**** System #1,#2 and #4 are now sold so no more test will be done****
Replacing it with an E6300 system I am hoping to get to 3.4ghz range like the one I built for a buddy and the one MarkFW900 built. Components are ordered and are proven winners. They will go into my 265's case with ample case cooling, 550watt Antec 2 true power 2 PSU and 300GB SATA2 HDD.
The fact is these test as well as my Folding results for the last month or so of my E6600 and my buddies E6300 show me get these things over 3ghz and they will outproduce the quad boxes, In actually things I do like below the results are very clear. NOT MUCH TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE 4 CORES...Therefore I get better use out of these systems.
The quad 270 box is going next with the 6800GT agp card for either another E6300 or perhaps a jump at a woodcrest system, if they will be compatabile with adding a 4 core chip later like on my Giga 965p chipsets...
Systems:
#1: (2) opteron 270 (2ghz) w/ 2gb Ram DC (per cpu) cas 2-3-3-6
#2: (2) opteron 265 (2.5ghz (9x277)) w/ 1gb Ram SC (per cpu) cas 2.5-3-3-8 133divder
#3: (1) E6600 (3.26ghz (7x466)) w/ 2gb Ram DC cas 5-5-5-15 (933ddr2)
#4: (1) E6300 (3.40ghz (7x486)) w/ 1gb Ram DC cas 4-4-4-12 (972ddr2)
#5: (1) QX6700 (3.2ghz (8x400)) w/ 512gb Ram SC cas 5-5-5-15 (1000ddr2)
#6: (1) QX6700 (3.3ghz (8x412)) w/ 1gb Ram DC cas 5-5-5-15 (1030ddr2)
#7: (1) QX6700 (2.66ghx (10x266)) w/ 1gb Ram DC cas 5-5-5-15 (800ddr2)
#8: (1) Q6600 (2.4ghz (9x266)) w/ 1gb Ram DC cas 5-5-5-15 (800ddr2)
Cinebench 9.5 (multi-cpu render)
#1--------------553 (dual)
#1--------------979 (quad)
#3--------------996 (dual)
#4--------------1074 (dual)
#2--------------1176 (quad)
#8--------------1281 (quad) **NEW**
#7--------------1422 (quad) *NEW*
#5--------------1704 (quad)
#6--------------1756 (quad)
*NEW* = #6 is 23% higher clock speed and the score scales 23% higher. Cinebench scores linear improvement..Likely not realistic...
**NEW** = #8 again scales linear to both #7 and #6 systems...basically the faster you can go and the score will climb....
Dvdshrink
I used Gone in 60 Seconds DVD. I ripped to HDD with DVD-decryptor to isolate cpus. I did a full back up less foreign languages...It is a 65% compression to keep it to DVD 4.7gb standard. I use sharp adaptive.
w/ deep analysis
#1------------------------21:01 (quad)
#2------------------------N/A
#3------------------------15:06 (dual)
w/o deep analysis:
#1------------------------24:54 (dual)
#1------------------------15:40 (quad)
#2------------------------N/A
#3------------------------11:02 (dual)
#4------------------------10:59 (dual)
#8-------------------------9:14 (quad) **NEW**
#7-------------------------8:28 (quad) *NEW*
#5-------------------------7:58 (quad) **max cpu usage was 85-88%**
#6-------------------------7:12 (quad)
#6-------------------------6:59 (quad) Rev w/ multiple HDDs
*NEW* = #6 is 23% faster in clock but score was only 17.5% faster. Max cpu usage was similar as seen in system #5 though it may have held a higher average sustainable usage. I can only submit this may be the sign of the program being IO limited. Perhaps I will test this again once I have my Raid setup back up.
**NEW** = #6 is 38% faster in clock speed over #8 but only represents a 28% gain in performance...#7 is 11% faster then #8 but only represents 9% gain in performance. NOt quite as bad but it is likely we start seeing quads below 2.4ghz actually being slow enough the HDD can keep up...
TMPGenc 2.52
First off I decided to convert a Hidef AVI file to MPEG2 DVD standard....Clip is a Trailer from Xmen 3...
First test was to use Automatic Variable Bitrate (setting 80 hi6000/lo2000) 8 bit and normal motion precision.
#1-----------------------2:00 (dual)
#1-----------------------1:44 (quad)
#2-----------------------1:42 (dual)
#2-----------------------1:29 (quad)
#3-----------------------0:57 (dual)
#4-----------------------0:55 (dual)
#5-----------------------0:56 (quad)
* note: as mentioned in earlier review 2 cores stays pegged around 48-50%, but 4 cores only shows around 58-60% cpu usage average with an occasional spike to 75%. It didn't use 3 cores effectively let alone 4. So the real comparison comes against system #1 using just 2 cores. It is 2x as fast
Second test was to use 2 pass Variable Bitrate (setting 80 hi6000/lo2000) 8 bit and normal motion compensation.
#1-----------------------3:56 (dual)
#1-----------------------3:28 (quad)
#2-----------------------N/A
#3-----------------------1:54 (dual)
#4-----------------------N/A
#5-----------------------1:53 (quad) ** cpu usage was around 54% max**
* note: Again same as above and same as noted previously...the real comparison is the system #1 with 2 cores. Again 2x as fast.
Third test was to use Automatic Variable Bitrate (setting 80 hi6000/lo2000) 10 bit component precision and High Quality motion precision. Merely higher quality finished product.
#1-----------------------3:00 (dual)
#1-----------------------1:53 (quad)
#2-----------------------N/A
#2-----------------------1:27 (quad)
#3-----------------------1:25 (dual)
#4-----------------------1:19 (dual)
#8-----------------------1:11 (quad) **NEW**
#7-----------------------1:05 (quad) *NEW*
#5-----------------------0:58 (quad)
#6-----------------------0:54 (quad)
#6-----------------------0:52 (quad) Rev w/ multiple HDDs
*NEW* = #6 is 23% faster in clock speed and is 20% faster in the test versus test system #7. It scales close to linear. In both case cpu usage was very consistent. May be hints of the program becoming more IO limited as the cpu speed increases.
**NEW** = #8 scales to #7 near linear..similar to above results
* note: as mentioned in previous thread with the addition of higherprecision and higher motion compensation the 4th core was used more with usages spike in the 80-88% range.
Here we see once again 2 cores of #3 is about 2x as fast as 2 cores of #1. Almost a wash with quad 2.5ghz versus dual 3.26ghz of the C2D.
I think what we see here is same as in my previous thread...
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1830732&enterthread=y&arctab=y
and in Anandtech's recent QX6700 review. Many programs like these are well suited for dual core but do not effectively use 4 cores at this time. More test showing HD content will show more usage of the 3rd and 4th core and the 2 cores of the E6600 will start to fall behind the quad 265 box. However it is amazing a 300 dollar chip is laying waste to 600-800 dallars worth of opterons.
may have to sell some of these opteron boxes and get more C2D's....
Replacing it with an E6300 system I am hoping to get to 3.4ghz range like the one I built for a buddy and the one MarkFW900 built. Components are ordered and are proven winners. They will go into my 265's case with ample case cooling, 550watt Antec 2 true power 2 PSU and 300GB SATA2 HDD.
The fact is these test as well as my Folding results for the last month or so of my E6600 and my buddies E6300 show me get these things over 3ghz and they will outproduce the quad boxes, In actually things I do like below the results are very clear. NOT MUCH TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE 4 CORES...Therefore I get better use out of these systems.
The quad 270 box is going next with the 6800GT agp card for either another E6300 or perhaps a jump at a woodcrest system, if they will be compatabile with adding a 4 core chip later like on my Giga 965p chipsets...
Systems:
#1: (2) opteron 270 (2ghz) w/ 2gb Ram DC (per cpu) cas 2-3-3-6
#2: (2) opteron 265 (2.5ghz (9x277)) w/ 1gb Ram SC (per cpu) cas 2.5-3-3-8 133divder
#3: (1) E6600 (3.26ghz (7x466)) w/ 2gb Ram DC cas 5-5-5-15 (933ddr2)
#4: (1) E6300 (3.40ghz (7x486)) w/ 1gb Ram DC cas 4-4-4-12 (972ddr2)
#5: (1) QX6700 (3.2ghz (8x400)) w/ 512gb Ram SC cas 5-5-5-15 (1000ddr2)
#6: (1) QX6700 (3.3ghz (8x412)) w/ 1gb Ram DC cas 5-5-5-15 (1030ddr2)
#7: (1) QX6700 (2.66ghx (10x266)) w/ 1gb Ram DC cas 5-5-5-15 (800ddr2)
#8: (1) Q6600 (2.4ghz (9x266)) w/ 1gb Ram DC cas 5-5-5-15 (800ddr2)
Cinebench 9.5 (multi-cpu render)
#1--------------553 (dual)
#1--------------979 (quad)
#3--------------996 (dual)
#4--------------1074 (dual)
#2--------------1176 (quad)
#8--------------1281 (quad) **NEW**
#7--------------1422 (quad) *NEW*
#5--------------1704 (quad)
#6--------------1756 (quad)
*NEW* = #6 is 23% higher clock speed and the score scales 23% higher. Cinebench scores linear improvement..Likely not realistic...
**NEW** = #8 again scales linear to both #7 and #6 systems...basically the faster you can go and the score will climb....
Dvdshrink
I used Gone in 60 Seconds DVD. I ripped to HDD with DVD-decryptor to isolate cpus. I did a full back up less foreign languages...It is a 65% compression to keep it to DVD 4.7gb standard. I use sharp adaptive.
w/ deep analysis
#1------------------------21:01 (quad)
#2------------------------N/A
#3------------------------15:06 (dual)
w/o deep analysis:
#1------------------------24:54 (dual)
#1------------------------15:40 (quad)
#2------------------------N/A
#3------------------------11:02 (dual)
#4------------------------10:59 (dual)
#8-------------------------9:14 (quad) **NEW**
#7-------------------------8:28 (quad) *NEW*
#5-------------------------7:58 (quad) **max cpu usage was 85-88%**
#6-------------------------7:12 (quad)
#6-------------------------6:59 (quad) Rev w/ multiple HDDs
*NEW* = #6 is 23% faster in clock but score was only 17.5% faster. Max cpu usage was similar as seen in system #5 though it may have held a higher average sustainable usage. I can only submit this may be the sign of the program being IO limited. Perhaps I will test this again once I have my Raid setup back up.
**NEW** = #6 is 38% faster in clock speed over #8 but only represents a 28% gain in performance...#7 is 11% faster then #8 but only represents 9% gain in performance. NOt quite as bad but it is likely we start seeing quads below 2.4ghz actually being slow enough the HDD can keep up...
TMPGenc 2.52
First off I decided to convert a Hidef AVI file to MPEG2 DVD standard....Clip is a Trailer from Xmen 3...
First test was to use Automatic Variable Bitrate (setting 80 hi6000/lo2000) 8 bit and normal motion precision.
#1-----------------------2:00 (dual)
#1-----------------------1:44 (quad)
#2-----------------------1:42 (dual)
#2-----------------------1:29 (quad)
#3-----------------------0:57 (dual)
#4-----------------------0:55 (dual)
#5-----------------------0:56 (quad)
* note: as mentioned in earlier review 2 cores stays pegged around 48-50%, but 4 cores only shows around 58-60% cpu usage average with an occasional spike to 75%. It didn't use 3 cores effectively let alone 4. So the real comparison comes against system #1 using just 2 cores. It is 2x as fast
Second test was to use 2 pass Variable Bitrate (setting 80 hi6000/lo2000) 8 bit and normal motion compensation.
#1-----------------------3:56 (dual)
#1-----------------------3:28 (quad)
#2-----------------------N/A
#3-----------------------1:54 (dual)
#4-----------------------N/A
#5-----------------------1:53 (quad) ** cpu usage was around 54% max**
* note: Again same as above and same as noted previously...the real comparison is the system #1 with 2 cores. Again 2x as fast.
Third test was to use Automatic Variable Bitrate (setting 80 hi6000/lo2000) 10 bit component precision and High Quality motion precision. Merely higher quality finished product.
#1-----------------------3:00 (dual)
#1-----------------------1:53 (quad)
#2-----------------------N/A
#2-----------------------1:27 (quad)
#3-----------------------1:25 (dual)
#4-----------------------1:19 (dual)
#8-----------------------1:11 (quad) **NEW**
#7-----------------------1:05 (quad) *NEW*
#5-----------------------0:58 (quad)
#6-----------------------0:54 (quad)
#6-----------------------0:52 (quad) Rev w/ multiple HDDs
*NEW* = #6 is 23% faster in clock speed and is 20% faster in the test versus test system #7. It scales close to linear. In both case cpu usage was very consistent. May be hints of the program becoming more IO limited as the cpu speed increases.
**NEW** = #8 scales to #7 near linear..similar to above results
* note: as mentioned in previous thread with the addition of higherprecision and higher motion compensation the 4th core was used more with usages spike in the 80-88% range.
Here we see once again 2 cores of #3 is about 2x as fast as 2 cores of #1. Almost a wash with quad 2.5ghz versus dual 3.26ghz of the C2D.
I think what we see here is same as in my previous thread...
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1830732&enterthread=y&arctab=y
and in Anandtech's recent QX6700 review. Many programs like these are well suited for dual core but do not effectively use 4 cores at this time. More test showing HD content will show more usage of the 3rd and 4th core and the 2 cores of the E6600 will start to fall behind the quad 265 box. However it is amazing a 300 dollar chip is laying waste to 600-800 dallars worth of opterons.
may have to sell some of these opteron boxes and get more C2D's....
Facebook
Twitter