Media Encoding Performance with DVD Shrink, WME, Quicktime and iTunes

We were most curious about the Core Duo's media encoding performance, given that a number of the optimizations for the new processor were FP/SSE related.  We've updated our entire media encoding test suite, including everything from the one-click DVD ripping utility DVD Shrink to including H.264 encoding performance with Quicktime 7.0.3 Pro.  We wanted to include the latest version of DivX in this comparison. However, the recent release of DivX 6.1 left us with a few bugs that we're still trying to work out in our test beds, so we had to exclude it.  However, as time goes on, H.264 encoding will quickly become far more important than even looking at DivX, so its omission from this article isn't as big of a loss in terms of forward-looking performance. 

First up is DVD Shrink 3.2.0.15. Our test was simple - we took a copy of Star Wars Episode VI and ripped the full DVD to the hard drive without compression, effectively giving us an exact copy of the disc on the hard drive.  Then, using the copy of the DVD on the hard drive (to eliminate any DVD drive bottlenecks), we performed a DVD shrink operation to shrink the movie to fit on a single 4.5GB DVD disc.  All of  the options were left on their defaults, so the test ends up being pretty easy to run and reproduce.  The scores reported are DVD encoding times in minutes, with lower numbers meaning better performance. 

The DVD Shrink test is quite important as DVD Shrink is quite possibly one of the easiest tools to rip a DVD.  The easier a tool is to use, the more likely it's going to be used, and arguably the more important performance using it happens to be. 

DVD Shrink 3.2.0.15

The results here are pretty astounding for two reasons:
  1. The Pentium M performs exceptionally poorly, and
  2. The Core Duo performs exceptionally well. 
For whatever reason, the Core Duo performs far better than the Athlon 64 X2 in these tests than actually in any of our other media encoding tests.  The Core duo T2500 performs so well that it will actually take something faster than an Athlon 64 X2 4800+ to outperform it here.  While this is clearly an outlier, we were pleasantly surprised and impressed with the Duo's performance here.

Moving on, we have our Windows Media Encoder 9 test, which uses the advanced profile settings for video encoding.  We left all settings at their defaults and just proceeded with a MPEG-2 to WMV-HD conversion.  The values reported are in frames per second, with higher numbers being better.

Windows Media Encoder 9 - Advanced Profile

The performance here is, once again, a huge improvement over the Pentium M, but this time around, the Core Duo ties the Athlon 64 X2 instead of outperforming it.  A tie is not disappointing, but as we mentioned earlier, it means that the DVD Shrink performance isn't necessarily typical of the platform. 

Next up, we have Quicktime Pro 7.0.3 and we perform a MPEG-2 to H.264 encoding task.  All of the settings are left at their defaults, with the exception that we optimize the output file for download with a 256kbps data rate while leaving the resolution untouched.  We also adjust the video options to optimize for the best quality.  We report the transcoding time in minutes, with lower values being better. 

H.264 Encoding with Quicktime 7.0.3 Pro

Once again, the Core Duo puts the Pentium M to shame in terms of media encoding performance.  Here, the Athlon 64 X2 and Core Duo swap positions, with the X2 outperforming the Core Duo.  The two are competitive, but the edge goes to the Athlon 64 X2. 

Finally, we have a MP3 encoding test using iTunes 6.0.1.3.  For this test, we simply took a 304MB wav file and converted it to a 192kbps MP3 file, measuring the encode time in seconds.  The only iTunes option that we changed was to prevent the playback of the song while encoding. 

MP3 Encoding with iTunes 6.0.1.3

And again, we see a huge performance advantage over the single core Pentium M, but with the Core Duo and the Athlon 64 X2 performing quite similarly otherwise. 

Professional Application Performance with 3dsmax, Adobe Premier and Photoshop Gaming Performance with Battlefield 2 and Black & White 2
Comments Locked

103 Comments

View All Comments

  • vailr - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    Re: Chipset Drivers used in the review:
    nForce4 6.66
    Intel 7.0.0.25
    Check here: http://www.fdrsoft.fr.fm/">http://www.fdrsoft.fr.fm/
    Intel Version 7.2.2.1006
    nForce4 Version 6.70
  • Marlin1975 - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    Being that DVD shrink will not be updated anymore and the creator is now part of Nero, and the Recode program. Why not use Recode?
  • PrinceGaz - Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - link

    Personally I wouldn't touch any of the compressed domain transcoders like DVD Shrink as they sacrifice quality for speed. Something like DVD Rebuilder combined with the excellent CCE SP encoder provide the best possible quality and are just as easy to use as DVD Shrink. It's nowhere near as fast as DVD Shrink, but I'll take better picture quality over saving a few minutes any day.
  • mrred - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    Anyone else notice that the game benches seem horribly gpu-bound? How about giving us some lower resolutions in testing?
    Look at FEAR in particular: X2-4200 and X2-3800 getting exactly the same score? HELLO?!?!?!? That's not a cpu-benchmark. Gimme a break.
  • Anemone - Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - link

    Frankly I appreciate testing that shows resolutions we actually play at. Now if only we'd see 1920x1200 :)
  • blackbrrd - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    The games are benchmarked at 1024x768.

    Personally I haven't played a game below 1024x768 since I got my GF2mx four or five years ago.

    Most games look horrible below 1024x768, except the games ported from consoles ;)

  • saratoga - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    Yeah and above 1024 you're GPU limited. Its almost like this was a CPU review.
  • tfranzese - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    That's not the point. The point is to relieve the GPU so regardless of what GPUs come out a year or two from now that alieviate this bottleneck we'll have known beforehand how the CPU handles things.

    Further, this is a CPU preview and as such we don't care about system performance or GPU performance; that shouldn't be the focus or included in the article. Instead, every benchmark should serve the articles purpose of comparing the CPUs - GPU bound benchmarks do NOT serve that purpose and should have their resolution lowered to serve that purpose, otherwise they should not be included because what point do they serve except fluff?
  • tayhimself - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    Yeah this review is horrible, just like the first Yonah review.
  • uop - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    I wouldn't call it horrible.
    There are some weak points, but it does give a good idea about how the Core Duo performs.
    Mainly:
    - It's not as good as the A64 when it comes to games
    - FP is much improved but not there yet

    The article does do a good job of reminding us that Yonah is just the dress rehersal for the real deal. Conroe is supposed to be faster, wider, and full of 64-bit goodness. Think about it - with Yonah's die size, it could be the Celeron-M in just 6 months!
    If Yonah can compete with the A64, then unless AMD pull a fast one they're probably heading for the underdog position.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now