someone with an e8400 care to run the x264 benchmark?

[graysky]

@OfficeLinebacker - you can under WINE, but the results won't be a true comparison since it's emulating win32.

 

[graysky]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: graysky@taltamir - thanks for the results. multiplier and FSB? Mem divider?

I did say non OC... so stock... 9x333 = 3ghz

Sorry, missed that. What about your mem timings and mem core speed?

 

[graysky]

@AdamK47 - Thanks for the data. I'm assuming 9x450? What are your mem timings?

 

[Rubycon]

Sorry - yes NT6.0 = Vista Enterprise x64.

 

[AdamK47]

Originally posted by: graysky
@AdamK47 - Thanks for the data. I'm assuming 9x450? What are your mem timings?

Yes, 9 x 450MHz. The timings are 5-4-4-12 with the memory being at 525MHz (1050 DDR).

 

[M1A]

Mine was Vista 32

 

[OfficeLinebacker]

Originally posted by: graysky
@OfficeLinebacker - you can under WINE, but the results won't be a true comparison since it's emulating win32.

AH OK. If/when I get a Windows OS set up on it (a virtual server is fair game, right?) I'll see if I can dig up this thread.

Don't know if I am going to go Virtual Ubuntu Running over Windows, or vice versa. Strongly leaning toward the latter!

Thx.

 

[graysky]

Thanks guys, got em.

 

[Denithor]

Heh...someone cheated.

There is a Brisbane X2 shown finishing this benchmark in 1:05, considerably faster than some of the Q6600 results and higher than all of the e8400 results.

Somehow I don't think so.

 

[Arcanedeath]

This is an E8400 at 9x450 x38 chipset 1:1 memory 5-5-5-15 cmd rate 2 w/ some other misc junk running in the backround.
edit XP PRO SP2

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 100.93 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 104.52 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 104.22 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 100.93 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS1.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 103.84 fps, 1850.89 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 27.92 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 28.00 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 27.74 fps, 1826.33 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 27.72 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

---------- RUN5PASS2.LOG
encoded 1749 frames, 26.95 fps, 1826.37 kb/s

 

[Arcanedeath]

double post

 

[graysky]

@Denithor - good eye, but no one cheated. There was a slight error in the average calculation of that chip (one of the 1st pass data got into the average for the 2nd pass). I just corrected it - thanks for catching it!

@Arcanedeath - thanks for the data, dude. Updated!