Featured Articles

Intel releases tiny 3G cell modem

Intel releases tiny 3G cell modem

Intel has released a 3G cellular modem with an integrated power amplifier that fits into a 300 mm2 footprint, claiming it…

More...
Braswell 14nm Atom slips to Q2 15

Braswell 14nm Atom slips to Q2 15

It's not all rosy in the house of Intel. It seems that upcoming Atom out-of-order cores might be giving this semiconductor…

More...
TSMC 16nm wafers coming in Q1 2015

TSMC 16nm wafers coming in Q1 2015

TSMC will start producing 16nm wafers in the first quarter of 2015. Sometime in the second quarter production should ramp up…

More...
Skylake-S LGA is 35W to 95W TDP part

Skylake-S LGA is 35W to 95W TDP part

Skylake-S is the ‘tock’ of the Haswell architecture and despite being delayed from the original plan, this desktop part is scheduled…

More...
Aerocool Dead Silence reviewed

Aerocool Dead Silence reviewed

Aerocool is well known for its gamer cases with aggressive styling. However, the Dead Silence chassis offers consumers a new choice,…

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