Featured Articles

Snapdragon 400 is Qualcomm’s SoC for watches, wearables

Snapdragon 400 is Qualcomm’s SoC for watches, wearables

We wanted to learn a bit more about Qualcomm's plans for wearables and it turns out that the company believes its…

More...
Qualcomm sampling 20nm Snapdragon 810

Qualcomm sampling 20nm Snapdragon 810

We had a chance to talk to Michelle Leyden-Li, Senior Director of Marketing, QCT at Qualcomm and get an update on…

More...
EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 reviewed

EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 reviewed

Nvidia has released two new graphics cards based on its latest Maxwell GPU architecture. The Geforce GTX 970 and Geforce GTX…

More...
Nvidia GTX 980 reviewed

Nvidia GTX 980 reviewed

Nvidia has released two new graphics cards based on its latest Maxwell GPU architecture. The Geforce GTX 970 and Geforce GTX…

More...
PowerColor TurboDuo R9 285 reviewed

PowerColor TurboDuo R9 285 reviewed

Today we will take a look at the PowerColor TurboDuo Radeon R9 285. The card is based on AMD’s new…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Tuesday, 11 November 2008 13:39

Core i7 beats them all - 7 x264

Written by Eliot Kucharik


Image Image

Review: Fast, but expensive



x264:

While benching x264 we noticed enabling Hyperthreading does hurt the results considerably. So this is the only benchmark where we have disabled it by default. Because we need comparable results we do use a rather old binary, we will have a follow up article concentrating on gaming where we will check out, if this is still a problem or just related to this old build. For some reason the x264 bench will crash the QX9650 4GHz test-setup, just believe us, when we tell you, it's much faster.

Image

Of course, we also checked if triple or dual channel memory interface makes a difference:

Image

Because x264 is also very demanding on the memory interface, we thought it's the best benchmark suited to point out the differences in memory speed. We did get the first 3GB Kingston kit just at the end of last week and would have liked to bench more, but we were not able to achieve low latencies with lower speeds. This kit is aimed for high speeds, not low latencies.

Image

As you can see, there is only a 1 FPS difference between 1066MHz and 1600MHz, so it's better for your purse to buy the 1066MHz modules, as they will get cheaper because demand from OEMs will increase. To invest in high-speed memory modules is just a waste of money, in our opinion.

(Page 7 of 9)
Last modified on Sunday, 18 January 2009 23:58
blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments