PAR2 Multithreaded Archive Recovery Performance

Par2 is an application used for reconstructing downloaded archives. It can generate parity data from a given archive and later use it to recover the archive

Chuchusoft took the source code of par2cmdline 0.4 and parallelized it using Intel’s Threading Building Blocks 2.1. The result is a version of par2cmdline that can spawn multiple threads to repair par2 archives. For this test we took a 708MB archive, corrupted nearly 60MB of it, and used the multithreaded par2cmdline to recover it. The scores reported are the repair and recover time in seconds.

Data Recovery - par2cmdline 0.4 Multithreaded

Microsoft Excel 2007

Excel can be a very powerful mathematical tool. In this benchmark we're running a Monte Carlo simulation on a very large spreadsheet of stock pricing data.

Microsoft Excel 2007 SP1 - Monte Carlo Simulation

The same is true for our Excel Monte Carlo simulation - where there's an Intel optimization, the performance is predictable.

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 spend 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)

More of the same here - the 965 BE is faster than any LGA-775 Intel CPU here, but compared to i7 it's noticeably slower.

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

I'm running out of ways to say that the standings remain unchanged.

WinRAR - Archive Creation

Our WinRAR test simply takes 300MB of files and compresses them into a single RAR archive using the application's default settings. We're not doing anything exotic here, just looking at the impact of CPU performance on creating an archive:

WinRAR 3.8 Compression - 300MB Archive

The standings remain unchanged.

3D Rendering Performance Gaming Performance
POST A COMMENT

56 Comments

View All Comments

  • FireSnake - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    You really need to grow up with this 140W and take a very close look at the power consumption table ;) Reply
  • JimmiG - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    It's not like the 140W TDP happened by accident or took AMD by surprise. 120 - 140W has been the target TDP for high-end CPUs for a long time. At this targeted TDP, AMD found a 3.4 GHz chip could be produced with decent yields. Some thought, research and design goes into the launch of a new CPU even if it's just a 200 MHz clockspeed bump.

    Don't worry, we'll not see a 160W or 180W CPU any time soon since 140W is a sensible target. Modern heatpipe coolers, mobos and PSUs have no trouble with them.

    If you think the difference between a 65W and a 140W CPU is too much, you must live in a very dark house or apartment since each light bulb consumes almost that entire difference.
    Reply
  • PrinceGaz - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link

    My lightbulbs consume between 12 and 20W of power each as I long since left behind inefficient incandescent bulbs. Reply
  • hyc - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    You guys are reading way too much into that 140W TDP spec. Look at the loaded power consumption results, the 965 is 223W vs 220W for the 955. So it's using a whopping 3W more than the 955, BFD.
    Reply
  • Griswold - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Some people seem to miss the T for Thermal in that figure indeed. Reply
  • hyc - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Ah, so which part of the Laws of Thermodynamics did you skip in school?

    You can't emit more power out (thermal or otherwise) than you took in.
    Reply
  • Griswold - Saturday, August 15, 2009 - link

    Thats not the point, dummy, its the maximum heat disssipation and that people mistake it for the power it draws from the wall plug. Got it? Reply
  • Eeqmcsq - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    "The 800 series Phenom II X4 is gone, as are the DDR2-only Phenom II X4 940 and 920. Most of the 700 series is also done with."

    I can understand AMD ending the 800 series and the AM2+ only Phenom IIs. But is this statement saying that AMD won't upgrade their X3 720 to a faster triple core, despite better yields? Many people have said that the 720 is AMD's best bang-for-the-buck value. I'd think that AMD would update this segment also.
    Reply
  • Ryun - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    My guess is AMD is working on positioning their lineup to fight against Lynnfield in the lower end. The triple cores are awesome, no doubt but look at what we've got now:

    1.) Phenom II 945 with a TDP of 95W, Phenom II 720 with a TDP of 95W. I'm willing to bet that AMD is planning to move an AMD 925 down to around the same price as the 720. OEMs will love the lower heat requirements and the lowered price. These are going to combat probably against the Core i5's without hyperthreading and from what I've seen I'd wager they'd do pretty well.

    2.) Last I checked there were still plans to make triple and quad cores of the athlon ii design. These are gonna go in the low end to combat against clarkdale I'd suppose. OEMs selling PCs are probably wanna going to get rid of their stockpile of DDR2 memory somehow so I'd surmise these would sell very well also.

    All and all I'd wager that AMD will do fine until Bulldozer releases as long as they a) Make sure they market these processors well to OEMs b) really ramp up their mobile lineup in the coming months

    Look at the 4800 series success afterall. Most people just don't care about the highend and if AMD can have competitive prices they should do well.
    Reply
  • Nalyk - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Is this just a straight clock bump on AMD's part from the 955 due to improved manufacturing? And if so why would consumers shell out another $50 if the head room is already there on the 955 I figure half the reason people buy the Black Editions is so they can play with the multiplier. Am I wrong?
    I suppose I can understand their need for cash, but I personally feel it difficult to justify shelling out another $50 for 200Mhz especially if the head room is there already on the same chip. Or by releasing this chip are they implying that there's even more head room on this 965?
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now