Endless Paradigm

Assassinator Wrote:

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%.

How much does that cost?

980x is 880 pounds over here at local store

technically i could buy one straight offf with my cash rebate when it comes but then i need new ram and board xD

squee666 Wrote:

Assassinator Wrote:

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%.

How much does that cost?

980x is 880 pounds over here at local store

technically i could buy one straight offf with my cash rebate when it comes but then i need new ram and board xD

youd be buttfudge crazy to do so

but so awesome at the same time

lol

this is what a my q9550 is capable of you can see where i7 beats it in second pass

Results for x264.exe r1342
--------------------------
encoded 1442 frames, 64.19 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 65.19 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 65.19 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 64.19 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 25.66 fps, 3971.41 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 25.61 fps, 3952.90 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 25.59 fps, 3971.96 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 25.62 fps, 3964.79 kb/s


not sure whot result to se,.

also i tried 3dmark vantage again with new nvidia driver but its minor difference :(

Vegetano1 Wrote:Results for x264.exe r1342
--------------------------
encoded 1442 frames, 64.19 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 65.19 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 65.19 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 64.19 fps, 3899.02 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 25.66 fps, 3971.41 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 25.61 fps, 3952.90 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 25.59 fps, 3971.96 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 25.62 fps, 3964.79 kb/s


not sure whot result to se,.

also i tried 3dmark vantage again with new nvidia driver but its minor difference :(

[pointless gloat]yay i beat you by 0.5fps on 2nd pass[/pointless gloat]

i love you really V1

wee have the rigs that could pull cars with their power

Hmmm... I should take our old 486 laptop and test it on that...  0.05fps?


EDIT:  Fuck, that won't work, since they probably use one of the "generic" x264 compiles from x264.nl which needs SSE2 minimum...  I can compile my own, but then I can't get the source code for that version they're using any more.

Assassinator Wrote:Hmmm... I should take our old 486 laptop and test it on that...  0.05fps?


EDIT:  Fuck, that won't work, since they probably use one of the "generic" x264 compiles from x264.nl which needs SSE2 minimum...  I can compile my own, but then I can't get the source code for that version they're using any more.

You had be using windows 1 >?>?

I think the builds on x264.nl are i686 (Pentium Pro) so you'd probably need to build an i386 one.  But will Avisynth work on Win95? (does it have enough RAM for Win95?)  Windows 3.1 won't work as it's 16-bit. (don't think x264 can be compiled for the original x86 platform, but maybe I'm wrong).

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote: [ -> ]But will Avisynth work on Win95? (does it have enough RAM for Win95?)  Windows 3.1 won't work as it's 16-bit. (don't think x264 can be compiled for the original x86 platform, but maybe I'm wrong).

I have no idea, and I'm sort of too busy to research it right now.  Got like 3 more tests this week.

encoded 1442 frames, 63.88 fps, 3901.21 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 64.91 fps, 3900.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 64.01 fps, 3901.21 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 64.69 fps, 3901.21 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 19.21 fps, 3970.88 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 19.26 fps, 3971.25 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 19.17 fps, 3970.42 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 19.19 fps, 3970.40 kb/s

finally got to run it on pc