DivX 8.5.3 with Xmpeg 5.0.3

Our DivX test is the same DivX / XMpeg 5.03 test we've run for the past few years now, the 1080p source file is encoded using the unconstrained DivX profile, quality/performance is set balanced at 5 and enhanced multithreading is enabled:

DivX 6.8.5 w/ Xmpeg 5.0.3 - MPEG-2 to DivX Transcode

The original Phenom was significantly weaker than Intel’s Core 2 at DivX encoding, thus the Athlon X2 vs. Pentium comparison here isn’t very favorable for AMD. The E5300 is 11% faster than the 7850 here. Even the E5200 is a better choice for DivX encoding.

x264 HD Video Encoding Performance

Graysky's x264 HD test uses the publicly available x264 codec (open source alternative to H.264) to encode a 4Mbps 720p MPEG-2 source. The focus here is on quality rather than speed, thus the benchmark uses a 2-pass encode and reports the average frame rate in each pass.

x264 HD Encode Benchmark - 720p MPEG-2 to x264 Transcode

x264 HD Encode Benchmark - 720p MPEG-2 to x264 Transcode

The x264 HD encode test is slightly different depending on what pass you look at. The first pass of the x264 HD encode actually has a number of unaligned loads, which penalizes Intel’s Core architecture - something fixed in Nehalem. The second and more CPU intensive pass is where Intel sees a 7.4% performance advantage over AMD. Despite the small advantage in the first pass of the encode, the win goes to Intel for a larger and more meaningful advantage in the second pass.

Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 Advanced Profile

In order to be codec agnostic we've got a Windows Media Encoder benchmark looking at the same sort of thing we've been doing in the DivX and x264 tests, but using WME instead.

Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 - Advanced Profile Transcode

Our final pure encode test once again has the E5300 ahead of the Athlon X2 7850, but by only a 3.4% margin.

 

Adobe Photoshop CS4 Performance 3dsmax 9, Cinebench R10, POV-Ray 3.7 and Blender 2.48a Performance
Comments Locked

55 Comments

View All Comments

  • just4U - Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - link

    Can't see the 5300 outdoing the 5200 really. At best it might equal it or not be as good. I Don't even see why anyone would buy the 5300 for overclocking at all.. (unless ofcourse the 5200 is at the end of it's line)

    as a guesstimate...
    5300 might get anywhere from 3.8-4.0+
    4850 would get anywhere from 3.1-3.3+

    End of overclock guestimate review (grin)

    (on article topic.. Great review. Mixed bag of results really and once you factor in budget chipset boards it clouds the choice even further)

  • memphist0 - Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - link

    Definately would like to see some overclocking with a mid range cooler
  • Erif - Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - link

    Yes, I'd like to see how the 7850 OCes compared to my 7750.
  • johnsonx - Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - link

    There's unlikely to be any different at all between a 7850 and 7750; any differences would be the normal chip to chip variability in overclocking. It's not a comparison even worth doing.
  • Doc01 - Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - link

    Athlon has surpassed all expectations!
    <a href="http://www.salesgeneric.net">http://www.sa...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now