Intel's Core 2 Extreme & Core 2 Duo: The Empire Strikes Back
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 14, 2006 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Encoding Performance using DivX 6.1, WME9, Quicktime (H.264) & iTunes
Multimedia encoding is typically a very good CPU benchmark, with performance that scales very nearly linearly with faster CPU clock speeds. Video testing was conducted using three popular codecs and applications: Xmpeg 5.03 with DivX 6.1, Windows Media Encoder with WMV9, and QuickTime 7.1 with H.264. The complexity of the encoding process increases as we move from DivX to WMV9, and H.264 encoding is in a league of its own in terms of the amount of CPU time required.
In something of a change, both the Core 2 Extreme and that E6300 manage roughly a 25% margin of victory over their AMD counterparts in the DivX test. The E6300 very nearly matches the X2 5000+ here. The X6800 maintains the 25% lead in WMV9, while the E6300 lead over the X2 3800+ drops to 8.5%, roughly equaling the 4200+. Finally, in H.264 encoding, the Core 2 Extreme claims one of its largest victories coming in 36% faster than the Athlon FX-62; the E6300 also manages a large 21% performance lead over the X2 3800+ and falls between the 4600+ and 5000+ in performance.
Moving over to audio encoding performance, we used Apple's iTunes 6 application to encode a single 307 MB Wav file into a 192kbps MP3. Audio encoding is still very CPU intensive, but of course the faster encoding times make the differences less noticeable in practical use. At the top and bottom price points, Intel leads again: 5% at the low-end, and 15% at the extreme performance segment. Unless you frequently encode really large amounts of audio files, however, it's unlikely you're going to notice Intel's 2-4 second lead.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
202 Comments
View All Comments
bob661 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
I agree. 20% is huge and noticeable.Chadder007 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
AMD's midrange holds up pretty well but when you go higher the Core2 crushes AMD this time.I would really like to see some X64bit benchmarks though to see how they will both fair with the future OSs.
Gary Key - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Coming shortly along with MCE2005......bob661 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Don't confuse the Core Solo with the Core 2 Duo. The Solo is still Netburst whereas the Core 2 Duo is a new architecture.DrMrLordX - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Um what? Core Solo isn't Netburst. It's a single-core version of Yonah as I recall. Basically, it's similar to a Dothan.bob661 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Which is still Netburst.mlittl3 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Uh, no. Banias, Dothan, Yonah are not at all based on netburst. They are all P6 derivatives that use the netburst quad-pumped FSB. The Core Solo is a Yonah single core that has more in common with the PIII than the P4. The Core 2 Solo coming next year will be based on Conroe which of course is not Netburst. The ONLY, I repeat, ONLY netburst CPUs (not including Xeons) are the Pentium 4, Pentium D, Celeron D. There were mobile Pentium 4's on the netburst architecture but these haven't been used in years.The Pentium M (Banias and Dothan) is NOT based on netburst but a redesigned architecture based on the research in Israel.
mlittl3 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
And in case you try to stupidly refute me, list the number of pipelines that are in Banias, Dothan and Yonah. If the answer is less than 20, then it is NOT netburst.Oh wait, here is the answer right here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_P6">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_P6
A direct quote:
"It[Banias] has very limited system bandwidth, as compared to NetBurst and AMD64..."
Since Banias is not netburst and Dothan is based off of Banias and Yonah is based on Dothan, then...wait for it...all three are not netburst. Have a nice day! :)
bob661 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
I don't refute facts. :)mlittl3 - Friday, July 14, 2006 - link
Man after my own heart. :)