Buy the ARP T-Shirt! BIOS Optimization Guide Money Savers!
 
 30 November 2008
 N/A
  N/A
 Comparisons
 Adrian Wong
 2.7
 Discuss here !
 563974
 
   
Hard Disk Drive Myths Debunked Rev. 5.1
This guide was written in response to the numerous fallacies about the hard disk driv... Read here
Desktop CPU Comparison Guide Rev. 13.2
There are so many CPU models that it has become quite impossible to keep up with the ... Read here
   
Buy The BOG Book Subscribe To The BOG! Latest Money Savers!
Intel Core 2 Processor Performance Comparison Guide Rev. 2.7
Digg! Reddit!Add to Reddit | Bookmark this article:

x264 Benchmark

The x264 Benchmark is the work of graysky here at Tech ARP. It basically measures how fast the processor can encode a short DVD-quality MPEG-2 video clip into a high-quality x264 video clip. This is a two-pass encoding process and hence, the results will show the encoding speed (in frames per second) for each pass.

To download and try x264 Benchmark yourself, head over to the x264 Benchmark page. You can also take a look at the more comprehensive processor comparisons there.

 

Render Time

The x264 encoder supports multi-core processors. Hence, there is a huge performance difference between the quad-core and dual-core Core 2 processors. The quad-core Q6600, which ran at the same clock speed as the dual-core E6600, was 85.8% faster in Pass 1 and exactly twice as fast in Pass 2. Similarly, the quad-core QX6850, running at the same speed as the dual-core E8650, was 82% faster in Pass 1 and 98.6% faster in Pass 2.

The 45nm quad-core QX9650, similar to the QX6850 except for the larger L2 cache, was the fastest processor in the comparison. It was faster than the QX6850 by 5.5% in Pass 1 and 7.2% in Pass 2, and the E6850 by 92.1% in Pass 1 and just over 113% in Pass 2. The much cheaper Q9550 was a tad faster than the QX6850 even with a 9.2% slower clock speed. The Q9450 was halfway between the QX6700 and the QX6800 in performance.

The fastest dual-core Core 2 processor in the comparison was now the new 45nm E8600. It was faster than the older 65nm E6850 by 14% (Pass 1) and 18% (Pass 2). But it was much slower than the quad-core processors. Even the slowest quad-core processor in this comparison, the Q6600 was 35.4% faster in Pass 1 and 37.1% faster in Pass 2.

 

Aggregated Results

To make it easier to compare the results, we colour-coded the chart.

In the following comparison, we colour-coded the results for easy comparison. Yellow would denote the rendering speed of the first pass. The colour orange would denote the rendering speed of the second pass.

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support out work by visiting our sponsors, participate in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donate to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!

The Performance Comparison

Introduction
The Processors

Benchmark Details & Settings

The Testbed
Testing Methodology
Game Settings

Games

Supreme Commander

Crysis CPU Test 2 (Ice)

3D Rendering

CINEBENCH R10

Media Encoding

x264 Benchmark

Math Calculations

Super PI Mod

Conclusion

Conclusion



<<< CINEBENCH R10 : Previous Page   |   Next Page : Super PI Mod >>>

 
   
NVIDIA GPU Boost Tech Report
Western Digital Caviar Green (WD30EZRX) 3 TB Desktop Hard Disk Drive Review
The October '07 Samsung-Tech ARP Bloggers TT Program Rev. 4.0
Razer Copperhead Gaming Mouse Pictorial Review
NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GX2 Graphics Card Review Rev. 1.1
Secure Your Wireless Network
Seagate 5GB Pocket Hard Drive Review Rev. 2.0
Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED Lens Review Rev. 1.1
Complete ATI Radeon 9800XT Voltage Modding Guide
Definitive Review of the 512MB Mushkin PC3500 Black Dual Pack DDR Memory

 
 


Copyright © Tech ARP.com. All rights reserved.