what would be faster for video encoding...

wol-va-rine

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,122
an E8500 running at ~3.8GHz or a Q6600 running at 2.8GHz...? all other things factors being equal...
 
Depends on the encoder. My bet is on the Q6600, but not by a large margin. Tough one to call really.
 
Took a look for an x264 bench since nobody that knows what they're doing actually uses any of the encoders in that bench. Found this, which looks pretty well done to me: http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=669&pgno=0

Q6600 at stock is beaten a small amount by an E8500 @ 4.1GHz, so I'd imagine one at 2.8GHz beats an E8500 @ 3.8GHz fairly soundly at this test; it's about 15% ahead if you assume a linear performance increase with clockspeed.

Note that this is an HD test, and that lower resolution content probably doesn't scale as well to multicore, so if you are in fact doing SD content that might be a factor. HD or SD? And what software are you using?
 
Why only 2.8Ghz on the Q6600? 3.6Ghz is fairly easy to hit it you have a half decent cooler and a half decent processor.

3.8Ghz isn't all that hard to achieve either.
 
One thing to note, whichever way you do it, do it 64bit. On test i've done video encoding its at least 220% faster in 64bit.
 
more cores are always better at video encoding then less cores at a higher clock.. the E8500 will kill the Q6600 on the first run during encoding but the Q6600 will beat the e8500 on the second run..
 
more cores are always better at video encoding then less cores at a higher clock.. the E8500 will kill the Q6600 on the first run during encoding but the Q6600 will beat the e8500 on the second run..

Perhaps the quad is usually faster at video, but not always...

First, it depends on your coding software. It needs to be properly threaded.

Also, depends on just how much faster the dual core speeds are. A dual core @ 4Ghz will beat a quad as 2Ghz for video - and beat it quite soundly. It probably beats it up to about 2.3Ghz due to inefficiency in the algorithms for splitting up the job.

For his comparison of last generation devices your advice is solid. If it was a comparison of more recent devices there are much more interesting trade-offs to consider, especially given the large overclock headroom of the I5-6xx series.
 
Sell the q6600 for a Bill, then add another >Bill for a q9550 and clock it to 3.8+.

Viola, contemplation solved.
 
Why only 2.8Ghz on the Q6600? 3.6Ghz is fairly easy to hit it you have a half decent cooler and a half decent processor.

3.8Ghz isn't all that hard to achieve either.

What exactly are you basing this on? 3.6-3.8GHz is hardly easy, not by a long shot. I've built several Q6600 machines. 2 hit 3.6GHz but one needed way too much voltage to do so. None hit 3.8GHz. Most topped out between 3.2-3.4GHz and I had one that bearly made it over the 3GHz mark.

That said, 2.8GHz does seem like a low mark to aim for.
 
What exactly are you basing this on? 3.6-3.8GHz is hardly easy, not by a long shot. I've built several Q6600 machines. 2 hit 3.6GHz but one needed way too much voltage to do so. None hit 3.8GHz. Most topped out between 3.2-3.4GHz and I had one that bearly made it over the 3GHz mark.

That said, 2.8GHz does seem like a low mark to aim for.

:D

/brag see sig. /search for my thread.. if you want. I'll never it run it there again though.
 
What exactly are you basing this on? 3.6-3.8GHz is hardly easy, not by a long shot. I've built several Q6600 machines. 2 hit 3.6GHz but one needed way too much voltage to do so. None hit 3.8GHz. Most topped out between 3.2-3.4GHz and I had one that bearly made it over the 3GHz mark.

That said, 2.8GHz does seem like a low mark to aim for.


I am basing it on both my Q6600 and my brother's Q6600 as well as countless other
Q6600s that are able to hit 3.6 very easily. And our processors were not cherry picked either.

That being said.. a P35 based board or older presents a challenge to get much more than 3.6Ghz stable. A 975x based board is horrid for Quads... I was only able to get about 3.2Ghz on my first 775 board which was 975x based.

Once I jumped to a Gigabyte P45 board overclocking higher than 3.6Ghz got a whole lot easier. I ended up with a stable 3.84Ghz.

You have to have a good board for overclocking, a good power supply, a decentish CPU, and very good cooling (with my modded Thermaltake Big Typhoon my Q6600 loaded at
62c.. go much over that temp and it is horrible to try to get higher clocks).

You also need to make sure you can keep case temps down. ~1-2c higher than room temps is what I call acceptable.
 
And there are countless others that can't even come close, so to say it can be done without much trouble isn't an accurate description. By your own admission... You have to have a good board for overclocking, a good power supply, a decentish CPU, and very good cooling.

And I'd actually reword "decentish" to "good" when refferring to the CPU. Can you get 3.6-3.8GHz, sure, it's not impossible. Is it mere childs play to do so? Only if you get lucky, otherwise it takes all the right parts and sometimes even that may not be enough.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top