are there any definative bulldozer results that show it is a failure with encoding and rendering

[ethan]

....as title really. Thankyou.

 

[Jordan97]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=287

Compared against an i7 2600K.

There are few encoding and rendering tests in there.

 

[mmj_uk]

Just do yourself a favour and get the 2600K for fast performance all across the board, Bulldozer performance is a lottery you'll lose far more than you win.

 

[Hepping]

Many AMD fans have actually tried to defend the Bulldozer for it's video encoding performance.
However I have just three words for those people: Intel Quick Sync

So in short, the Bulldozer is a complete waste of time and money in pretty much every practical application. So go with what MMJ said and buy a 2600k.

 

[DragonQ]

FX-8150 matches the i7-2600K at x264 encoding and it is cheaper. However, the i7-2600K destroys it in so many other things that it seems like a niche buy. The i7-2600K also uses much less power, especially when they're both overclocked.

Plus, Quick Sync can be used with a discrete GPU now (assuming you have a Z68 motherboard) and for most people its quality is sufficient. Obviously it's much faster than x264.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The i7 2600K should be ahead,although the OP can have a look through the reviews in this thread:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18328158

They test a varity of video encoding and rendering applications.

Many AMD fans have actually tried to defend the Bulldozer for it's video encoding performance.
However I have just three words for those people: Intel Quick Sync

So in short, the Bulldozer is a complete waste of time and money in pretty much every practical application. So go with what MMJ said and buy a 2600k.

A few words for you: its lower quality.

I have tried it at various settings myself and CPU only encodes are still better quality overall. It is much faster due to the use of dedicated hardware in the IGP.

This is why I am after a Core i7 2600 or Xeon E3 myself. If you want maximum quality encodes a fast CPU is the way forward currently.

Intel is not going to make Quick Sync good enough quality so it competes with the six core Core i7 CPUs. Technically speaking Quick Sync would render them bit pointless for video encoding as it is faster.

However,it doesn't. It would also make the i3 2105 a better value choice than a Core i5 or Core i7 for video encoding but it doesn't.

 

[Hepping]

The i7 2600K should be ahead,although the OP can have a look through the reviews in this thread:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18328158

They test a varity of video encoding and rendering applications.




A few words for you: its lower quality.

I have tried it at various settings myself and CPU only encodes are still better quality overall. It is much faster due to the use of dedicated hardware in the IGP.

This is why I am after a Core i7 2600 or Xeon E3 myself. If you want maximum quality encodes a fast CPU is the way forward currently.

Intel is not going to make Quick Sync good enough quality so it competes with the six core Core i7 CPUs. Technically speaking Quick Sync would render them bit pointless for video encoding as it is faster.

However,it doesn't. It would also make the i3 2105 a better value choice than a Core i5 or Core i7 for video encoding but it doesn't.

I do agree there is some loss of quality. But it does give the Intel user a choice between speed at a slight loss of quality on the Quick Sync at stupidly faster encoding times, or the choice of using the CPU at a higher quality with slower encode times than Quick Sync.

Just to have another go at it, found these results last night. Honestly couldn't believe it.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/7