How much faster would C2D 6600 be vs. 6300 for Xvid encoding?

[Bodine]

I'm getting ready to build a C2D fileserver that also frequently be encoding to Xvid. Right now, my 2.8Ghz Prescott it's taking me about 5 hours to encode a 2GB file.

Anyone care to ballpark what a 6300 might reduce that to, and would the extra cache of a 6600 buy me much over a 6300 when it comes to encoding? I know "content creation" is cited as an area where the cache can help, but I'm not sure if that's for Photoshop/Premiere or if encoding can take advantage too.

TIA.

 

[Nohr]

According to Tom's Hardware for encoding 5 minutes worth of a DVD in Xvid:

E6600 = 3:57
E6400 = 4:28
P4 520 Prescott 2.8GHz = 6:28

 

[Bodine]

That's a very helpful link - thanks. I just wish they had run it with a 6300, too.

 

[harpoon84]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=4
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=12

You'd be surprised how much useful info Anandtech's own reviews contain.

Video encoding is one area where the extra cache proves more helpful, providing ~10% gains from 2MB to 4MB.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
Video encoding is one area where the extra cache proves more helpful, providing ~10% gains from 2MB to 4MB.

Yeah, then add in the extra >500 Mhz, and I'd definitely spend the extra on an E6600, personally.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

If your not going to overclock the E6600 would be well worth the extra 130 bucks.

If overclocking the gap narrows significantly because the E6300 makes up for the 500mhz stock difference and clocks to roughly the same spot that E6600 does on a good board capable of high FSB.