, 1829.18 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 44.92 fps, 1829.26 kb/s ------------------------------------------------- Hi just run Your benchmark on QX9650 / @ Stock speeds sorry just had ''hash'' url , couldn't attach screen due to post amount ... (just replace ' * ' to ' t ' ) manually, sorry again h*tp://img145.imageshack.us/my.php?image=core2extrmeqx96509x333xyr7.png h*tp://img145.imageshack.us/img145/2357/core2extrmeqx96509x333xyr7.png ----- other system inf CPU: QX9650 / TRUE120 RAM: G.Skill F3-10600CL8D-2GBH (DDR3-1333) PC3-10600 1024Mb x2 CL-8-8-8-21 1.65v MBO: Maximuz Extreme GFX: Asus 8800 Ultra / Stock Air PSU: BQ! 1KW
Cheap 8 core system Processors: Two Intel E5410 2.33gHz Xeons (Harpertown) [8 total cores] CPU Multiplier x FSB: 7x333.34 Chipset: Intel 5100 (San Clemente) [Tyan 5100X Board] Memory: 5-5-5-13 @ 333mHz [DDR2 ECC Registered 4 gigs] OS: XP Pro SP2 This is the cheap [$1500 for the box] way of getting 8 cores ---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 144.81 fps, 1849.61 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 146.89 fps, 1849.61 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 144.81 fps, 1849.61 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 147.47 fps, 1849.61 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 144.63 fps, 1849.61 kb/s ---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 64.44 fps, 1834.86 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 64.63 fps, 1834.86 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 64.70 fps, 1834.86 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 64.70 fps, 1834.86 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 64.81 fps, 1834.91 kb/s 1st Pass Average: 145.72 2nd Pass Average: 64.66 1 pass time: 12s + 27s = 39s This is the most informative test I've seen on the net in the past three years. THANK YOU!! steve
Thanks for the recent data, all. Great to see some X38 based machines and some new 45 nm chips! I am updating the tables now and working with Adrian to replace the gif with a html table. Update will occur soon and sorry for the delay
@MD - looking forward to it. Finally updated the data tables on the x264 benchmark page. They are now html based (not .gif images) which makes my life updating them much easier. 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.
Windows XP Pro 32bit STOCK Wolfdale 1333 & E6750 2gig 667 Processor 1 (ID = 0) Number of cores 2 (max 2) Number of threads 2 (max 2) Name Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 Codename Conroe Specification Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6750 @ 2.66GHz Package Socket 775 LGA (platform ID = 0h) CPUID 6.F.B Extended CPUID 6.F Core Stepping G0 Technology 65 nm Core Speed 2619.6 MHz (8.0 x 327.5 MHz) Rated Bus speed 1309.8 MHz Stock frequency 2666 MHz Instructions sets MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, EM64T L1 Data cache 2 x 32 KBytes, 8-way set associative, 64-byte line size L1 Instruction cache 2 x 32 KBytes, 8-way set associative, 64-byte line size L2 cache 4096 KBytes, 16-way set associative, 64-byte line size FID/VID Control yes FID range 6.0x - 8.0x max VID 1.350 V Features , VT ------------------------------------------------------------- --------- RUN1PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 72.36 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 74.92 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 75.28 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 74.97 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 75.07 fps, 1850.89 kb/s ---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 18.37 fps, 1826.38 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 18.62 fps, 1826.37 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 18.51 fps, 1826.38 kb/s Now what does this mean?????? lol
The E6750 is a Conroe. DeePCyclE, your results alone may not mean much to you. You need to compare it against the performance of the other cards. You can check the results here - Tech ARP - x264 Benchmark
