Which CPU for encoding video

[Kelt]

Interesting link, Gurusan, thx.

 

[Matrix]

Thanks for the info guys plenty to think about.

 

[Iraklis F.C.]

i would go for a Q6600 too , 6MB<8MB

 

[Matrix]

Well im pretty sure i'm going to spend a little more and go for the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550.

All being well that is .

 

[psychas]

q9450 if u can afford it if not q6600

 

[Matrix]

q9450 if u can afford it if not q6600

Welll theQ9450 is priced the same as the Q9550 and thats a 2.8Ghz cpu so why go for the Q9450 am i missing something?
Thanks.

 

[redballoon]

Hmm.. I remember people on the ASUS forums having trouble with 45nm CPUs on the P5W DH back when I used to own one.

 

[Matrix]

Hmm.. I remember people on the ASUS forums having trouble with 45nm CPUs on the P5W DH back when I used to own one.

Yeah i'm trying to sell that as well as my CPU

 

[psychas]

get q9550 as it is the same price as q9450

 

[555BUK]

Q6600 will offer 90% of what the Q9550 can do for half the price. If you are on a budget get the Q6600.

Also, when I had my [email protected] encoding was limited by the processor (both cores at 100%). I have since had a Q6600 ([email protected]) and Q9450 ([email protected]) and all cores could would only hit around 80%, indicating my system, or software was holding me back.

 

[konam4]

The fastest quad possible!

 

[wolvers]

What software are you using for the encoding? If it supports all four cores and SSE4 then it's a no brainer.

I saw a massive reduction in encoding times going from an E2160 to an E7200. At the same clock speeds (3.6ghz I think I tested it at) the encoding time was almost halved converting MPEG to DIVX.

 

[konam4]

Yeah to be fair if it doesn't support multiple cores yet then just get the highest clocking cpu, some of the dual cores will OC hugely.

 

[Matrix]

I use MeGUI which does support multi core.

 

[Matrix]

lol sorry.

The cache will make a nice difference but it's not as significant as you think. Also you can gain a lot of performance by setting the FSB to 400mhz which pretty much any modern board will do and the CPU will most likely do it without even touching voltages.

http://www.techarp.com/x264_Benchmark/hd//results-2.htm

You can see results there...obviously lower is better, the ones in red are overclocked

Right planning on ordering today

I'm still not 100% sure if i should spend more on the Q9550 (£234.99)or to save a bit of cash and go for a Q6600 (Intel Core 2 Quad Pro Q6600 2.40GHz Guaranteed to run at 3.30GHZ (1466FSB) - Retail (£164.49))


It's more for encoding than anything.

Will i be able to overclock the Q9550 more than the Q6600 2.40GHz what can i expect out of the Q9550 on air not over doing it ?

Is the 4mb in difference with the cache going to be a huge factor?

Looking at that chart a Q9550 (2.83Ghz) encoded FPS1 =57.93 FPS2=16.66

Q6600 clocked to 3.30Ghz FPS1 =59.87 FPS2=17.12.

Of course the Q9550 is running at stocked clocked to 3.40Ghz FPS1 =66.99 FPS2=19.65


Should i be able to get 3.40Ghz or more out of the Q9550 easy enough? Planning on using a Asus P5Q mobo.

If i went for the Q6600 2.40GHz Guaranteed to run at 3.30GHZ I'd be saving £70.

Looking for more advice again.


Thanks.

 

[psd99]

I still like the Q6600 clock the hell out of it though

 

[Pneumonic]

Matrix, would keep an eye on the MM and look to buy a Q6600 2nd hand you can get a good clocker (at least as good as 3.3ghz) for around £80-£90


The Q9550 should be good for 3.4ghz