# new HD x264 video encoding benchmark



## graysky (Mar 15, 2008)

Techarp is hosting a new HD x264 benchmark.  Have a look and run it on your system to help populate the data table.  

Basically, you run the test encode of an HD sample (1280x720) and it will report back frames-per-second values for your machine @ it's clock/overclock level. You can run it at your stock settings and at your overclock settings to see how your machine compares to others in the database.

My goal is to have a representative set of data for many different chips and chipsets. Please just report your results *here in this thread*. I will keep the data at that url to keep things simple.

Thanks all and enjoy!

The following image will be updated automatically as new data comes in.  It doesn't display any results, but it does show the number of data points collected so far and how they break down by CPU type:


----------



## regan1985 (Mar 15, 2008)

all i get is this???


----------



## graysky (Mar 15, 2008)

Damn... are you running vista 64 by chance?  If so, have a look at your:

c:\Program Files(x86)\AviSynth 2.5

Inside there, is there a directory called "plugins"?  If so, does it contain DGDecode.dll at all?


----------



## regan1985 (Mar 15, 2008)

no i am running vista 32 with sp1 beta

but i have looked in that location and no it doesnt contain that file hope this helps


----------



## regan1985 (Mar 15, 2008)

after copying the file into the plugings in AviSynth it worked fine. here is my 1st result on my everyday use
with vista 32 sp1 beta


----------



## graysky (Mar 15, 2008)

Cool man, thanks for the data.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Mar 15, 2008)

here's mine


----------



## graysky (Mar 15, 2008)

Cool man, thanks... what vista flavor is it (32 or 64)?


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Mar 15, 2008)

it's windows xp not vista at all


----------



## graysky (Mar 15, 2008)

exodusprime1337 said:


> it's windows xp not vista at all



Sorry man, I saw regan1985's screenshot when I asked you that... XP 32-bit or 64-bit?


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Mar 15, 2008)

32 bit buddy


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 15, 2008)

Great to have an easy to use encoding benchmark! Good stuff. BUT

1./ The benchmark is way too thorough... takes much to long to do multiple runs of the same encoding. Quite honestly, this isnt necessary.
2./ The benchmark results are silly. Why report the data density of the media file (ie the kb/s of the media stream)? What should be reported is the ENCODING SPEED.
3./ Just a summary benchmark INDEX would be handy
4./ Wheres the checksum for "honest results" checking?

[quote="ICE-QUAD", Windows 2003 SP2 32-bit, Intel 865PE, FSB 1066, Q6600 @2.4, 2Gb DDR @400, 2-3-3-6, X800SE AGP]
---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 46.10 fps, 3905.42 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 46.10 fps, 3905.42 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 46.03 fps, 3905.42 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 45.85 fps, 3905.42 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 13.61 fps, 3952.85 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 13.62 fps, 3952.85 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 13.63 fps, 3952.85 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 13.60 fps, 3952.85 kb/s[/quote]

P.S. variable results, because I'm browsing whilst this benchmark is running.

LINK http://www.techarp.com/x264_Benchmark/hd/HD_benchmark_results_pub.xls


----------



## graysky (Mar 15, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> Great to have an easy to use encoding benchmark! Good stuff. BUT
> 
> 1./ The benchmark is way too thorough... takes much to long to do multiple runs of the same encoding. Quite honestly, this isnt necessary.
> 2./ The benchmark results are silly. Why report the data density of the media file (ie the kb/s of the media stream)? What should be reported is the ENCODING SPEED.
> ...



Can you give me a few more details on your hardware?

It's a q6600 but what is the multiplier and FSB?  Also what speed is your memory running and what are the timings?  Finally, what chipset is your MB?

Thanks for the input.  Let me try to answer your four questions:

1) I wanted multiples for the runs to insure an accurate result.  I think an n=3 is just good science.  

2) The data density gets reported automatically by x264.exe; I'm not actually using it, just the FPS values for each pass which allows the calculation of the total encoding speed (have a look at the tables on the techarp link).

3) Good idea!  I will put something together... what do you think should be kept from the larger tables in an index?  CPU, Core Speed, Total Encode Time?

4) I would loved to have incorporated a data integrity check, but sadly, I don't have the programming skills to make it work.  I do check the data against itself for like processors and if a data point clearly stands out from the pack, I delete it.  I am happy to say that of the over 280 results of my first "SDTV" x264 benchmark (used a 720x480 clip), I only found one such suspect data point.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 15, 2008)

I'm Q6600 at stock on intel 865PE.

1) I understand the reason... but for the sake of everyones short life... do n=1.  People can always re-run if they want a second opinion. Alternatively, make n= user input. But then only report the AVERAGE of the n runs.

2) I see, ok

3) INDEX = total encode time (average if n>1)

4) OK, but you could do a very rudimentary checksum calculation on the INDEX figure. 

Otherwise, great work.

PS. I didnt even look at the mpg file... perhaps I'll go that now! LOL


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 15, 2008)

Just looked... oh. Boring. But I did notice the sound was lost on the MP4. Is that deliberate? Does the utility only render the video portion? Or do I have a broken MP4 codec?


----------



## VulkanBros (Mar 15, 2008)

Here are mine ( Vista 64-bit )


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Mar 15, 2008)

graysky said:


> Damn... are you running vista 64 by chance?  If so, have a look at your:
> 
> c:\Program Files(x86)\AviSynth 2.5
> 
> Inside there, is there a directory called "plugins"?  If so, does it contain DGDecode.dll at all?



Where can I find the DGDecode.dll file to copy into the plugin folder?


----------



## VulkanBros (Mar 15, 2008)

Here it is


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 15, 2008)

Ran it on the background, CPU load was ~60% during the run.


> ---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
> encoded 1442 frames, 52.14 fps, 3901.76 kb/s
> 
> ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
> ...


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Mar 16, 2008)

VulkanBros said:


> Here it is



But mine isnt in there. Im talking about where I can get the file so I can put it there.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 16, 2008)

Ooooh, nice Dan. Me also wantie Dual Quad Xeons 

Thats a great demo of the power of 8.

WAIT. Somethings wrong.  Look at those kb/s numbers. That's the video density. PASS 1 should ALWAYS BE THE SAME (same for PASS2). What's going on? Why is your run giving you different figures? Broken FPU? One of those cores got a math bug?


----------



## graysky (Mar 16, 2008)

@lemonaidsoda - a few other questions: what is the running speed of your RAM and what o/s are you running (like windows xp 32-bit or 64-bit)?



lemonadesoda said:


> Just looked... oh. Boring. But I did notice the sound was lost on the MP4. Is that deliberate? Does the utility only render the video portion? Or do I have a broken MP4 codec?



Yeah, since it's a measure of pure video, I did not included an audio track.


----------



## graysky (Mar 16, 2008)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Where can I find the DGDecode.dll file to copy into the plugin folder?



The dll is in the "test" directory of the benchmark.  It should have been automatically copied into your %programfiles%\avisynth 2.5\plugins or if running 64-bit o/s your %programfiles(x86)%\avisynth 2.5\plugins

For some reason this isn't happening on some vista machines.  Regan1985's for example, and now your machine.  Can you do me a favor to help troubleshoot this?

Please post the full path to the location of your avisynth directory.


----------



## graysky (Mar 16, 2008)

VulkanBros said:


> Here are mine ( Vista 64-bit )



Thanks for the data!  Just to be sure I got it right... is your memory running @ 1,066 MHz or just rated at that speed?  CPU-Z can tell you (memory tab) what it's running at.


----------



## graysky (Mar 16, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Ran it on the background, CPU load was ~60% during the run.



Thanks for the results!  Since your clock speed is 2.28 GHz, I guessing you're running @ 6x380?  Also, when you said it only ran @ 60 %, was that just for the 1st pass or did the 2nd pass as well only run @ 60 %?


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 16, 2008)

graysky said:


> Thanks for the results!  Since your clock speed is 2.28 GHz, I guessing you're running @ 6x380?  Also, when you said it only ran @ 60 %, was that just for the 1st pass or did the 2nd pass as well only run @ 60 %?



Correct, though CPU load was spread over all cores. I guess the encoder simply doesn't cores to 100%. Then again someone else could verify that?


----------



## regan1985 (Mar 16, 2008)

can we set up some kind of table showing who is top with what cpu/ram speeds?


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 16, 2008)

WAIT. Somethings wrong with Dan's numbers. Look at those kb/s numbers. That's the video density. All runs of PASS 1 should ALWAYS BE THE SAME number, i.e. 3905.42 kb/s (same for PASS2, 3952.85 kb/s). What's going on? Why is Dan's run giving different video density figures? Broken FPU? One of those cores got a math bug? Single threading is getting scheduled across different CPUs and losing "internal" accuracy? Goodness knows. But its ugly. Dan is your BIOS compatible with your Xeon stepping, or is it a "force fit"?

>> Dan please re-run the test and see if you get different results.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 16, 2008)

[quote="ICE-QUAD", Windows 2003 SP2, Intel 865PE, FSB 1066, Q6600 @2.4, 2Gb DDR @360, 2-3-3-6, X800SE AGP]
---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 46.10 fps, 3905.42 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 46.10 fps, 3905.42 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 46.03 fps, 3905.42 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 45.85 fps, 3905.42 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 13.61 fps, 3952.85 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 13.62 fps, 3952.85 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 13.63 fps, 3952.85 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 13.60 fps, 3952.85 kb/s[/quote]


I'll do another run later on overclock for your benchmark database.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 16, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> WAIT. Somethings wrong with Dan's numbers. Look at those kb/s numbers. That's the video density. All runs of PASS 1 should ALWAYS BE THE SAME number, i.e. 3905.42 kb/s (same for PASS2, 3952.85 kb/s). What's going on? Why is Dan's run giving different video density figures? Broken FPU? One of those cores got a math bug? Single threading is getting scheduled across different CPUs and losing "internal" accuracy? Goodness knows. But its ugly. Dan is your BIOS compatible with your Xeon stepping, or is it a "force fit"?
> 
> >> Dan please re-run the test and see if you get different results.



Besides writing in annoying red you make a fair point. I didn't notice. I figured it's like with other encoders the result never is equal to the precalculation, it is slightly off. However looking at other the other results they should be 100% equal. Will check it out.


----------



## graysky (Mar 16, 2008)

So we stay on topic and to keep the thread "clean" that is relating to the benchmark, I started a new thread here to discuss DanTheBanjoman's results.  Please post to it if the discussion revolves around his results.

@DanTheBanjoMan - I posted a suggestion in that thread btw.


----------



## warhammer (Mar 16, 2008)

Here is mine @3.6



> ---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
> encoded 1442 frames, 30.05 fps, 3905.42 kb/s
> 
> ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
> ...



http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=318305


----------



## mandelore (Mar 16, 2008)

heres a quicky at a low oc setting i had on last night..


----------



## graysky (Mar 16, 2008)

@warhammer - thanks dude... vista 32 or vista 64?
@mandelore - smokin' ... what are you mem timings and the maximus formula uses ddr2, right?


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 16, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Besides writing in annoying red ...


Seeing as so many peeps didnt notice my comment much EARLIER in the thread, I repeated it in RED. Clearly it got your and other peeps attention (at last) and I am therefore encouraged to make more frequent use of gay flashing spinning multicolors where needed. PS> DONT get all prejudiced because I'll so multi-color-tural! LOL


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 16, 2008)

overclocked "ICE-QUAD" said:
			
		

> ---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
> encoded 1442 frames, 49.75 fps, 3905.42 kb/s
> 
> ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
> ...



My Q6600 wont go faster than FSB300 on a i865PE, Capt'n. (=2.7Ghz)


----------



## graysky (Mar 16, 2008)

@lemonaidsoda - a few other questions: what is the running speed of your RAM and what o/s are you running (like windows xp 32-bit or 64-bit)?


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 16, 2008)

Greyski, All the info you are asking for is in the "quote line" where I show you the results. (except the 32-bit part). Im on Win2K3-32bit


----------



## graysky (Mar 16, 2008)

Ah, sorry I missed it.  So you're running 9x300... RAM must be 600 then?


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 16, 2008)

eh? No, as I wrote on the spec, its DDR@400. There is a memory divider 3:2 on FSB, so the memory clock is running at 200 (400 DDR).  There's no way you are going to get DDR to run at 300 (600 DDR). Not even superbalistix DDR memory will go THAT fast. Thats like PC4800 !!  (just dont ask me WHY DDR that iscalled PC3200 runs at 200 but is quoted as 400 due to DDR. It would be so much easier just to call it "200" memory, since that is the CLOCK the memory is running at)

On the earlier quote, FSB 1066, the memory clock is again 3:2 FSB, or 180 (360 DDR).


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 16, 2008)

Hey graysky, "your mom" sucks. (http://www.techarp.com/x264_Benchmark/hd/HD_benchmark_results_pub.xls)

I cant even count the number of errors that "your mom" put into this spreadsheet! Both Dan and I run Windows 2003. Thats Windows 2003 and NOT Windows 2000.

On an intel 865PE, memory is DDR1 NOT DDR2, as clearly stated in all my benchmark results. You also put my (original) stock benchmark figures against OVERCLOCKED CPU and memory timings. How about putting the relevant benchmark figures against those higher clocks!  Talk about apples and oranges!

UNBELIEVABLE.  What's the point of creating and .xls database if nearly every data point has errors! Slapdash, my friend.

***
Mind you, the results are very interesting.... IF we can believe them!?


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 16, 2008)

xls database  >> user doesn't know the difference between a database and a spreadsheet.


----------



## graysky (Mar 16, 2008)

@lemon - take it easy dude.  I corrected the mistakes you pointed out - thanks for doing so by the way   Update in a the next few.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 16, 2008)

Sure thing, Gray.

Just that you hound us for benchmarks and then all the bits of data... but then "your mom" types them up into the database/spreadsheet while still holding a beer LOL 

BTW, who is "your mom"? I guess it's you!

P.S. that top result "X5460 - Harpertown", completely pwning the PASS2, I think thats QUAD channel FBDIMM not DDR2. Might need to check on that one...

EDIT

>> I see you've already editted the xls.  RAM divider is 3:2  (or 6:4) not 3/4 as shown.

>> Interesting to see that the old 865PE chipset with DDR is up there with the P965 and DDR2.  Can match it clock-for-clock. Only problem is that the 865 tops out at 300FSB, 2.7GHz for Q6600. I'll need to trade it for a Q6700 when the prices drop.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 16, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> Sure thing, Gray.
> 
> Just that you hound us for benchmarks and then all the bits of data... but then "your mom" types them up into the database/spreadsheet while still holding a beer LOL
> 
> BTW, who is "your mom"? I guess it's you!



I wish my mom would drink beer with me, would be good for our relation.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 16, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> I wish my mom would drink beer with me, would be good for our relation.


Sounds kinky Dan, u might want to edit that.


----------



## graysky (Mar 16, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> "X5460 - Harpertown", completely pwning the PASS2, I think thats QUAD channel FBDIMM not DDR2. Might need to check on that one...



Right you are, here are his system specs:





> Intel Skultrail D5400XS, i5400 express chipset
> Intel Xeon X5460 o/c 3.8GHz (9.5x400)
> 8GB DDR2 FB-DIMM 800MHz 5-5-5-18
> Vista Ultimate x64


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 16, 2008)

Yes, that's not really *standard DDR2*.

The reason he/she is PWNING the results is:

1./ There might be 2x CPUs in there, giving a total of 6 or 8 cores depending on how he has configured it.

But also

2./ At 8GB, he is running 4, maybe 8, FB-DIMMS.  On Intel 5xxx chipset, the memory works as single, double or quad channel depending on the number of sticks.  So basically he has got quad channel RAM working there... giving twice the memory bandwidth of regular dual channel DDR2.

Dan... do u know if skulltrail does 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 channel as well as 1, 2, 4 channel?


----------



## graysky (Mar 16, 2008)

You know, I'll bet he does have dual processors; have a look at his board:






I'll wait for him to confirm, but I'm pretty sure that's the deal.  Another good call, lemon.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 16, 2008)

2x cpu's = 4 or 8 cores. 6 isn't supported, I tested it on my x7 and it doesn't work. I've seen single+dual Opterons though, so in theory it could be done, just not officially.

As for the memory subsystem, FB-DIMMs offer tremendous theoretical bandwidth, that's where it ends. Effectively you get about 20-25% of the bandwidth and high latency. 
Also, there is only dual and quad channel, single triple or above quad doesn't exist. However FB specs do speak of 6 channel, no chipset supports that so far. Dual/quad isn't determined by sticks but by ranks. Additionally multiple ranks on a channel results in simultaneous reads and writes.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 16, 2008)

Additionally, now that you're looking at this hardware, if you come across a store that sells Asus Z7S-WS (and has stock) please tell me, turns out Europe won't get it for another 3 months.


----------



## graysky (Mar 16, 2008)

@DTB - dunno if they have them in stock, but have you tried froogle?


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 16, 2008)

graysky said:


> @DTB - dunno if they have them in stock, but have you tried froogle?



None seem to have stock, one store lists 4/11. Some day I shall find one in stock somewhere


----------



## revin (Mar 17, 2008)




----------



## graysky (Mar 17, 2008)

Thanks for the results... just so I get this right, your memory is DDR1 @ 220 MHz?


----------



## revin (Mar 17, 2008)

graysky said:


> Thanks for the results... just so I get this right, your memory is DDR1 @ 220 MHz?



It is DDR1, but the bench was at 218FSB 1:1, and the timing was 2.2.2.5 GAT F1=PAT


----------



## warhammer (Mar 18, 2008)

graysky said:


> @warhammer - thanks dude... vista 32 or vista 64?
> @mandelore - smokin' ... what are you mem timings and the maximus formula uses ddr2, right?



Sorry VISTA 64


----------



## graysky (Mar 18, 2008)

Got the corrections, thanks!


----------



## Wile E (Mar 18, 2008)

*24/7 settings*

QX9650 @ 10x400
DDR2 1200 5-5-5-15 (2/3 divider)
X38
Windows XP Pro











> ---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
> encoded 1442 frames, 80.95 fps, 3905.42 kb/s
> 
> ---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
> ...


----------



## graysky (Mar 18, 2008)

Cool man, thanks.  I'm always amazed that those things will run 4 GHz on under 1.4 V!


----------



## Wile E (Mar 18, 2008)

graysky said:


> Cool man, thanks.  I'm always amazed that those things will run 4 GHz on under 1.4 V!



No problem man, and yeah, this is hands down the best cpu I have ever had the joy of OCing. I don't even have to go to 1.6V to reach 4455. Speaking of which, I'm gonna try a run at that speed for you in a little while here.


----------



## graysky (Mar 18, 2008)

Crazy man.  I know you're liquid cooled, but what kinda load temps does 4 GHz generate?  Wonder if it'd be possible on air?


----------



## cdawall (Mar 18, 2008)

i'll throw in some 3ghz+ a64 single core numbers when i get a chance


----------



## Wile E (Mar 18, 2008)

graysky said:


> Crazy man.  I know you're liquid cooled, but what kinda load temps does 4 GHz generate?  Wonder if it'd be possible on air?



Well, nothing really reads temps right on these, so I have no point of reference for you. But at these voltages, 4GHz will be no problem with a good air cooler. My Q6600 at 1.5V loaded to the mid 50s on water, so this should be loading somewhere in the 40s on water. With a good air cooler, it will likely be in the 50s or 60s. Still perfectly fine for a quad.

And speaking of heat, I can't run this test at or above 4.4GHz so far, due to heat. Encoding H.264 beats the crap out of the cpu. lol. I have more tinkering to do. lol.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 18, 2008)

Impressed by those QX9650 numbers, I thought I'd check the price... and came across a LAPTOP with a QX9650! WTF!

http://geizhals.at/deutschland/a316582.html


----------



## cdawall (Mar 18, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> Impressed by those QX9650 numbers, I thought I'd check the price... and came across a LAPTOP with a QX9650! WTF!
> 
> http://geizhals.at/deutschland/a316582.html



it also has 600GB HDD and a blu-ray drive


----------



## revin (Mar 20, 2008)

Another pass at 220FSB 1:1


----------



## graysky (Mar 20, 2008)

@revin - got it, you're squeezing every last MHz out of that, eh   Will update soon.


----------



## revin (Mar 21, 2008)

graysky said:


> @revin - got it, you're squeezing every last MHz out of that, eh   Will update soon.



 Yea,thanks
I had it outside a couple Sat.'s ago, and ran 3.9, on AIR and really want to get a super cooling setup that wont cost me alot of $$$$. I should be able to run this EE as most other skt 478's to around the 4Ghz, and that would be a pretty sweet ride!!!

BTW, Will both scores still remain??? or do you haft to overwrite the previous?

Thanks again


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Mar 21, 2008)

Here is my data! 
Not bad for a $70 processor!
Look at that idle temp on air cooling! 1.6Ghz stock then its clocked to 3.25Ghz! 
I know its weak. 
I will list my better computers tomorrow.


----------



## graysky (Mar 21, 2008)

revin said:


> BTW, Will both scores still remain??? or do you haft to overwrite the previous?



I'll keep em both unless you want one pulled.


----------



## graysky (Mar 21, 2008)

@DaedalusHelios - thanks for the data, man


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 21, 2008)

any other takers?


----------



## revin (Mar 23, 2008)

revin said:


> Yea,thanks
> I had it outside a couple Sat.'s ago, and ran 3.9, on AIR and really want to get a super cooling setup that wont cost me alot of $$$$. I should be able to run this EE as most other skt 478's to around the 4Ghz, and that would be a pretty sweet ride!!!
> 
> BTW, Will both scores still remain??? or do you haft to overwrite the previous?
> ...



 Like to keep all of the scores if OK, to give a referance to the FSB vs. gain's made.
I tried 225FSB, but temps weren't cool enough to maintain

It's kinda cool out again, might need to slip it outside again

Thanks again for all the work!


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 23, 2008)

Graysky,

Here are some suggestions for http://www.techarp.com/x264_Benchmark/hd/HD_benchmark_results_pub.xls

1./ Put the TPU user in the database.

2./ Get rid on Sheet 2 

3./ Put a new Sheet 2 with a chart or two for analysis

4./ Add a new sheet with the system specs of the "best in class", ie. best Xeon system, best Q6600 system, best Core 2 Dual system, best P4 system, best P3 system, etc. Specs need to include system board, memory, OS.  (Or include this on main database page... even if sometimes data is BLANK for some users who didnt submit it).

I know its extra work, but it would be pretty cool source of info.


----------



## graysky (Mar 23, 2008)

lemonadesoda - TPU = ?
I like your suggestions, especially #4.  I haven't been tracking the individual board and mem, just chipset and mem timings/overall clock rate.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Mar 23, 2008)

My results


----------



## graysky (Mar 23, 2008)

Thanks dude, got it


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 24, 2008)

graysky said:


> lemonadesoda - TPU = ?



lemonadesoda - techpowerup = lemonadesoda + moretimeforotherstuff

P.S. lesstimeforotherstuff = - moretimeforotherstuff

Interesting equation there graysky!


----------



## revin (Apr 16, 2008)

First run with the Q6700 on Conroe i865PE

Stock 266FSB =2.66Ghz
 Ram is 177mhz[due to 2:3 div] 2.2.2.5 I'll need to find my Memset3.3Beta, it'll show correct speed.But timings are correct 2225







And heres Q6700 300FSB= 3Ghz Ram 200Mhz, 2225


----------



## graysky (Apr 16, 2008)

@revin - thanks for the data... is that right... DDR memory (not DDR2)?  I didn't think there are boards out there that support C2Q and DDR1 memory.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Apr 16, 2008)

graysky... REALLY... you've already got my system in your database as Q6600 865PE... and we had this DDR discussion already! ASROCK Conroe865PE and ASROCK 775i65G.

Line 75 in http://www.techarp.com/x264_Benchmark/hd/HD_benchmark_results_pub.xls (version 16.4.08)

Q6600	Kentsfield	4	65 nm	9.0	x	300	2.70	865PE	2.5-3-3-6	@	400	 3/4	DDR	1	Windows 2003	x86	02:03	51.19	15.14	01:28:13		1033	51.21	51.33	51.02	49.75	15.16	15.14	15.13	15.13	0.156	0.015


PS. WOW that database has really grown since I last saw it. Good work!


----------



## CrackerJack (Apr 16, 2008)

this is my field working, like to see my results. i'll check into it later


----------



## graysky (Apr 16, 2008)

@lomonadesoda - dude, I don't live in front of my PC and entering many data points makes my head hurt - they tend to blur together.  Cut me some slack please


----------



## revin (Apr 19, 2008)

graysky said:


> @revin - thanks for the data... is that right... DDR memory (not DDR2)?  I didn't think there are boards out there that support C2Q and DDR1 memory.




 Yes it's correct DDR1 trip 2 with a 5 

lemonadesoda made me do it
 [it was a real smashup ]

but over all it's working out really well

 Thanks for all the hard work and effort graysky
and u2 l/s, you have helped out alot during this swicth over


----------

