x264 video encoding benchmark

graysky · Sep 8, 2007

I put together a self-contained x264 video encoding benchmark. Techarp kindly agreed to host the file and results at this URL.

Basically, you run the test encode and it will report back frames-per-second values for your machine @ it's clock/overclock level. You can run it at your stock settings and at your overclock settings to see how your machine compares to others in the database.

The database is small right now (as of 08-sep), but as you guys report in results, I will populate it. My goal is to have a representative set of data for many different chips and chipsets. Hopefully, we'll get some Penryn and Phenom data when they become available. Also, if anyone out here has some of the high end AMD chips, please contribute. Instructions and the file are at that url.

Also, please report your results here in this thread. I will keep the data at that url to keep things simple.

Thanks all.

ilkhan · Sep 8, 2007

480p_results-CD T2300E vista 1GB.txt said:
---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 34.99 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 36.17 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 35.99 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 36.81 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 36.75 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 8.89 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 8.97 fps, 1826.26 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 9.00 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 9.04 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 9.09 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

results!

dell e1405
core duo 1.66 (dont remember off the top of my head XxXXX)
2x512 PC2-533 IIRC
vista ult

KamelRed · Sep 8, 2007

Core 2 Quad Q6600, 9x333, P35, 5-7-7-23 @ 500 MHz, Vista Ultimate 32-bit.

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 156.23 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 158.58 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 158.31 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 157.45 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 158.32 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.19 fps, 1829.16 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.13 fps, 1829.30 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.14 fps, 1829.26 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.14 fps, 1829.21 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 42.01 fps, 1829.47 kb/s

graysky · Sep 9, 2007

@GLSauron - Can you also post your machine specs as per the instructions?
@KamelRed - thanks for the result!

Mac[X-D] · Sep 9, 2007

AM2 4800+ @ 12.5X220 2.750GHz 2GB DDR2@800 4-4-4-12 XP Pro SP2 32bit
---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 65.04 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 65.19 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 65.23 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 65.34 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 65.04 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 15.87 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 15.89 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 15.86 fps, 1826.26 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 15.93 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 15.69 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

the snake · Sep 9, 2007

AMD opty 170 @ 250 x 10, 2GB @250 3.0-4-4,windows XP pro sp2 32bit

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 66.12 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 67.11 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 66.59 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 67.11 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 67.27 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 15.94 fps, 1826.26 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 15.97 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 16.01 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 16.07 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 16.04 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

graysky · Sep 9, 2007

Mac[X-D] and the snake - thanks for the data.

@snake - your mem timings are 3-4-4-?
@mac - what are you mem timings and mem speed and also your o/s?
example mem timings: 4-4-4-12 @ 333 MHz

the snake · Sep 9, 2007

http://x022.uploaderx.net/x/344.png

Mac[X-D] · Sep 9, 2007

graysky said:
Mac[X-D] and the snake - thanks for the data.

@snake - your mem timings are 3-4-4-?
@mac - what are you mem timings and mem speed and also your o/s?
example mem timings: 4-4-4-12 @ 333 MHz

sorry about that i added it, it was in my sig as well

for shits and giggles i am going to run it a stock speeds for u and higher overclock.

Mac[X-D] · Sep 9, 2007

AM2 4800+ @ 12.0X232 2.9GHz 2GB DDR2@800 5-5-5-16 HHT 4X - XP Pro SP2 32bit

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 71.71 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 71.80 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 72.03 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 71.30 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 71.66 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 17.26 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 17.26 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 17.47 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 17.24 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 17.26 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

Haven't had a chance to run stock yet.

mikeo · Sep 9, 2007

I installed avisynth and ran it from c:\work2 but am getting these errors...
running vista x64 w/ 8gb of ram by the way...

............................................... Now Starting Run 1: Pass 1 of 2
avis [error]: unsupported input format (DIB )
x264 [error]: could not open input file 'C:\work2\test\test-480p.avs'
............................................... Now Starting Run 1: Pass 2 of 2
avis [error]: unsupported input format (DIB )
x264 [error]: could not open input file 'C:\work2\test\test-480p.avs'
Could Not Find C:\work2\1.stats
............................................... Now Starting Run 2: Pass 1 of 2
avis [error]: unsupported input format (DIB )
x264 [error]: could not open input file 'C:\work2\test\test-480p.avs'
............................................... Now Starting Run 2: Pass 2 of 2
avis [error]: unsupported input format (DIB )
x264 [error]: could not open input file 'C:\work2\test\test-480p.avs'
Could Not Find C:\work2\2.stats
............................................... Now Starting Run 3: Pass 1 of 2
avis [error]: unsupported input format (DIB )
x264 [error]: could not open input file 'C:\work2\test\test-480p.avs'
............................................... Now Starting Run 3: Pass 2 of 2
avis [error]: unsupported input format (DIB )
x264 [error]: could not open input file 'C:\work2\test\test-480p.avs'
Could Not Find C:\work2\3.stats
............................................... Now Starting Run 4: Pass 1 of 2
avis [error]: unsupported input format (DIB )
x264 [error]: could not open input file 'C:\work2\test\test-480p.avs'
............................................... Now Starting Run 4: Pass 2 of 2
avis [error]: unsupported input format (DIB )
x264 [error]: could not open input file 'C:\work2\test\test-480p.avs'
Could Not Find C:\work2\4.stats
............................................... Now Starting Run 5: Pass 1 of 2
avis [error]: unsupported input format (DIB )
x264 [error]: could not open input file 'C:\work2\test\test-480p.avs'
............................................... Now Starting Run 5: Pass 2 of 2
avis [error]: unsupported input format (DIB )
x264 [error]: could not open input file 'C:\work2\test\test-480p.avs'
Could Not Find C:\work2\5.stats

All runs complete!

Slade · Sep 9, 2007

Specs in sig
Vista 64 Ultimate
---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 176.01 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 174.64 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 176.56 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 176.29 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 173.82 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 47.57 fps, 1829.49 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 47.57 fps, 1829.19 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 47.63 fps, 1829.49 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 47.65 fps, 1829.51 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 47.65 fps, 1829.47 kb/s

graysky · Sep 9, 2007

@mikeo:
There are three major reasons why this might be the case. The solution to all three of them can be found in the instructions on the previous page.

1) You didn't unRAR the file to c:\work2
2) You didn't install AVISynth 2.5.7
3) You forgot to copy the "DGDecode.dll" to your c:\Program Files\AviSynth 2.5\plugins directory.

mikeo · Sep 9, 2007

435x8 q6600, p5k-e 8gb g. skill 2x2gb ddr-800 @ 870, 5-5-5-15 timings...
vista 64, I missed step 3 before, benchmark worked great!

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 173.07 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 173.87 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 173.58 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 174.20 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 170.22 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 46.97 fps, 1829.50 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 46.52 fps, 1829.03 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 46.61 fps, 1829.38 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 46.53 fps, 1829.44 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 46.74 fps, 1829.43 kb/s

graysky · Sep 10, 2007

Cool, thanks for the data. Glad it worked for ya.

jawpaul · Sep 10, 2007

XEON 5130 2.00 ghz 6 * 333mhz
Chipset: Intel 5000x
4x1GB ram (quad channel) FB-DIMM 333mhz

*edit*

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 54.10 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 55.20 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 54.79 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 54.50 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 54.68 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 13.44 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 13.55 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 13.55 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 13.56 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 13.31 fps, 1826.20 kb/s

graysky · Sep 11, 2007

jawpaul said:
XEON 5130 2.00 ghz 6 * 333mhz
Chipset: Intel 5000x
4x1GB ram (quad channel) FB-DIMM 333mhz

Thanks for the data...

What o/s are you running and what are the mem timings and speed after the multiplier? CPU-Z can give you these. Can you post a screenshot of the memory tab?

MatDef · Sep 11, 2007

Core 2 Quad q6600 2.66ghz 296*9mhz
Chipset: Intel 975x (asus p5w-dh deluxe)
Ram: 4x1gb G.Skill DDR2 800@ 888mhz 4-4-4-8
OS: Vista Ultimate x64

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 125.36 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 126.29 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 128.47 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 126.45 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 128.44 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 33.43 fps, 1829.06 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 33.65 fps, 1829.50 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 33.60 fps, 1829.43 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 33.72 fps, 1829.40 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 33.31 fps, 1829.42 kb/s

graysky · Sep 11, 2007

@matdef - thanks for the results.

jawpaul · Sep 12, 2007

Update above post with screenshot of CPUZ SPD tab. I would post memmory tab but it is blank besides type & size. I guess cpuz doesn't like fb-dimm's?

Also I am adding a second cpu soon, will update scores then as well for you.

John

jawpaul · Sep 19, 2007

Added Second CPU

XEON 2 x 5130 2.00 ghz 6 * 333mhz
Chipset: Intel 5000x
4x1GB ram (quad channel) FB-DIMM 333mhz

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 95.51 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 96.41 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 96.16 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 94.30 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 97.08 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 27.09 fps, 1829.07 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 27.10 fps, 1829.12 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 27.02 fps, 1829.45 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 26.20 fps, 1829.19 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 27.37 fps, 1829.12 kb/s

graysky · Sep 20, 2007

Interesting. Thanks for the data. It seems as though you nearly a doubling in total encode time (161 sec vs 82 sec) or about 96 % faster. Pretty cool.

graysky · Sep 20, 2007

As of 20-Sep-2007, we have data on over 100 Intel-based systems and on over 40 AMD-based systems. There are a few trends I picked-up on while browsing through the database. I put them into a single table and color coded them to make them easier to see. If you see a trend I missed, lemme know and I'll add it to the table.

Request: we don't have a single example of a machine that has both WinXP and WinVista on it. If you have a dual-boot setup, it would be cool to see the difference the O/S makes. Another missing trend is a 32-bit O/S vs. the same O/S that's 64-bit.

On to the table:

Yellow: Nearly 1:1 increase by adding an additional processor to a dual-chip MB
Orange: Some operating systems seem to handle x264 more efficiently than others
Red: Insignificant gain by upping the DRAM speed by 50 %
Blue: For the most part, these chips scale in a pretty linear fashion
Green: Tighter/looser memory timings have a pretty insignificant effect
Purple: Keeping the same over-all clock speed using a different combo of multiplier and FSB can give pretty insignificant gains

Again, I only gave this a once-over look; please point out any trends you see that I missed and also don't forgot about the O/S request!

Thanks again to all who contributed!

jawpaul · Sep 20, 2007

If you compare the Dual Processors vs Single Processors, dual cpu's are slower on the first pass, but they really excel on the second pass.

I wonder why this? One idea, I know the XEON 5000 series architecture has an independent bus for each processor instead of a single independent shared bus as was used in previous Intel designs.

*source: http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=2&id=2002&pg=2

ilal2ielli · Sep 22, 2007

Overclocked:
Core 2 Quad Q6600 3.51GHZ (390x9)
Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3
Crucial Ballistix DDR2-975 @ 4-4-4-12
Windows XP SP2 Pro

Code:

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 180.25 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 180.53 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 180.55 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 179.96 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 180.55 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 48.99 fps, 1829.14 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 49.09 fps, 1829.15 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 48.94 fps, 1829.24 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 49.20 fps, 1829.49 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 48.86 fps, 1829.20 kb/s

Stock:
Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHZ (266x9)
Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3
Crucial Ballistix DDR2-800 @ 4-4-4-12
Windows XP SP2 Pro

Code:

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 130.45 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 129.25 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 129.25 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 129.26 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 128.52 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 33.91 fps, 1829.11 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 33.93 fps, 1829.25 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 34.19 fps, 1829.18 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 33.97 fps, 1829.42 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 34.06 fps, 1829.26 kb/s

graysky · Sep 22, 2007

Thanks for the results... just one question:

9x266 result: what was your mem core speed (533 or 800 or...?)
9x390 results: what was your mem core speed (780 or ...?)

Slade · Sep 22, 2007

Specs in sig:

Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4@3.4 (8x 1:1 Ratio 425/1700)
4GB Mushkin HP26400 2.0V 5-4-4-12
BFG 8800 GTX OC
edit:

XP 32-Bit

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 181.71 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 182.30 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 181.71 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 182.00 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 181.71 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 48.12 fps, 1829.49 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 48.19 fps, 1829.49 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 48.04 fps, 1829.14 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 48.06 fps, 1829.26 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 48.25 fps, 1829.43 kb/s

Vista Ultimate 64-Bit

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 176.01 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 174.64 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 176.56 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 176.29 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 173.82 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 47.57 fps, 1829.49 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 47.57 fps, 1829.19 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 47.63 fps, 1829.49 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 47.65 fps, 1829.51 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 47.65 fps, 1829.47 kb/s

Just quick browsing my results vs the previous post, it seems ram speed is more important to the first run test than cpu speed, it's the opposite on run 2 of each test where CPU speed would indicated an edge over ram speed. Also Vista IS SLOWER than XP, but not by much in this test. Blame the aero interface maybe?

ilal2ielli · Sep 22, 2007

graysky said:
Thanks for the results... just one question:

9x266 result: what was your mem core speed (533 or 800 or...?)
9x390 results: what was your mem core speed (780 or ...?)

Oops, sorry if it wasn't clear. 9x266, my mem speed was at 800, and for 9x390, it was 975 (2.5 multi in bios).

graysky · Sep 22, 2007

thanks for the data!

Slade · Sep 25, 2007

sorry to resurrect, but I have some 3.6 numbers

8x450 5-4-4-12 timings Q6600@3.6 Vista Ultimate 64

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 185.95 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 185.63 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 184.71 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 185.31 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 185.02 fps, 1850.94 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 50.34 fps, 1829.44 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 50.34 fps, 1829.02 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 48.24 fps, 1829.16 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 50.32 fps, 1829.07 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 49.81 fps, 1829.19 kb/s

graysky · Sep 26, 2007

Thanks for the data.

rataiii · Sep 29, 2007

x2 @ 2500, ddr2 833 - 5-5-5-15, m2n-sli deluxe

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 63.35 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 64.59 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 64.78 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 64.11 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 64.48 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 15.86 fps, 1826.26 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 15.97 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 15.98 fps, 1826.27 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 15.94 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 15.96 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

graysky · Oct 30, 2007

Updated the Intel table. It now contains several Yorkfield ES chips including:

Xeon E5330 (Dual board)
Q9550
Q9350

graysky · Nov 20, 2007

Updated the tables with another 45 nm chip: the QX9650 -- both at stock levels and @ overclocked to 4.2 GHz! With it, and the others (Xeon E5330 (Dual board), Q9550, and Q9350) there is now data on 4 different 45 nm chips.

One thing that I found striking about these new chips is that they are only marginally faster than their 65 nm counterparts when encoding x264 (about 5-6 % faster with all other factors being equal or close to equal). Have a look at the general trends table for the Kentsfield vs. Yorkfield comparison at the official host.

graysky · Feb 24, 2008

First off, thanks to all who contributed data.

24-Feb-2008 - Finally updated the data tables on the x264 benchmark page. They are now html based (not .gif images) which makes my life updating them much easier and I will keep this tables up-to-date daily as people post results. Have a look at the 'Data Tends' table that contains a look at the Phenom quad vs. both Kentfield and Yorkfield quads. There are also some comparisons of Wolfdale dual vs. Conroe dual, and some other good stuff.

Warriorprophet · Feb 24, 2008

XFX 780i
Intel E8400 9x450 (4050mhz)
4gb RAM DDR2800 5-6-6-18
Vista x64 SP1

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 104.54 fps, 1850.86 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 106.34 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 103.88 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 102.72 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 102.84 fps, 1850.90 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 29.09 fps, 1826.25 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 29.46 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 29.52 fps, 1826.13 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 29.19 fps, 1826.41 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 29.43 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

ShadowVlican · Feb 26, 2008

Athlon 64 X2 3800+, 10x201, nForce4, 2-3-2-7 @ 201 MHz, XP Pro SP3
(this test was ran at stock 3800+X2 speeds... it must be this retarded ASUS A8N-E board running it slightly above stock speeds)

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 53.76 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 53.94 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 53.74 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 53.97 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 53.48 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 12.76 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 12.80 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 12.76 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 12.80 fps, 1826.38 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 12.78 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

graysky · Feb 27, 2008

thanks for the data, guys!

x264 video encoding benchmark

Gawd

[H]F Junkie

[H]ard|Gawd

Gawd

[H]ard|Gawd

[H]ard|Gawd

Gawd

[H]ard|Gawd

[H]ard|Gawd

[H]ard|Gawd

Gawd

2[H]4U

Gawd

Gawd

Gawd

n00b

Gawd

Supreme [H]ardness

Gawd

n00b

n00b

Gawd

Gawd

n00b

Gawd

Gawd

2[H]4U

Gawd

Gawd

2[H]4U

Gawd

n00b

Gawd

Gawd

Gawd

[H]ard|Gawd

Limp Gawd

Gawd