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.aspx?artno=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.
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.
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.php?p=314032&postcount=55
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?
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!
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
thanks for the results, max. Just need the mem timings and mem core speed... also what is the codename of that chip?
---------- 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 [email protected] B3 Stepping P965/ICH8 GigaByte 965P-DS3 4GB of Generic Samsung Memory 833@5-6-6-17 WinXP 32bit
Thanks for the data, Mark. What is your multiplier and FSB? Also, if I'm understanding it correctly, you're running the memory @ 813 MHz?
9x333 ,yes, cpu-z reports 416.5Mhz x 2=833, FSB to Memory ratio made it that way, seems to run fine that way, though found NB to run very hot at 1333 FSB
8x475, Intel Q6600 G0 ES @ 3.8GHz, 2x1GB DDR-1190 (4:5) @ 5-5-5-12, DFI P35-T2R (Intel P35), WinXP Pro SP2 (32-bit) ---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 209.61 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 213.63 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 208.46 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 208.46 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 208.07 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 54.39 fps, 1829.20 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 54.07 fps, 1829.40 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 54.31 fps, 1829.12 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 54.28 fps, 1829.13 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 54.34 fps, 1829.47 kb/s
Oops XD Venice DH-E6 As for memory, I'm running it @ 1:1, so 200MHz. Timing is 2.5-3-3-7, 2T command rate.
more results, trying to catch the guys with 8 cores... 9x435, Intel Q6600 G0 ES @ 3915MHz, 2x1GB DDR-1090 (4:5) @ 5-5-5-12, DFI P35-T2R (Intel P35), WinXP Pro SP2 (32-bit) ---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 211.59 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 215.26 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 211.59 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 212.00 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 212.39 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 55.19 fps, 1829.18 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 55.58 fps, 1829.36 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 55.75 fps, 1829.47 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 55.66 fps, 1829.34 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 55.69 fps, 1829.46 kb/s
