[soundfx4]

I want to use one either my Dual core or dual xeon rigs for video compositing, but I don't know which would be faster. Here are the two screenshots from CPU-Z




Which do you all think would be faster for video editing/compositing? I did a sisoft benchmark test on them both for math, and multimedia. The xeon scored higher both times, but the memory bandwidth of the Xeon is not quite as high. Also, I don't really know how dependable the sisoft results are compared to real world results, so I thought I would check to see what you guys think.

[Shelnutt2]

I put my money on the dual Xeon. Even more so if you have HT enabled and your software will use 4 threads. My sig rig will encode and burn 1 hours worth of video onto a DVD in about 1 hour. It takes my parents 530J over 2 hours to do the same project. Everything burns at 8x and when I tested this both systems had only 1 gig of ram. I know that scenario isn't exactly your but its what I'm basing my opinion off of.

[dustybyrd]

with only one video encoding running at a time, the 820 will definitely be faster with the better FSB and slightly more cache...even though on many things, clock for clock the older 512k prestonia xeons were faster than the noconas, which are the like 820...

BUT, if you were to run more than one instance and keep hyperthreading turned on, then the xeons would be better


i've had the prestonias, noconas, irwindales and a P-D 930 and a Opt 165...and the only thing i do to push my system is video encoding----and the fastest BY FAR at video encoding is the P-D 930...

at 4.2ghz, it is about 12% faster than the opteron at 2.93ghz...

and from my calculations, a 4.5ghz P-D is about as fast as a 2.8ghz Conroe (with the 4mb cache)...ONLY at VIDEO ENCODING though...which is what i do over and over

[Mr. $T$]

I vote for the 820, because for one it has more cache, two a higher bus speed, and three SSE3 (Not much of a difference though). I'm also betting the Smithfeild is on a faster more modern chipset, with perhaps DDR2.

[soundfx4]

Originally Posted by Mr. $T$

I vote for the 820, because for one it has more cache, two a higher bus speed, and three SSE3 (Not much of a difference though). I'm also betting the Smithfeild is on a faster more modern chipset, with perhaps DDR2.

that is true, the 820 is using DDR2 while the xeons use DDR. The sisoft bandwidth was 4800 MB/s for the DDR2 and 3400 MB/s for the DDR. Or something like that, I forgot the exact results. I'm not sure what the chipset is though on the 820, as it's a dell system that I just bought a week or so ago from the classifieds here.

[soundfx4]

Originally Posted by dustybyrd

with only one video encoding running at a time, the 820 will definitely be faster with the better FSB and slightly more cache...even though on many things, clock for clock the older 512k prestonia xeons were faster than the noconas, which are the like 820...

BUT, if you were to run more than one instance and keep hyperthreading turned on, then the xeons would be better

well HT is on, so I guess in that case the xeons may be faster. It seams to be a close call either way, so I guess it couldn't hurt to use the Xeons.

i've had the prestonias, noconas, irwindales and a P-D 930 and a Opt 165...and the only thing i do to push my system is video encoding----and the fastest BY FAR at video encoding is the P-D 930...

at 4.2ghz, it is about 12% faster than the opteron at 2.93ghz...

are the noconas, and irwindales xeon cores?

and from my calculations, a 4.5ghz P-D is about as fast as a 2.8ghz Conroe (with the 4mb cache)...ONLY at VIDEO ENCODING though...which is what i do over and over

WHAT?! is that really possible? Even if it's only at video encoding, it still seams unlikely. Is that true?

[dustybyrd]

Originally Posted by soundfx4

well HT is on, so I guess in that case the xeons may be faster. It seams to be a close call either way, so I guess it couldn't hurt to use the Xeons.



are the noconas, and irwindales xeon cores?



WHAT?! is that really possible? Even if it's only at video encoding, it still seams unlikely. Is that true?

yes, noconas and irwindales are 1mb and 2mb l2 cache xeons respectively...and hyperthreading will only help if you are running more than one encode at a time...if not, then it will probably decrease performance slightly if it's on

i haven't actually tested the conroe yet, BUT, i have seen a review with video encoding comparing it and the P-D...and then i extrapolated to determine the performance of a "likely" 2.4ghz conroe overclock (3ghz) and a good p-d on water (4.5ghz)...the difference is 7% in the favor of the 4mb conroe at 3ghz...

[-maddog-]

Close, but probably the xeon; higher clock and more pins to push the data through.

[dustybyrd]

Originally Posted by -maddog-

Close, but probably the xeon; higher clock and more pins to push the data through.

EDITED (originally i was comparing the gallatin prestonia performance)


it's not about the pins...

in my experience in video encoding (and i have used the prestonia, nocona and irwindale xeons), a 3.8ghz irwindale is about as fast as a 4ghz prestonia (3.75ghz with the 2mb of extra l3 cache) with ...which is about the same as a 4ghz nocona xeon...

the pentium D 820 has 1mb of cache and is roughly equivalent to a nocona at the same speed...but in this case his FSB is WAY less on the prestonia...and in my experience 1mhz fsb ~ 5-7mhz clock speed, so with 45mhz more fsb, that should equate to roughly ~250mhz-300mhz of clock speed....

thus the 2.8 pd 820 is about as fast as a 3.1ghz pd 820 at the less fsb of the prestonia xeons...

so final comparision =

3.1ghz for the 820 versus 2.8ghz for the xeons...but of course, no hyperthreading for multiple encodes, which would provide 15-25% improvement in multiple encodes at the same time

[soundfx4]

Well, my main concern isn't really the encoding, but which one would be faster for actually rendering, and compositing the video. I would assume though, that which ever one is faster at encoding, would be faster at actually rendering and compositing the video as well.

[Squashky]

in all the all of the reviews i have read i allways heard dual core over dual processors... something about the way the video is processed.


my vote is for the Dual core.
or why not use both...?


Sry to hyjack but
for video encoding what encoders are you using? codec?

I use matrox encoder w/ primere pro and i get about 2 hours video for 5.50 hours encoded with one filter.
with out i get 2 hours 2 hour encoded.no filters
i use vrb 1 pass set with average 4000 and max 6800<--- is that high

Shelnutt2-- what are you using or setting?


sry only answer this if you also answer the original poster first.

[dustybyrd]

Originally Posted by soundfx4

Well, my main concern isn't really the encoding, but which one would be faster for actually rendering, and compositing the video. I would assume though, that which ever one is faster at encoding, would be faster at actually rendering and compositing the video as well.

that i don't know....but i wouldn't assume it would be the same with rendering...without testing or seeing a test

[Mr.Guvernment]

if the program supports SEE3 then the 820's i would think ?

[Tserrof]

I wonder what programs out there actually support SSE3 at all. :/

[LandShark]

Originally Posted by dustybyrd

and from my calculations, a 4.5ghz P-D is about as fast as a 2.8ghz Conroe (with the 4mb cache)...ONLY at VIDEO ENCODING though...which is what i do over and over

it sounds about right! my own caculation is about the same result as yours!

well, what kinda software/codec you use, soundfx4? 'cos some software/codec will do better on certain platform than the other. if you could, of course do a small video clip to test which one is faster.

however, my $$ is on the PentiumD.

[soundfx4]

Originally Posted by LandShark

it sounds about right! my own caculation is about the same result as yours!

well, what kinda software/codec you use, soundfx4? 'cos some software/codec will do better on certain platform than the other. if you could, of course do a small video clip to test which one is faster.

however, my $$ is on the PentiumD.

well, I really dunno what software I would use for encoding yet. I know I want something that can do distributed computing so I can use all my folding machines for final rendering

BUT as far as the software for compositing, and rendering the video I guess I'll use adobe after effects and/or adobe premier, as I already own copies of them.

hmmm...is there any video compositing software that supports distributed computing for rendering video? That would be even better because I wouldn't have to worry about which machine to render it on, I would only have to worry about which machine to use when I'm actually working on the video.

[LandShark]

Originally Posted by soundfx4

well, I really dunno what software I would use for encoding yet. I know I want something that can do distributed computing so I can use all my folding machines for final rendering

BUT as far as the software for compositing, and rendering the video I guess I'll use adobe after effects and/or adobe premier, as I already own copies of them.

hmmm...is there any video compositing software that supports distributed computing for rendering video? That would be even better because I wouldn't have to worry about which machine to render it on, I would only have to worry about which machine to use when I'm actually working on the video.

check out this suggestion apps --> http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php...7&postcount=12

it support cluster rendering/encoding!!

[soundfx4]

Originally Posted by LandShark

check out this suggestion apps --> http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php...7&postcount=12

it support cluster rendering/encoding!!

sweet! Thanks!

hmmm...it's linux only? Most my boxes are running windows, I wander if I could use knoppix?