Not all processors are created "Equal"

jimbo45

New Member
VIP Member
Guru
Messages
4,373
Location
Hafnarfjörður IS
Hi there

It just shows that you shouldn't merely look at "RAW" CPU power or the number of Cores.

I tried converting a 2.0 GB 1080p HD RIP of the 50th anniversary edition of "The Wizard of OZ" to a DVD so I could add some Icelandic subtitles for my aged Grandma !!! (No to anybody from down under -- this isn't a Film about "Aussie Wizards" or wizards from "Down under !!").

Computer 1.

Desktop machine AMD Phenom II X4 (QUAD) Processor -- 1 hr 35 mins processor over 3.2 GHZ. 16 GB RAM on ASUS Mobo.

Computer 2.

HP laptop (Envy sleekbook with INTEL i5 processor (DUO not QUAD) 55 Mins !!!! Processor around 2.1 GHZ and 8GB RAM

Thanks AMD - no wonder people are leaving AMD in Droves.

Could be Cache -- no idea -- same program and both machines running Windows 8.1 update 1 X-64 .

Both OS'es on SSD (Samsung 256GB 840). Target and source files on SSD.

I've excluded burning time since the laptop doesn't have a physical DVD -- I had to copy the .ISO to the other machine and burn from there -- but Burn times were excluded. Time shown was to create the ISO ready for burning.

Program set up on both machines to use all cores etc.

Cheers
jimbo
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Linux Centos 7, W8.1, W7, W2K3 Server W10
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    Monitor(s) Displays
    1 X LG 40 inch TV
    Hard Drives
    SSD's * 3 (Samsung 840 series) 250 GB
    2 X 3 TB sata
    5 X 1 TB sata
    Internet Speed
    0.12 GB/s (120Mb/s)
Hence the reason that I have been saying that i fully recommend and only use Intel processors since the days of the Intel Core 2 Duo. I used many AMD processors prior to this time, but AMD has simply not had the upper hand for a very long time. Only in very specialized instances does having more cores really make things better. AMD has really cached in on selling the # of cores, versus the actual performance of the core.

And typically when you say that Intel processors are not that much higher priced, AMD fans say the the top Intel 8 core processor is like $1,000 while the AMD is like $150, so it's massively less expensive. But they often fail to realize that a quad core Intel, heck even some dual core Intels can outperform those 8 core AMD's in most common applications that people will encounter.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 7
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Self-Built in July 2009
    CPU
    Intel Q9550 2.83Ghz OC'd to 3.40Ghz
    Motherboard
    Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R rev. 1.1, F12 BIOS
    Memory
    8GB G.Skill PI DDR2-800, 4-4-4-12 timings
    Graphics Card(s)
    EVGA 1280MB Nvidia GeForce GTX570
    Sound Card
    Realtek ALC899A 8 channel onboard audio
    Monitor(s) Displays
    23" Acer x233H
    Screen Resolution
    1920x1080
    Hard Drives
    Intel X25-M 80GB Gen 2 SSD
    Western Digital 1TB Caviar Black, 32MB cache. WD1001FALS
    PSU
    Corsair 620HX modular
    Case
    Antec P182
    Cooling
    stock
    Keyboard
    ABS M1 Mechanical
    Mouse
    Logitech G9 Laser Mouse
    Internet Speed
    15/2 cable modem
    Other Info
    Windows and Linux enthusiast. Logitech G35 Headset.
Hi there

Thanks for the explanation -- I'm upgrading that machine to 32 GB RAM with a decent i7 in it -- no more AMD's for me -- the difference between the two really was amazing -- and this is a GOOD test since Video manipulations will always tax a CPU to the limit.

For a lot of bog standard "Officy" stuff then there probably isn't much difference but if you use serious CPU cycles then a better processor is well worth it. I do a lot amount of "PHOTOSHOPPING" too -- often with loads of Layers etc to produce professional quality prints for press as well and processing a load of RAW photos from some good high quality top end PRO DSLR'S. This also takes a lot of time and needs a good quality processor.

Cheers
jimbo
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Linux Centos 7, W8.1, W7, W2K3 Server W10
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    Monitor(s) Displays
    1 X LG 40 inch TV
    Hard Drives
    SSD's * 3 (Samsung 840 series) 250 GB
    2 X 3 TB sata
    5 X 1 TB sata
    Internet Speed
    0.12 GB/s (120Mb/s)
Love my i5 for video transcoding. Quite fast, I can convert a 2 hour 12 GB TV show to MP4 900MB in about 20 minutes. :)
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit
    Computer type
    Laptop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Acer V3 771G-6443
    CPU
    i5-3230m
    Motherboard
    Acer VA70_HC (U3E1)
    Memory
    8GB DDR3 PC3-12800 (800 MHz)
    Graphics Card(s)
    HD4000 + GeForce GT 730M
    Sound Card
    Realtek High Definition Audio
    Monitor(s) Displays
    17" Generic PnP Display on Intel HD Graphics 4000
    Screen Resolution
    1600x900 pixels
    Hard Drives
    Samsung SSD 850 EVO 250 GB
    ADATA SSD SP900 128GB
    PSU
    90 watt brick
    Mouse
    Bluetooth
    Antivirus
    Comodo
    Other Info
    Asus RT-AC56R dual-band WRT router (Merlin firmware). Intel 7260.HMWWB.R dual-band ac wireless adapter.
Love my i5 for video transcoding. Quite fast, I can convert a 2 hour 12 GB TV show to MP4 900MB in about 20 minutes. :)

Hi there

Transcoding THAT way is always a lot quicker than CREATING a DVD (with DVD structures / VOB files etc etc) FROM an MP4 or MKV file !!!! Also the quality of the output video will also depend on how much you've compressed it. I'm usually writing to 4,7 GB DVD blanks and want the best quality that will fit on them. A 900MB file reduced from a 12GB one might not yield quality much better than the old VHS standard.

Try creating just an ISO (without burning to physical DVD) say using CONVERTXTODVD or similar DVD authoring program any decent HD / BLU Ray rips (source size 1080p say 2.2 GB Rip). I think you'll be surprised at how long it takes.

The point is taken of course about the i5 -- but people get hugely confused when you say you want to CREATE a physical DVD which will play on a stand alone player rather than just transcode a codec -- these days of course a lot of people don't often want to create physical DVD's any more as you just rip and transcode into MP4/MKV or even AVI and play on your computer ==> TV via HDMI.

CREATING a physical DVD though requires a bit more "Horse power" !!!.

Cheers
jimbo
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Linux Centos 7, W8.1, W7, W2K3 Server W10
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    Monitor(s) Displays
    1 X LG 40 inch TV
    Hard Drives
    SSD's * 3 (Samsung 840 series) 250 GB
    2 X 3 TB sata
    5 X 1 TB sata
    Internet Speed
    0.12 GB/s (120Mb/s)
Love my i5 for video transcoding. Quite fast, I can convert a 2 hour 12 GB TV show to MP4 900MB in about 20 minutes. :)

Hi there

Transcoding THAT way is always a lot quicker than CREATING a DVD (with DVD structures / VOB files etc etc) FROM an MP4 or MKV file !!!!

The point is taken of course -- but people get hugely confused when you say you want to CREATE a physical DVD which will play on a stand alone player -- these days of course a lot of people don't do this any more as you just transcode into MP4/MKV or even AVI and play on your computer ==> TV via HDMI.

CREATING a physical DVD though requires a bit more "Horse power" !!!.

Cheers
jimbo


Understand, I just threw in my 2 cents on the transcoding thing. Has been awhile since I created a DVD but as I remember it was pretty fast too. Back when I had AMD processor it was still single core days and I didn't do any video conversions at all.

Your real world comparison is quite revealing though.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit
    Computer type
    Laptop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Acer V3 771G-6443
    CPU
    i5-3230m
    Motherboard
    Acer VA70_HC (U3E1)
    Memory
    8GB DDR3 PC3-12800 (800 MHz)
    Graphics Card(s)
    HD4000 + GeForce GT 730M
    Sound Card
    Realtek High Definition Audio
    Monitor(s) Displays
    17" Generic PnP Display on Intel HD Graphics 4000
    Screen Resolution
    1600x900 pixels
    Hard Drives
    Samsung SSD 850 EVO 250 GB
    ADATA SSD SP900 128GB
    PSU
    90 watt brick
    Mouse
    Bluetooth
    Antivirus
    Comodo
    Other Info
    Asus RT-AC56R dual-band WRT router (Merlin firmware). Intel 7260.HMWWB.R dual-band ac wireless adapter.
And typically when you say that Intel processors are not that much higher priced, AMD fans say the the top Intel 8 core processor is like $1,000 while the AMD is like $150, so it's massively less expensive. But they often fail to realize that a quad core Intel, heck even some dual core Intels can outperform those 8 core AMD's in most common applications that people will encounter.
That is only partially true. Most people do not really need Intel, unless they work with graphics or video.
Performance in games using Intel CPU for $1,000 vs AMD for $150 is the same, it is about limitations of GPU.
If you spend all that money on buying better GPU, more RAM and so on, then the AMD is an obvious choice.
If people ask, which CPU is better, it always come to what do you need it for. Intel is sure worth it though.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Win 8.1.1 Pro x64
    Computer type
    Laptop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Lenovo E525
    CPU
    AMD A4-3300M @ 2,0GHz
    Memory
    6GB DDR3 1333MHz
    Graphics Card(s)
    AMD Radeon HD 6480G 512MB shared
    Sound Card
    Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Surround 5.1
    Screen Resolution
    1366x768
    Hard Drives
    WD 465GB
    Cooling
    Fusion Tweaker
    Keyboard
    Logitech K360
    Mouse
    Logitech M705
    Internet Speed
    50/50 MBps
    Browser
    Yandex
    Antivirus
    No AV & No Firewall
    Other Info
    Headphones: Sennheiser RS170
And typically when you say that Intel processors are not that much higher priced, AMD fans say the the top Intel 8 core processor is like $1,000 while the AMD is like $150, so it's massively less expensive. But they often fail to realize that a quad core Intel, heck even some dual core Intels can outperform those 8 core AMD's in most common applications that people will encounter.
That is only partially true. Most people do not really need Intel, unless they work with graphics or video.
Performance in games using Intel CPU for $1,000 vs AMD for $150 is the same, it is about limitations of GPU.
If you spend all that money on buying better GPU, more RAM and so on, then the AMD is an obvious choice.
If people ask, which CPU is better, it always come to what do you need it for. Intel is sure worth it though.

Why settle for less? You won't save enough money to buy a high end graphics card by buying a similar AMD versus an Intel processor.

I wasn't saying a $1000 Intel cpu was the way to go for almost everyone. But people with an 8 core AMD usually tout how much cheaper their 8 core model is compared to an 8 core Intel. But contrasting based solely on the number of CPUs is irrelevant. A 4 core Intel can often beat out an 8 core AMD. And maybe the AMD 8 core is $149, while an Intel 4 core might be $ $199, but $50 is probably about 5 percent of the cost of the entire PC. For that little money, I would not settle. Scrap the fancy case with a window, scrap the silly LED lighting, don't bother adding 12 additional case fans, don't buy the most expensive thermal paste you can find, you can find the money for the CPU.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 7
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Self-Built in July 2009
    CPU
    Intel Q9550 2.83Ghz OC'd to 3.40Ghz
    Motherboard
    Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R rev. 1.1, F12 BIOS
    Memory
    8GB G.Skill PI DDR2-800, 4-4-4-12 timings
    Graphics Card(s)
    EVGA 1280MB Nvidia GeForce GTX570
    Sound Card
    Realtek ALC899A 8 channel onboard audio
    Monitor(s) Displays
    23" Acer x233H
    Screen Resolution
    1920x1080
    Hard Drives
    Intel X25-M 80GB Gen 2 SSD
    Western Digital 1TB Caviar Black, 32MB cache. WD1001FALS
    PSU
    Corsair 620HX modular
    Case
    Antec P182
    Cooling
    stock
    Keyboard
    ABS M1 Mechanical
    Mouse
    Logitech G9 Laser Mouse
    Internet Speed
    15/2 cable modem
    Other Info
    Windows and Linux enthusiast. Logitech G35 Headset.
Back
Top