Featured Articles

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

Research firm IHS got hold of Samsung’s new flagship smartphone and took it apart to the last bolt to figure out…

More...
Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Samsung’s Galaxy S5 has finally gone on sale and it can be yours for €699, which is quite a lot of…

More...
Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel has added a load of Haswell refresh parts to its official price list and there really aren’t any surprises to…

More...
Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

During his appearance at PAX East panel and confirmed on Twitter, Titanfall developer Respawn confirmed that the first DLC pack for…

More...
KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

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

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments