Intel's Pentium Extreme Edition 965: The Last of a Dying Breed
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 22, 2006 1:51 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Media Encoding Performance using DVD Shrink, WME9, Quicktime and iTunes
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 that it's going to be used, and arguably the more important performance using it happens to be.
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.
Next up, we have Quicktime Pro 7.0.3 and we perform a MPEG-2 to H.264 encoding task. We've changed our test a bit to make it more streamlined. The export settings are left on their Export to Quicktime Movie defaults (which happens to be a H.264 export). We simply changed the audio encoder to use Apple's AAC codec instead. We report the transcoding time in minutes, with lower values being better.
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.
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 that it's going to be used, and arguably the more important performance using it happens to be.
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.
Next up, we have Quicktime Pro 7.0.3 and we perform a MPEG-2 to H.264 encoding task. We've changed our test a bit to make it more streamlined. The export settings are left on their Export to Quicktime Movie defaults (which happens to be a H.264 export). We simply changed the audio encoder to use Apple's AAC codec instead. We report the transcoding time in minutes, with lower values being better.
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.
3D Rendering Performance using 3dsmax 7
Gaming Performance using Battlefield 2, Call of Duty 2 and Quake 4
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
View All Comments
asliarun - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link
"Can´t belive Anand is promoting a CPU that will not be launched in next 6 months."What is wrong with reviewing a CPU that isn't in the market today, anyway? Isn't that why you and me visit hardware review sites anyway? In any case, this article is a benchmark/evaluation, NOT a promotion. Ironically, the final recommendation by Anand is NOT to buy the friggin CPU, so i don't see which way this article can be termed a "promotion".
Jeez, give the author some respect.
Ok, you're not a fanboi, and nor am i. Yes, we all know that AMD's performance today is better by a decent margin. However, what's with the flamewars about Conroe benchies not being done in an "ideal" setting, or even with this review? Ok, the Conroe benchmark wasn't totally under the reviewers' control, but give the authors a break, man. Are you telling me that all the reviewers who managed to review Conroe didn't smell anything fishy (if indeed there was something?)? Please think a few times before trashing someone's reputation, especially because they've spent years toiling for it. All it takes us to trash it, on the other hand, is a few clicks.
dev0lution - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link
I don't know why they continue to slap an Extreme Edition label on the models lately, unless they mean "the extreme limits of what we can do with this architecture".I would have hoped a processor with a higher clock, 65nm process and twice the cache would bench better and be more power efficient than the FX-60.
mino - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
there are at least 10 cases where 965 shows unreasonably high score compared to 955.The is something fishy here. These score are either fake(surely not) or the margin of error is so huge it makes no sense to publish them.
It's not OK whem from 7% or so frequency bump on the CPU one gets 15% performance bum in Game !!!
Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
The F.E.A.R. numbers for the 955 were incorrect, I've fixed the errors. Thanks for the heads up :)Take care,
Anand
mino - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
bum == bumpKeithTalent - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
Should I assume the three FEAR charts are at different resolutions even though they all show at 1024x768. Or maybe I am missing something else altogether?AnandThenMan - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
You know, putting Conroe benchmarks in there is pretty lame. Firstly, Controe cannot be purchased by ANYONE. Secondly, this is not a review of Conroe, period.Why not put in some other speculative benches in, like an overclocked X2 etc. I don't care how fast Conroe actually ends up being. Tacking on the Conroe benches at the end smacks of Intel brown nosing. Reviews are about current products we can all actually purchase. Very unprofessional.
Houdani - Thursday, March 23, 2006 - link
You know, Anand was doing all of us a favor by showing us Intel's latest offering, and then going the extra mile to show us why it would be a poor decision to actually buy one. Anand's point was simply to keep in mind that (to the best of everyone's knowledge) Conroe will very likely shame this PEE965 offering. He used one Intel product to spit upon another Intel product.You call that brown nosing? What an absurd notion.
krwilsonn - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
Considering that if Conroe is as great as it is supposed to be, in a few months you will be looking at those same benchmarks and Intel will then have the lead. Since this is likely the case, why not include it? Because it is Intel? Aren't we determining the FASTEST cpu? If that is likely to change in the near future than it is to everyone's benefit to point that out.redbone75 - Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - link
I think the review did what it was supposed to do, and that was compare the latest EE to the best AMD has to offer. While Anand traditionally doesn't include hardware that can't be purchased at present, please remember that the 965 won't be out until April. Would you have preferred we not have this review at all? Furthermore, including comparisons to Conroe were more for the purpose of reminding prospective buyers of the EE what will be on the horizon, not to show Conroe's dominance over all available processors, AMD or otherwise. I'm dying to build a new rig right now, but I know I will suffer an acute case of buyer's remorse once Conroe is available in some few short months and a much better chip is available for the price range I'm looking at.