Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 49 to 59 of 59

Thread: AMD Chip Rapes Intel C2Duo discussion

  1. #49
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,672
    Thanks
    747
    Thanked
    1,498 times in 1,263 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 35 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL
    Just found this thread, my first thought was "are you running 64 bit Linux"

    Firstly, the SSE implementation is I gather different on the 2 platforms, so if the SSE is done in small chunks then the AMD will be faster. That can of course be optimised out.
    The other thing that strikes me: The AMD is only at 80% on one core, so you have a bottleneck. If you can feed the CPU faster, you will get more out of it.

  2. #50
    Agent of the System ikonia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    South West UK (Bath)
    Posts
    3,736
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked
    75 times in 56 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    Just found this thread, my first thought was "are you running 64 bit Linux"

    Firstly, the SSE implementation is I gather different on the 2 platforms, so if the SSE is done in small chunks then the AMD will be faster. That can of course be optimised out.
    The other thing that strikes me: The AMD is only at 80% on one core, so you have a bottleneck. If you can feed the CPU faster, you will get more out of it.
    I think you may have miss-understood - take a re-read of the thread.

    The fact that the AMD is spreading the load out over multiple cores is a GOOD thing and making the AMD faster. The Intel C2d's are by comparision perfoming poor by bottlenecking 1 CPU core.
    It is Inevitable.....


  3. #51
    Agent of the System ikonia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    South West UK (Bath)
    Posts
    3,736
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked
    75 times in 56 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by directhex View Post
    x264 threads like a dream - ~181%

    shame you want mpeg4 part 2, not mpeg4 part 10

    As you know - I'm not big on the multimedia codec thing - so can you enlighten me on the differences, part 2 and part 10 ???

    I'm using xvid for a.) good compression ratio for the quality I want b.) compatability.

    I'm open to other options, more so if it lets me utilise hardware.
    It is Inevitable.....


  4. #52
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,672
    Thanks
    747
    Thanked
    1,498 times in 1,263 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 35 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL
    I believe I have understood the thread, I guess I am not making my point clearly.

    One core should be at max if the system is CPU limited. Both cores at max would be nice, but most programs don't balance that well.

    You have a total of zero cores maxxed out on the AMD chip, so you are not CPU limited and have a bottleneck somewhere else (hard drive for example).

  5. #53
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,672
    Thanks
    747
    Thanked
    1,498 times in 1,263 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 35 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL
    Another thought. If you are blocking up work across multiple machines, then can you run your transcoding job twice on the Intel box and not bother with multi thread support?

  6. #54
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    30,948
    Thanks
    1,845
    Thanked
    3,357 times in 2,698 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish
    That is true, but it could also mean that the AMD CPU is not being stretched as much as an Intel core, thus something else inevitably becomes the bottleneck.

    If the thread dispatch/balancing wasn't performing well in Intels case then one core could be unevenly loaded, causing the CPU to become a bottleneck sooner.

  7. #55
    Comfortably Numb directhex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    /dev/urandom
    Posts
    17,074
    Thanks
    228
    Thanked
    1,027 times in 678 posts
    • directhex's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus ROG Strix B550-I Gaming
      • CPU:
      • Ryzen 5900x
      • Memory:
      • 64GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Seagate Firecuda 520
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GeForce RTX 3080 XC3 Ultra
      • PSU:
      • EVGA SuperNOVA 850W G3
      • Case:
      • NZXT H210i
      • Operating System:
      • Ubuntu 20.04, Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG 34GN850
      • Internet:
      • FIOS
    Quote Originally Posted by ikonia View Post
    As you know - I'm not big on the multimedia codec thing - so can you enlighten me on the differences, part 2 and part 10 ???

    I'm using xvid for a.) good compression ratio for the quality I want b.) compatability.

    I'm open to other options, more so if it lets me utilise hardware.
    mpeg4 part 2 covers one family of codecs - divx, xvid, 3ivx, nero digital, and others. in theory, if foodevice supports one of the above codecs, it should support all of them (since they're all implementations of the same spec)

    mpeg4 part 10 is a different family of codecs - also known as avc or h264 (x264 being an open source implementation). it's newer, requires beefier hardware to encode or decode, but is significantly better at encoding. it's being pushed for HD content, and is one of the three codecs approved for use with HD discs (along with ye olde mpeg2 and microsoftian wmv9). sky hd uses it, fr'example. compatibility is nowhere near as universal as xvid/divx, so it's a question of use case as to whether it works for you

  8. Received thanks from:

    ikonia (01-08-2007)

  9. #56
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,672
    Thanks
    747
    Thanked
    1,498 times in 1,263 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 35 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL
    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    That is true, but it could also mean that the AMD CPU is not being stretched as much as an Intel core, thus something else inevitably becomes the bottleneck.
    Exactly.

    The CPU is spending time waiting, so *something* else in the system is running 100%.

    Is the work coming in over gigabit ethernet by any chance? If so, what chipsets are involved?

  10. Received thanks from:

    ikonia (01-08-2007)

  11. #57
    Comfortably Numb directhex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    /dev/urandom
    Posts
    17,074
    Thanks
    228
    Thanked
    1,027 times in 678 posts
    • directhex's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus ROG Strix B550-I Gaming
      • CPU:
      • Ryzen 5900x
      • Memory:
      • 64GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Seagate Firecuda 520
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GeForce RTX 3080 XC3 Ultra
      • PSU:
      • EVGA SuperNOVA 850W G3
      • Case:
      • NZXT H210i
      • Operating System:
      • Ubuntu 20.04, Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG 34GN850
      • Internet:
      • FIOS
    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    Exactly.

    The CPU is spending time waiting, so *something* else in the system is running 100%.

    Is the work coming in over gigabit ethernet by any chance? If so, what chipsets are involved?
    You assume a trivially parallel scenario, if you expect 100% utilization of both cores

    If there's an interdependent uneven workload on both, then it'll never properly go at full tilt

    At any rate, testing suggests the AMD versus Intel problem is entirely in the xvid code, which solves the original question

  12. Received thanks from:

    ikonia (01-08-2007)

  13. #58
    Agent of the System ikonia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    South West UK (Bath)
    Posts
    3,736
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked
    75 times in 56 posts
    work is not being spread out across multiple machines - multiple machines are working indepentandly
    It is Inevitable.....


  14. #59
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,672
    Thanks
    747
    Thanked
    1,498 times in 1,263 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 35 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL
    Quote Originally Posted by directhex View Post
    You assume a trivially parallel scenario, if you expect 100% utilization of both cores

    If there's an interdependent uneven workload on both, then it'll never properly go at full tilt

    At any rate, testing suggests the AMD versus Intel problem is entirely in the xvid code, which solves the original question
    I was expecting a 100% on *one* core, not both. I got the impression that mpeg encoding was a pipeline rather than 2 threads handing stuff back and forward to each other. Not an mpeg expert, so if you say otherwise that is fine by me.

    I understand the xvid core is wonky here, but was just wondering if the systems could go faster. Hence my comment of trying to use the core2 box as if it was 2 single core PCs to get around XVID's problems, and trying to look for other bottlenecks on the AMD box.

    I just like things to go fast, it's a weakness I know

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Intel or AMD for dual core processor??
    By christiani in forum Help! Quick Relief From Tech Headaches
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 15-12-2006, 10:56 PM
  2. AMD or Intel
    By Saracen in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-09-2006, 11:43 AM
  3. HEXUS.beans :: AMD bans Intel notebooks!
    By Steve in forum HEXUS News
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-08-2006, 08:28 PM
  4. Intel don't know how to deal with AMD
    By Steve in forum HEXUS News
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-04-2006, 04:08 PM
  5. Do you get an 'XP rating' applied when you o/c?
    By Austin in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 11-12-2003, 03:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •