Sony Vegas Pro 8: Blu-ray Disc Creation

Although technically a test simulating the creation of a Blu-ray disc, the majority of the time in our Sony Vegas Pro benchmark is spent encoding the 25Mbps MPEG-2 video stream and not actually creating the Blu-ray disc itself.

Sony Vegas Pro 8 - Blu-ray Disc Image Creation (25Mbps MPEG-2)

As we saw in previous reviews, even the Q9550 is unable to outperform AMD's Phenom II 940 in our Sony Vegas BD creation test. The Q8400 doesn't stand a chance.

Sorenson Squeeze: FLV Creation

Another video related benchmark, we're using Sorenson Squeeze to convert regular videos into Flash videos for use on websites.

Sorenson Squeeze Pro 5 - Flash Video Creation

3dsmax 9, Cinebench R10, POV-Ray 3.7 and Blender 2.48a Performance Microsoft Excel & Archiving Performance
Comments Locked

60 Comments

View All Comments

  • erple2 - Saturday, May 9, 2009 - link

    while there may be fewer defects per wafer, there are also fewer chips per wafer (about 57% fewer). To take the analogy to the extreme, lets say that AMD makes one chip that consumes the entire wafer, and Intel can make 2. If there is, on average, 1 defect per wafer for AMD and 5 defects per wafer for Intel, AMD has zero good chips per wafer, and Intel has (on average), 2 good chips per 5 wafers. That example is horribly contrived, sure, but I used it to show that even having a better process (fewer defects per wafer) doesn't guarantee a good result if the size of the chunks you use on the wafer is significantly larger - AMD's can fit quite a few less per wafer (about half?).
  • erple2 - Saturday, May 9, 2009 - link

    arg... edit button... Intel would have 1 good chip per 3 wafers. I assumed 4 defects per wafer, not 5 in the 2/5 ...
  • slayerized - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - link

    You are confusing yield and throughput - they are two different things.
  • 8steve8 - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - link

    no Virtualization Tech... so no windows 7 virtual PC, no hyper-v...

    that sucks.

    rather go phenom 2, intel e8xxx or q9xxx
  • ltcommanderdata - Friday, May 8, 2009 - link

    I don't think the lack of VT will be a huge issue for the average consumer. The Q8400 is a budget quad core and OEMs will no doubt be bundling Windows 7 Home Premium with it which doesn't support XP Mode anyways. Tech savy buyers who build their own computers with a Q8400 and Professional Edition would notice, but the larger impediment to XP Mode adoption is probably still Microsoft's production edition matrix.
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - link

    Very good point, I've updated the conclusion to point out the difference. Honestly it's ridiculous that Intel isn't enabling it on these chips.

    Take care,
    Anand
  • spazmedia - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - link

    I second this. Just bought a intel box with an E5200 thinking it had VT. Hopefully they will follow AMD's lead.

  • GeorgeH - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - link

    +1

    No support for Windows 7 XP Mode is the reason I chose AMD over an Intel Q8X00 in the PC I just built.
  • leomax999 - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - link

    Intel has announced vt support for Q8300, E7400, E7500, E5300, E5400.
    So i dont see any reason why q8400 shouldnt get it.
    http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=25...">http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=25...
  • GeorgeH - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - link

    Thanks for the link, but to be clear the chips you listed will never support VT.

    Intel is supposed to be releasing Q8300".1", E7400".1", etc. chips, but unless they change the model number I can only see that leading to mass confusion. Forcing average people to check the S-Spec or MM number against a list to see what they're actually getting is a classic recipe for fail.

    Until those updated Intel chips hit the market, AMD will remain the only real choice for budget and midrange quad core.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now