Phenom II 955 to Intel i5 750 for video encoding?

[arthurleung]

have you tried AMD/ATI's Avivo Video Converter?
it's available from the drivers download page:
http://game.amd.com/us-en/drivers_ca...indows-7-64bit

I think you'll need to play with getting the right codecs installed to make full use of it.

When I was trying out MediaCoder's CUDA support last week I was seeing 2x speed improvements with my half working 9800GX2 (so on par with 9800GT). I was getting encoding throughput of 150MBs encoding to x264

Speed is pretty irrelevant, when you are not comparing the settings.
My typical x264 encoding run at 0.6FPS at 33% cpu usage (3x to get 100%). GPU encoders cannot use such high settings.

Anyone using GPU encoding is certainly not aiming for quality. No point having it encode 5-50x times faster when you need 2-4x the bitrate / filesize to achieve the same quality

[Ben Rogers]

the AMD has 2MB l2 cache in total! omg, even this very old dual core c2d e6850 has 4mb between just 2 cores so 2mb a core is fine but 512kb a core...and I thought the Intel processors can do more work per clock cycle?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

the AMD has 2MB l2 cache in total! omg, even this very old dual core c2d e6850 has 4mb between just 2 cores so 2mb a core is fine but 512kb a core...and I thought the Intel processors can do more work per clock cycle?

You are forgetting that the AMD Phenom II has 6MB of L3 cache and secondly the software Ulti is running is not fully utilising the 4 cores of the CPU.


Going from one quad core to another is pointless in this case and getting a hyperthreaded quad core is going to be a very expensive upgrade too since it would be an entire platform change. If the Phenom II X6 is priced to take on the lower end Core i7 processors this probably is the most cost effective upgrade IMHO.

[Terbinator]

What will be better though, 6 cores or 8 threads ?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

What will be better though, 6 cores or 8 threads ?

Until we see the actual reviews it will be hard to say.

[Terbinator]

Aye it will be good to see some reviews although judging from my own experience the i7's will be faster - program dependant ofc.

[Ben Rogers]

You are forgetting that the AMD Phenom II has 6MB of L3 cache and secondly the software Ulti is running is not fully utilising the 4 cores of the CPU.


Going from one quad core to another is pointless in this case and getting a hyperthreaded quad core is going to be a very expensive upgrade too since it would be an entire platform change. If the Phenom II X6 is priced to take on the lower end Core i7 processors this probably is the most cost effective upgrade IMHO.

Oh it has L3 cache too? Didnt know that as I haven't read up on the newer AMD stuff, though I built a PC for someone with a Dual core Athlon II 2.8 Regor core and I am sure that had no L3 cache at all, at least CPU-z didn't mention it :S

[circuitmonkey]

Speed is pretty irrelevant, when you are not comparing the settings.
My typical x264 encoding run at 0.6FPS at 33% cpu usage (3x to get 100%). GPU encoders cannot use such high settings.

Anyone using GPU encoding is certainly not aiming for quality. No point having it encode 5-50x times faster when you need 2-4x the bitrate / filesize to achieve the same quality

That may well be, I certainly haven't done the research, but my aim was to encoded to a supported codec whilst dropping the bitrate and resolution for viewing on a mobile phone. When watching on 320x240 screen quality isn't all that important hey! All I can say is that I was very pleased with the output and it played back flawlessly under android

[kalniel]

Speed is pretty irrelevant, when you are not comparing the settings.
My typical x264 encoding run at 0.6FPS at 33% cpu usage (3x to get 100%). GPU encoders cannot use such high settings.

Anyone using GPU encoding is certainly not aiming for quality. No point having it encode 5-50x times faster when you need 2-4x the bitrate / filesize to achieve the same quality

He did say he was encoding for a phone didn't he?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Oh it has L3 cache too? Didnt know that as I haven't read up on the newer AMD stuff, though I built a PC for someone with a Dual core Athlon II 2.8 Regor core and I am sure that had no L3 cache at all, at least CPU-z didn't mention it :S

The Athlon II has no L3 cache but the Phenom II does!!

The Athlon II X2 has 1MB of L2 cache per core whereas the Athlon II X3 and X4 have 512KB of L2 cache per core.

However AMD processors under £100 tend to have more cores at a similar price when compared to many Intel processors.

Look at this comparison of the 2.9GHZ X3 435 and 2.93GHZ E7500:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/defau...=112&p2=87&c=1

The X3 435 has no L3 cache and only 512KB L2 cache per core whereas the E7500 has 1.5MB of L2 cache per core and is more expensive:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/defau...=112&p2=87&c=1

[DanceswithUnix]

...and the AMD chips have more L1 cache, and the cache levels are exclusive not inclusive.

It is just a different way of doing things.

ISTR the Intel cache is faster though, which is probably more relevant than whether their size & configuration gives a ~0.1% better hit rate.