overclocked comparisons

timbo2410

timbo2410

timbo2410

Associate
Joined
27 Dec 2009
Posts
764
With the advice from you guys here on this forum I am getting asystem based on the Phenom II X6 1055. Now looking at the overclocked bundles here at OCUK, how does overclocking and the end results (ghz) compare with each other? eg. there is the Phenom II X6 2.80 that is overclocked to 3.60 now is that going to be slower that say the i3 2.93 at 4.20 ghz? Does the final ghz say which is the fastest?
I solely want my build for video transcoding and internet access so game performance is not the issue here.
 
The X6 1055 is a true 6 core processor, so that means you will be getting all 6 cores running at 3.6ghz.

The I3 is a dual core, with hyperthreading, so 2 cores 2 threads, so if a program can see the threads it treats it as at quadcore, all be it not a true qaud. But its best to think of it as a dual core (update of the E series of intel chips)

As you say that it will be used for video transcoding then i would check to see if the software you use can make use of multi-threaded/cored cpu's, and if they can then the clear winner is the X6, all be its at a slower speed, it has 4 more cores (2 more if u include the hyperthreading), and thats the key for encoding/decoding, more horses to do the work.
 
ok I see what you mean. The programs I use are usually Nero and divx converter. Is there a site that explains how to get the most out of multithreading? I suppose it would only be the more recent editions of Nero and the like that support multithreading. And also is Nero the better program for the job? I have tried several other brands of software but I seem to have more luck with Nero 10 than any of the others. I burn to Bluray and usually try for HD where possible. I'm running a 60 inch tv so high def is the way to go :D
 
Its not an area im into, i just burn to disk normally, not worrying to much about quality and the like, but im sure you will get far better advise from those that know there stuff.

It seems that since Nero 7.8.5.0, that multi - cored/threaded cpu's have been compatable, so either cpu will greatly help, but i think the AMD would win due to its true 6 cores.

Just looked at the prices of the 2 bundles and there is £70 price difference, for your needs id personally go for the X6, thats just my opinion though, id still wait to hear from more experienced encoders though.
 
yeah that's what the advice so far has been, go for the Phenom. I wanted to get my act together as far as software goes though and I was unsure whether Nero was the best for the job. I'm not interested in converting HD movies to other formats, just the best quality I can manage to get onto a BDRW disc that's all. If Nero makes use of the 6 cores well that's even better :D
 
Its actully coded to make full use of the 8 core server beast cpu's too from amd, but yeh those are just stupid money lol.

So as nero does all u need, and supports multi cores, then no question the X6 would spank the I3's butt, no matter that its clocked abit lower.

The equivilant intel type performace would cost about £140 more, well an I7 @4ghz and 8 threads would be better, but is the huge jump in cost, worth it, only if you have the money. If not then the AMD X6 is spot on for performance and cost.
 
yeah I really don't have too many problems with Nero. It's easy for me to use and I don't get into any real detail with the burning at all. I just want good HD quality, good multi channel sound and a nice clean burn without errors, and also a good match up with software and hardware .... that's not lot to ask for is it :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom