| |||||||||
![]() | ![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
![]() | #1 |
Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,021
![]() | ![]() Simply put, it is a reproducible measure of fast your machine can encode a short, HD-quality video clip into a high quality x264 video file. It's nice because everyone running it will use the same video clip and software. The video encoder (x264.exe) reports a fairly accurate internal benchmark (in frames per second) for each pass of the video encode and it also uses multi-core processors very efficiently. All these factors make this an ideal benchmark to compare different processors and systems to each other. What's x264? It's more or less the next generation Xvid/DivX codec for many people. http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=520
__________________ ![]() |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #2 |
Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,021
![]() | ![]() The original x264 benchmark encoded a 720x480 @ 1.823kbps clip the x264 benchmark uses a HD source 1280x720 @ 3.963kbps Stock Q6600 does it in ~2min An Athlon XP 3200+ needs 13min A P4 @ 3ghz needs 14+min A P2 @ 450Mhz takes a while... 5hours12min How fast can your PC decode the x264 HD sample?
__________________ ![]() |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #3 |
[M] Reviewer Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,887
![]() | ![]() Look for it in our next memory review(s) as well ![]() |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #4 |
Posts: n/a
| ![]() I had a go with my laptop: ---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG encoded 1442 frames, 22.40 fps, 3905.08 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG encoded 1442 frames, 22.59 fps, 3905.08 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG encoded 1442 frames, 22.51 fps, 3905.08 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG encoded 1442 frames, 22.51 fps, 3905.08 kb/s ---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG encoded 1442 frames, 5.61 fps, 3942.92 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG encoded 1442 frames, 5.60 fps, 3942.92 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG encoded 1442 frames, 5.61 fps, 3942.92 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG encoded 1442 frames, 5.61 fps, 3942.92 kb/s But it doesn't provide an overall time for completion ... |
![]() |
![]() | #5 |
Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,021
![]() | ![]() ya, realized that too, I'm at 10fps for the RUN1PASS1, what CPU you got? ;
__________________ ![]() |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #6 |
[M] Reviewer Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,887
![]() | ![]() Testing Core 2 Quad at 3.2Ghz, figures in the high 60's for pass 1. |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #7 |
Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,021
![]() | ![]() A64+ 3000+ S754 is dated ![]() E8300 ready for install!
__________________ ![]() |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #8 |
Posts: n/a
| ![]() I'm still alittle confused by this as well. This is what I have running about ten different settings; 9x333FSB Q6600 P35C-DS3R Patriot DDR3-1600 running 1333MHz 7-7-7-20 ---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 160.83 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 160.59 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 160.15 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 160.59 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 161.05 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 42.64 fps, 1829.42 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 42.77 fps, 1829.16 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 42.66 fps, 1829.24 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 42.56 fps, 1829.36 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 42.68 fps, 1829.15 kb/s Next Q6600 7x400FSB Patriot DDR3-1600 running at 1600MHz 7-7-7-20 ---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 154.82 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 155.25 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 155.26 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 155.47 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 155.47 fps, 1850.94 kb/s ---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 40.24 fps, 1829.19 kb/s ---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 40.24 fps, 1829.31 kb/s ---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 40.32 fps, 1829.44 kb/s ---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 40.24 fps, 1829.45 kb/s ---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG encoded 1749 frames, 40.19 fps, 1829.19 kb/s Shouldn't the FPS be better in the latter benchamrk? |
![]() |
![]() | #9 |
Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,021
![]() | ![]() 3ghz vs 2.8Ghz, normal that the first run is faster, you got a 200mhz CPU advantage. FSB/MEM hasn't been impacting performance for quite a while now...
__________________ ![]() |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | #10 |
Posts: n/a
| ![]() Here's a quick chart with all data. The articloe is finished it's this I need help on. I deciced to forgo ViMArk until next (the DDR3 Round-Up). Can you email / explain which figures you want me to use from this data? Last edited by Liquid3D : 18th March 2008 at 19:18. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat benchmark released - download mirrors | jmke | WebNews | 0 | 19th November 2009 09:10 |
PhysX FluidMark Benchmark Released | jmke | WebNews | 0 | 17th August 2008 15:27 |
HardwareOC Crysis Benchmark v1.3 Released | jmke | WebNews | 0 | 22nd May 2008 12:49 |
3DMark Vantage DX10 Benchmark Released | jmke | WebNews | 2 | 28th April 2008 22:51 |
SP2 for SiSoftware Sandra XII/2008 released | jmke | WebNews | 0 | 8th April 2008 16:49 |
SP1 for SiSoftware Sandra XII released | jmke | WebNews | 0 | 14th December 2007 09:11 |
Rydermark benchmark inches closer to release | jmke | WebNews | 2 | 20th February 2007 17:30 |
RealStorm Global Illumination Benchmark 2006 Released | jmke | WebNews | 0 | 6th March 2006 17:09 |
Futuremark Begins Development of New Vector Graphics Benchmark | jmke | WebNews | 0 | 15th February 2006 09:42 |
Futuremark debuts smartphone benchmark | jmke | WebNews | 0 | 11th July 2004 21:51 |
Thread Tools | |
| |