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

Lynnfield inches towards the crown with the 860; it's closer to the 870 than the Core i5 750, and that's to be expected. The biggest gains here are due to Hyper Threading, the clock speed is just icing on the cake.

x264 HD Video Encoding Performance

Graysky's x264 HD test uses the publicly available x264 codec (open source implementation of 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

The Core i7 860 continues to do better than the i7 920, even if by only a small margin. As expected, it's closer to the 870 than it is to the i5 750 thanks to Hyper Threading.

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

 

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

The race is close here, there's only a 2 second difference between the Core i7 870 and the Core i5 750. The 860 lands closer to the 750 this time.

Adobe Photoshop CS4 Performance 3D Rendering Performance
POST A COMMENT

122 Comments

View All Comments

  • mapesdhs - Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - link


    Blimey, even I'm surprised sometimes...

    http://www.sgi.com/company_info/newsroom/press_rel...">http://www.sgi.com/company_info/newsroo...releases...
    http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/octaneIII/inde...">http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/octaneIII/inde...
    http://www.sgi.com/pdfs/4177.pdf">http://www.sgi.com/pdfs/4177.pdf

    Without graphics, up to 20 x quad-core i7 XEON and 960GB RAM.

    With graphics included (various NVIDIA Quado FX options and CUDA), 2 x
    quad-core i7 XEON, 144GB max RAM, 2 x PCIe 2.0 x16, 4 x PCIe 2.0 x8
    and one PCIe 2.0 x4. Dual-GigE or Infiniband included.

    There's also an Atom configuration (19 dual-core Atoms, 38GB RAM).
    Atom does very well for performance/watt, attractive to datacentres
    for web servers, databases, etc.

    Renderfarm anyone? 8)

    Ian.

    PS. Nothing to do with the earlier MIPS/IRIX Octane/Octane2 systems of course.

    Reply
  • papapapapapapapababy - Monday, September 21, 2009 - link

    THE stupid upgrading path.

    NO SATA 6 GB /s...
    NO USB 3.0...
    NO PCI Express 3.0...

    NO THANKS. NEXT.
    Reply
  • haplo602 - Monday, September 21, 2009 - link

    Where are Athlon II X4s in the graphs ? Where's Phenom II X2 BE ?

    Where is a 785G mobo roundup ? I am still hearing only i5/i7/P55. This is frustrating. You are not keeping up with your name. Drop the Intel hype and do something for the normal people that try to build computers on a budget.
    Reply
  • sicofante - Monday, September 21, 2009 - link

    Sorry if this has been asked or commented before (I haven't read the full 11 pages).

    I build workstations for the animation and video industry and I factory-overclock them. Bloomfield has been very well received by my customers and I'm really happy with it. Now I'm studying Lynnfield and from what I've read, I don't feel quite comfortable with how Lynnfield is overclocked. Here are my two main issues:

    1. Anand mentioned in past articles that overclocking Lynnfield would imply overclocking the PCIe bus, since the controller is integrated. How does this affect graphics and other cards? I'm not talking only about gaming cards but also Quadros or RAID controller cards.

    2. Also, it seems Lynnfield OC needs voltage tweaking. This sounds not as nice as Bloomfield stock voltage overclocking, but what are the real consequences and drawbacks (if any) of voltage rising?

    Thanks in advance for answering these two issues and thanks to the Anandtech's staff for such in depth articles.
    Reply
  • ggathagan - Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - link

    This seems to get lost frequently, but Lynnfield is all about the mid-tier market.

    Going down the Lynnfield road for the workstations you describe would be a BAAAAD idea.

    Your industry is also one of the few that, in most reviewers opinions, has benefited from the triple-channel memory capabilities of the X58 platform.
    Reply
  • 7Enigma - Monday, September 21, 2009 - link

    It's been going on for a while now but the price increase for minimal performance increase is getting pretty silly. Back during the <1000MHz days a 100MHz bump was nothing to sneeze at, and even during the 1-2GHz days a 100-200MHz bump wasn't that bad. But honestly they (both AMD and INTEL) have gotten rediculous with their gouging of the higher end. Honestly ~130MHz difference between the 870 and the 860?!?

    Their only saving grace (for stock clockers, or very moderate OC'ers) is the higher turbo levels of the 870, but again in most situations (that is those that do not task 3-4 cores simultaneously) the clock difference between the 860 and 870 is <150MHz, which on a ~3.5GHz core is virtually nil.
    Reply
  • strikeback03 - Monday, September 21, 2009 - link

    They have used pricing like this in the past, just that there were usually several options in the more sane ($300 and less) range before the final few clock bumps were disproportionately expensive. Reply
  • 7Enigma - Monday, September 21, 2009 - link

    But in the past the performance jump was greater. We're talking a (theoretical) 4% difference between the 870 and 860! Reply
  • strikeback03 - Monday, September 21, 2009 - link

    When I bought my current E6600 it was a little over $300. The E6700 was over $500 for a 266MHz bump, so technically 10% but still nothing to write home about for the money. If the 870 were unlocked that price might be justified, as of now I agree with you that it is not so much. Reply
  • Proteusza - Monday, September 21, 2009 - link

    Athlon X4: 300m transistors, no L3 cache, performs about 90% as fast as a Phenom X4
    Phenom X4: 758m transistors, 8mb L3 cache (or is it 6?)

    Does anyone think AMD isnt getting their money's worth out of the 458 million transistors used on the Phenom II to provide the L3 cache? I mean, more than double the manufacturing complexity for a small increase in performance?
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now