Performance: Video Benchmarks
Source: Tom's Hardware – Keywords: e8500, phenom, e9350
Performance: Video Benchmarks
Converting five minutes of the Terminator 2 Special Edition DVD into the DivX 6.8.3 format doesn’t show a huge difference between the two processors, but Intel again is faster. It takes 6 minutes and 19 seconds for this workload, while the Phenom X4 e9350 takes almost one minute more.
For some reason, video transcoding into the popular XviD format (version 1.1.3) takes far less time on the Core 2 Duo E8500—the difference is significant.
We used Nero 8 Recode to shrink an 8.5 GB DVD9 video disc to fit onto a 4.7 GB DVD5—Nero is popular, and often comes bundled with DVD recording devices. This process is faster on the Core 2 Duo E8500 at 3.16 GHz than on the Phenom X4 e9350 quad core running at 2.0 GHz. Again, clock speed matters, especially when the Intel architecture is superior.
The Mainconcept 1.5.1 benchmark converts MPEG2 FullHD video into the H.264 format. Although the benchmark scales well with as many as eight cores—we used an Intel Skulltrail system to try this—the 2.0 GHz quad core isn’t enough to beat Intel’s 3.16 GHz dual core.
Pinnacle’s Studio 12 video editing suite requites quite a bit of processing power to transcode video and add transitions and other effects. Again, the Core 2 Duo at its 3.16 GHz clock speed is the much faster solution.
- Previous page Performance: Game and Audio Benchmarks
- Next page Performance: Applications
- Imitation To Innovation: AMD's Best CPUs
- Athlon Vs. Atom: Duel Of The Energy Savers
- Intel's 15 Most Unforgettable x86 CPUs
- Atom Benchmarked: 4W Of Performance
- Centrino 2 Exposed: A Name Deserved?
- iBuypower Gamer 942IL: Best of the Best?
- Nvidia's CUDA: The End of the CPU?
- Intel Atom CPU Review
- Comparative Component Charts
- First Look: Intel's Atom CPU
"The Mainconcept 1.5.1 benchmark converts MPEG2 FullHD video into the H.264 format. Although the benchmark scales well with as many as eight cores—we used an Intel Skulltrail system to try this—the 2.0 GHz quad core isn’t enough to beat Intel’s 3.16 GHz dual core."
According to the graph you show us, it is...
Do you even have an editor anymore? This article is yet another nail in toms coffin. The graphs are wrong (two items on each graph and you still manage to swap them over), the words are wrong (eg 3.16 quad!!!) and worse still the article is pointless.
Here's another apples to oranges for you:
I own a motorbike and a car, both do 40mpg and both cost the same. But wait the car has more seats AND more wheels, its safer in an accident too so it must be better than the bike. oh no did i forget to look at the bikes good points never mind.
And why choose the low power version, you could have used a cheaper high power version and underclocked/undervolted to reduce power OR accept the fact that four cores should use more power than two but seeing as you didn't want to show the quad win anything i guess you can't accept that.
I guess whoever is in charge these days is only concerned with ad revenue not content or integrety
"Supreme Commander shows the same results: it runs much faster on the Intel dual core than it does on AMD’s quad core. Since the performance difference is 80%, the clock speed difference alone isn’t enough to account for the tremendous difference."
Wrong again. According to graph, Phenom is faster than C2D, not the other way around.
This artical is a little to bias to Intel for my liking. When applications that do support 4 cores are tested and unsuprisingly the AMD chip wins, they dont praise it, they just praise the intel chip instead for coming a close 2nd. While all the applications that dont support 4 cores get praise for Intel for winning and not to AMD for coming second.
The whole artical makes no sence about what it does compare.
My conclusion for the artical the E8500 3.16 GHz wins on all single/double core applications but when 4 cores are used the AMD Phenom X4 e9350 2.0 GHz wins. Which is what we should expect anyway.
This article is interesting from the standpoint of software, the main thing I see from this is just how little use applications currently make of extra cores.
Nehalem...sorry Core i7...yes, yes that's much better...will surely have an impact on applications use of multithreading. Or will it? with 'turbo-mode' perhaps there is no need for software to use those extra cores.
Annoyingly left out was the overclocking performance of these two processors. As we know Intel's current chips annihilate the competition in overclockability providing extra Hertz for just a few hours time. These E8500 are easily hitting 4GHz I do tend to wonder if the advantage the AMD had in some tests wouldnt be eliminated when both chips were fully OC'd.
What i was interesting in is,
having the benchmarks run with a current antivirus software "allways on", as it should, at least, be users default configuration.
thanx
Tom's, please replace your eeditor with any small child. I could have seen the mistakes here when I was 9.
Tom's, please replace your eeditor with any small child. I could have seen the mistakes here when I was 9.
However, I did make a typo when making that comment
A fast dual-core is best for games
An energy-efficient quad is good for use as a home/media server
^ I did that without looking at the article. Am I right? Hang on... yep, pretty much.
How'd I manage that? Well, it ain't cuz i'm psychic, that's for sure. It's because WE KNEW ALL THIS ALREADY TOM!
Games are more responsive to raw power and are less heavily threaded - most are threaded for dual-core, but as of yet relatively few can make good use of a massively multicore platform (except well-coded PS3 games, and that's a different subject entirely!). Modern applications, especially graphical, media (encoders!) and file-based (server/AV) are designed to split and combine threads on-the-fly and with Vista in tow really need a quad to crunch them efficiently in the background.
So what was the point of this article again exactly? Telling us what's very common knowledge?
I was hoping u did abit more the real workstation apps. particularly Virtualization. And running on Vista 64 bit.
For applications that are dependent on core speed, the AMD does not do so bad. Let's also remember that the AMD chip is being used in a chipset that offers HD playback and half-decent 3D game support..the same cannot be said for Intel-based chipsests. I would also go with AMD for a cheap, fast server..where the architecture comes into it's own (especially core-to-core and memory performance).
That's because Intel doesn't have a native quad core. It's also the reason why some of the world's fastest super-computers rely on AMD hardware. Intel may have caught up with AMD in the desktop sector (bar chipsets and graphics cards), but the server/cluster/super-computer sectors use AMD for a reason. The people knocking AMD should do well to remember that, perhaps.