14/03/2010, 04:24 AM
14/03/2010, 05:17 AM
Senseito7 Wrote:Newer revisions of x264 are going to have speed improvements as well...
Yes, quite a bit of difference.
With x264 r1442. (It says 1342, but that's because the number's built into the script and it doesn't actually check).
Spoiler for results:
Code:
|
Senseito7 Wrote:how can wee compare benchmarks if wee use different build of x264...
Use a designated version.
14/03/2010, 05:25 AM
Assassinator Wrote:Senseito7 Wrote:how can wee compare benchmarks if wee use different build of x264...
Use a designated version.
>_>
which one are wee going to use it then?
It seems only Joe88 is having problems with the Benchmarks version :/
14/03/2010, 05:40 AM
Senseito7 Wrote:Assassinator Wrote:Senseito7 Wrote:how can wee compare benchmarks if wee use different build of x264...
Use a designated version.
>_>
which one are wee going to use it then?
It seems only Joe88 is having problems with the Benchmarks version :/
That's only his laptop. His normal computer works fine.
Or you could just choose a recent version (like 1471), if you really want.
14/03/2010, 02:05 PM
yea, laptop didnt like the ver they threw in there
desktop crashed because of a slightly unstable OC
desktop crashed because of a slightly unstable OC
14/03/2010, 08:21 PM
Senseito7 Wrote:Assassinator Wrote:1. PCMark Vantage was the benchmark I was talking about where the core2duos ripped up the corei7s.
That's pretty spoon of Futuremark O_o
anyway, lets give x264 Benchmark a shot, I've added relevent info and a board ready for first score. Work machine testing shall commence xD
Errrr.... actually, I had a look again. He didn't specify which PCMark, and wee simply assumed it was the new one. But infact, it's PCMark05.
So yeah, mystery solved.
ProperBritish Wrote:someone needs to add an x264 benchmark table to the OP
I'll do that now.
EDIT: Done...
Ok... Tabling Methodologies.
- Ranking is based on 2nd pass results (not that it matters at the moment, but it could in the future). Because.
- Results are picked from the fastest of each of the set of 4 scores. This makes it easier to update the tables (don't need to do any maths). And it's a better measure than the average in a lot of cases anyway.
15/03/2010, 06:33 AM
greg from psp-hacks Wrote:Core i7 should be fairly good with single threaded stuff with Turbo Boost.
Actually, the Benchmark site says to turn it off.
15/03/2010, 09:36 AM
Spoiler for results:
Code:
|
22/03/2010, 08:18 PM
As expected, the 6 core i7 Extreme 980X kicks donkey in this benchmark:
![[Image: 21965.png]](http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/corei7980x_031010193451/21965.png)
![[Image: 21966.png]](http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/corei7980x_031010193451/21966.png)
Source: http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3763
Just for anyone interested to see how they compare with the best.
Source: http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3763
Just for anyone interested to see how they compare with the best.
22/03/2010, 08:35 PM
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:As expected, the 6 core i7 Extreme 980X kicks donkey in this benchmark:
Well, encoding is one of the most CPU dependent things out there, and scales almost directly with total CPU power.
That's about 3 times my performance (counting 2nd pass ofcourse).
But almost noone cares about their encoding speed (who encodes stuff a lot here? Me and... me?), and almost everyone care about their gaming instead. Too bad for gaming it'll be more like a 2% difference in FPS (which you can't even notice) than 200%.
That being said, if you're not an encoderfag like me, why even buy powerful CPUs? Get yourself a core i5 or PII and be happy. The GPU is a 10x better place to dump your extra funds if you want to play games better.