AMD Phenom II X4 965 vs Intel Core i3-3220 for video transcoding

If you're using an app with Quicksync, then the i3. If not, the Phenom II.
 
Overclock the phenom to 4.x ghz and you will beat the i3 in everything but energy usage. Maybe gaming will be faster on the i3.
 
atp1916 said:
If you're using an app with Quicksync, then the i3. If not, the Phenom II.
Click to expand...

Don't use quicksync if it's for a large screen!

The best quality is still only available through hard CPU crunching.
OpenCL can offload some of the workload, but it is still not common to use OpenCL.
 
I had a phenom II 940 that I used lightly for some video transcoding and when overclocked I was able to get some pretty noticeable drops in my overall times vs stock. Overall it wasn't too shabby, I did although move onto an FX-8350.
 
Not sure if this helps, but my Athlon II x4 had proven time and time again to be a faster transcoder than my Ivy Bridge Pentium.
 
Amd quad core phenom will convert videos faster than i3 when using cpu only for best quality.

I have a i7-3720qm in my laptop and i7-3930k in my desktop.

Quicksync is so much faster using my laptop than my 6 core but tje 6 core looks so much better and is blazingly faster in cpu only vs cpu only. The whole point is cpu only conversions look much better.
 
ZodaEX said:
Then whats even the point? If you want speed over quality there's ways to do that as well with the CPU only.
Click to expand...

Easy fast reencode for the mobile devices.
You can't see the difference between a quicksync encoded or CPU encoded file on a regular tablet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top