Investigations into Athlon X2 Overclocking
by Jarred Walton on December 21, 2005 12:00 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Encoding Performance
For our encoding performance tests, we use AutoGK 1.96 with both the DivX and Xvid codecs. (A newer version of AutoGK is now available, but performance and scores didn't change noticeably, and so, we will continue using the older version.) We encode chapter 9 from The Sum of All Fears without audio to 75% quality. This results in a file size about 1/3 as large as the original (not counting the audio size). As a more common encoding task, we also encode a TV commercial from 30 MB down to 5 MB, including audio encoding. This results in three encoding passes: the compression test, a first pass, and the final pass. We take the total number of frames in the video (900) and divide it by the time taken, reporting the resulting frames per second. In all AutoGK benchmarks, higher scores will be better.
The performance difference between the slowest and fastest setup is around 35% for every encoding task, scaling linearly with processor speed. AutoGK runs a lot more of the computations within the CPU and doesn't depend much on user input, and it also benefits from multiple processor cores. Compared to the Venice chip, the second core increases DivX performance by about 50% and Xvid performance by about 30%. Comparing the different RAM types, the largest gap is about 4%; so while there is a difference, it's not huge. As we said, clock speed is king for encoding.
For our encoding performance tests, we use AutoGK 1.96 with both the DivX and Xvid codecs. (A newer version of AutoGK is now available, but performance and scores didn't change noticeably, and so, we will continue using the older version.) We encode chapter 9 from The Sum of All Fears without audio to 75% quality. This results in a file size about 1/3 as large as the original (not counting the audio size). As a more common encoding task, we also encode a TV commercial from 30 MB down to 5 MB, including audio encoding. This results in three encoding passes: the compression test, a first pass, and the final pass. We take the total number of frames in the video (900) and divide it by the time taken, reporting the resulting frames per second. In all AutoGK benchmarks, higher scores will be better.
The performance difference between the slowest and fastest setup is around 35% for every encoding task, scaling linearly with processor speed. AutoGK runs a lot more of the computations within the CPU and doesn't depend much on user input, and it also benefits from multiple processor cores. Compared to the Venice chip, the second core increases DivX performance by about 50% and Xvid performance by about 30%. Comparing the different RAM types, the largest gap is about 4%; so while there is a difference, it's not huge. As we said, clock speed is king for encoding.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
46 Comments
View All Comments
TheHolyLancer - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link
i that since this is an OC thread, they should have used a DFI NF4 Ultra-D or a Expert, they have a 4V jumper that allows you to take DRAM voltage into 4 V (i hope no one does though)JarredWalton - Thursday, December 22, 2005 - link
The higher voltages would have helped the VX RAM a bit. I may shift to a LanParty SLI-DR for the cooling test... or at least try it at some point to see how much of a difference it makes in performance.KingofCamelot - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link
I noticed that the BF2 demo file for v1.12 did not work. The bf2bench.demo file needs to be changed for it to work. The bf2bench.demo file can be opened in Notepad, and the following changes need to be made.These lines:
demo.camerafile mods\bf2\Demos\jw112.bf2cam
demo.demofile mods\bf2\Demos\jw112.bf2demo
Need to be changed to:
demo.camerafile mods\bf2\Demos\jwanandtech112.bf2cam
demo.demofile mods\bf2\Demos\jwanandtech112.bf2demo
JarredWalton - Thursday, December 22, 2005 - link
Thanks! I've corrected the file and uploaded the new version.--Jarred Walton
tayhimself - Thursday, December 22, 2005 - link
Hey Jared,This was a very well written article. You were thorough with the benchmarks almost to a fault. I liked your introductory and ending commentary. Your first article was just as good.
Props!
sxr7171 - Thursday, December 22, 2005 - link
Agreed. This was a quality job for sure and the questions he raises at the end are very pertinent. I'm sure he'll come up with the answers.ElFenix - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link
i assume you used the stock heat sink/fan unit?JarredWalton - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link
Er, sorry I forgot to mention that. I used an XP-90 with a 3000 RPM 92mm fan (generic fan). I'll make a note of that, since that's important information. The followup looking at cooling options will use a retail HSF as well as the XP-90, an Asetek MicroChill, and an Asetek WaterChill. (Why Asetek? Because they asked me to review their two products.)Furen - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link
How come the graphs arent zeroed? I suppose it'd be pretty much a bunch of overlapping straight lines if they were but having a graph that shows framerate from 63.5 to 65.0 is not much better.JustAnAverageGuy - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link
Yeah, the graphs could be a bit misleading unless you look at what the lines actually represent.The difference between the OCZ PC4800 and everything else looks huge in the http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/amd/athlon...">Doom 3 graph @ 1600x1200 4xAA, but if you actually look at the lines, the difference is less than 1 frame per second.