Video Transcoding Performance

x264 HD 3.03 Benchmark

Graysky's x264 HD test uses x264 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 Benchmark - 1st pass - v3.03

x264 HD Benchmark - 2nd pass - v3.03

CPU based video transcode performance is as good as it can get from AMD here given the 2/4 module/core setup of these Trinity APUs. Intel's Core i3 3220 is a bit slower than the A10-5800K. We're switching to a much newer version of the x264 HD benchmark for our new test suite (5.0.1). Some early results are below if you want to see how things change under the new test:

x264 HD 5.0.1 Benchmark
  1st Pass 2nd Pass
AMD A10-5800K (3.8GHz) 33.5 fps 7.41 fps
AMD A8-5600K (3.6GHz) 32.2 fps 7.12 fps
Intel Core i3 3220 (3.3GHz) 35.2 fps 6.61 fps
Content Creation Performance Discrete GPU Gaming Performance
POST A COMMENT

178 Comments

View All Comments

  • Hubb1e - Tuesday, October 2, 2012 - link

    Atom falls down with Netflix and idles around the same point as these chips. Reply
  • mattlach - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link

    My current AMD E-350 can not handle Netflix HD, which is disappointing.

    The way Netflix has implemented DRM in Silverlight, hardware decode acceleration doesn't work on any system, so it all hits the CPU, and many lower end systems (Atom, E-350) just can't handle it above SD resolutions.

    Everything else I've tried (Youtube, custom encoded video files, etc. etc., habe not tried Hulu though) works just fine, as the on-chip GPU offloads the CPU and they play fine, but Netflix HD chokes, and chokes badly.

    Thus the need for a low end, power efficient Trinity setup.

    I would love one of those mobile Trinity chips in a desktop FM2 package. A 35W TDP Trinity or lower would be perfect for my HTPC needs.
    Reply
  • stimudent - Tuesday, October 2, 2012 - link

    We need to appreciate and thank anandtech.com for being professional about a staged release. This is in stark contrast to taking part in cry baby journalism that TechReport.com engaged in. Reply
  • Pythias - Tuesday, October 2, 2012 - link

    "Professional" is a polite euphemism for prostitute in some circles. Reply
  • Pythias - Tuesday, October 2, 2012 - link

    Why did you remove the pentium from the descrete gaming chart? Reply
  • Hubb1e - Tuesday, October 2, 2012 - link

    Because he wanted to keep the forums ripe for the trolls who think a Celeron plus a 6670 are faster than Trinity. Reply
  • Pythias - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link

    Seems rather dodgy. Reply
  • HisDivineOrder - Tuesday, October 2, 2012 - link

    Hopefully, one of these days, Intel will be bothered enough by these APU's that they release an i3 with boost and an unlocked multiplier with the higher end version of the integrated GPU.

    Price it right at the high end of AMD's APU lineup, bam, the whole thing is dead in the water. I suspect Intel wants AMD to seem like they're competition to keep the regulators away, so they're holding back on the obvious killshot.
    Reply
  • mikato - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link

    It would somewhat kill their higher priced CPUs also though. Reply
  • eanazag - Tuesday, October 2, 2012 - link

    I wasn't expecting AMD to close the performance gap or power usage gap with Intel. I was concerned that it might not even be able to beat Llano CPU performance consistently. I feel comfortable with the CPU performance. I think at even lower pricing AMD could dominate the low end market. I have a Core i5 860 and Core i3 Arrandale (same time frame). I certainly noticed the 860 appearing in the benchmark numbers. The A10 Trinity is not too far off the performance of my 860, especially when considering price in factors. And off the FX-8150 it has pretty good performance, which is a decent sign for the higher end AMD desktop parts coming soon (can't really call the AMD high end parts).

    Idle power usage is excellent. Power usage can make sense for AMD if you are considering a cheap Intel proc and a discrete card. I think in that situation AMD makes more sense.

    Drivers and support go to AMD on both sides of software compatibility (AMD drivers and game support).

    SATA 6Gbps on Intel with just 2 builtin ports still upsets me. This should be an advantage for AMD at the platform level.

    I want to see the desktop and server chip data next. I am glad that I don't have to rule out buying the AMD parts from the get go. The buying decision will still be that.

    I still believe AMD should make a 200W part combining their FX proc with a 7700/7800 range GPU. I think they could dominate the midrange with that and who could compete then? From price and gaming performance at least. Power and heat still makes sense considering the removal of that level GPU from the case. Hell, I could deal with 250W and be happy also.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now