E3300 @ 3.3Ghz --> Q6600 For Video Encoding

C

ClockerXP

Gawd
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
662
I'm considering swapping out my E3300 at 3.3Ghz for Q6600 (overclockability TBD) on my WHS v1 box to improve the video encoding / transcoding performance. Motherboard is Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3L. Think it will be a worthwhile upgrade? I don't really feel like rebuilding the whole box as it is working fine.
 
I'm thinking I could get 2x the performance at the same clock speed due to 2x the number of cores. Agree?
 
For encoding you'll definitely see a large jump going from 2 cores to 4 with that particular architecture. I don't know if you'll see a flat 2x performance, but definitely a 50%. It really depends what encoding method we're talking about and the settings. H.264 kicks the crap out of my Q9550 even overclocked by 1Ghz only gave me a 2FPS improvement.

If you had the money you'd probably notice an incredible jump from the E3300 > SB just because of the built-in instructions with H.264 in mind. It is definitely worth it, but depends on what price you can get the processor for. If $200 or more skip it entirely, not sure what they're reselling for since I bought mine brand new for well over that 4 years ago.
 
Liger88 said:
H.264 kicks the crap out of my Q9550 even overclocked by 1Ghz only gave me a 2FPS improvement.
Click to expand...

It's better to look at the percentage of improvement not the FPS. If you got 2FPS improvement from a 1GHz overclock (roughly 35% increase on that CPU) is it safe to assume your settings are very high and you were getting 6FPS+/- before?

If so that's still 3.5 hours give or take shaved off of every 10 hours.
 
rive22 said:
It's better to look at the percentage of improvement not the FPS. If you got 2FPS improvement from a 1GHz overclock (roughly 35% increase on that CPU) is it safe to assume your settings are very high and you were getting 6FPS+/- before?

If so that's still 3.5 hours give or take shaved off of every 10 hours.
Click to expand...



LOL yeah I kinda forgot the add that. Pretty high/medium-high settings, x264 codec, and rolling about 2.5FPS per core (roughly 10FPS w/o about 12-14 fluctuating). At lower settings the improvement is much more dramatic absolutely :) but just to be sure I'd say overall 50% improvement just so one doesn't get their hopes too high w/o knowing what and how they're encoding.
 
OP, I would skip the Q6600 and grab a used 9550..they can be had for fairly cheap, overclock much higher, and use less power since they are on the 45nm process...There is a used, already lapped (just freshen it up with some 1000 grit wetsand paper) here for 4110 shipped..I would offer him $100 shipped, and I bet you would be good to go..

Also, if you need a decent heatsink, I have a Tuniq Tower 120, which used to be the best of the best in the Socket 775 days, that I would be willing to give you for free, just pay shipping..I have the retail box for it so it wouldn't get damaged in shipping..If you are interested shoot me a PM.
 
bodman said:
its night and day between those 2 processors
Click to expand...

For darn near everything.

If a program is multicore-aware (and that is most likely for any encoding application - video or audio), a quad-core will wax any dual-core.

Datapoint: I went from E3400 to Q6600, changing nothing else, last year, on my ASUS P5G41-M LX2/GB (hence both CPUs were bone-stock). Between the extra cache per core (2048k cache per core vs. 256k cache per core) and the number of cores (four vs. two), data mountains get turned into data molehills pretty darn quickly. Yes - you are reading the cache amount on Q6600 correctly; it actually has more total on-die cache than either Sandy Bridge OR Ivy Bridge. (Shocked me, that tidbit did.)
 
You can get a Q6600 for 75ish dollars. the Q9550 is still over 100. Its not worht it. Grab the Q6600 and see if you can lean on it abit. They gain the most going to 3.0ghz. After that it's just icing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top